This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Copyright 27 January 1939 by RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 26 January 1939. U.S. release: 17 February 1939. U.K. release: March 1939. Australian release: 4 May 1939. 12 reels. 117 minutes.NOTES: Locations in Lone Pine, California. Also Chatsworth and Lake Sherwood. Negative cost: $1,909,669.28. RKO's top box=office attraction of 1938-39, the movie was successfully re-issued in the mid-1940s.COMMENT: The original "Soldiers Three" does not quite deserve its reputation as a top film of the year. Obviously inspired by the success of "Lives of a Bengal Lancer" (some of the impressive crowd footage is even culled from that film), it does not hold a candle to Hathaway's film in any respect save one — the photography by Joseph August with its searing brightness and lack of contrast can be compared favorably alongside the more artistic work of Charles Lang on Bengal Lancer. Both are atmospheric, yet achieve their effects in different ways. Otherwise, "Gunga Din" comes off second best in all departments — acting with a bland Douglas Fairbanks Jr, a ridiculous, exaggerated, excitable Cockney from Cary Grant and Victor McLaglen as rambunctious to a degree that he has elevated into a mannerism, cannot compare with Franchot Tone, Cooper and Cromwell; just as Montagu Love cannot compare with Sir Guy Standing or Abner Biberman with Monte Blue. Admittedly, Eduardo Ciannelli is very effective as the Thug high priest, and Sam Jaffe is suitably funny-ethnic in the title role. Expansively produced, boasting good battle scenes, action and atmosphere, the movie tends to be over-talkative in its full version and I'm not surprised it was cut when re-issued. Joan Fontaine has a small clinging-vine part. Stevens' direction has lots of good camera set-ups, but lacks the dynamism that director Henry Hathaway brought to "Lives of a Bengal Lancer".

In the frontiers of colonial India, British troops are attacked and a British outpost at Tantrapur is lost. British troops led by sergeants MacChesney (Victor McLaglen), Cutter (Cary Grant), and Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) are sent to investigate. They encounter an abandoned town except some of the rebels stay to ambush the troops. Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) is the regimental water boy who wants to be a real soldier. Soon the men and their local troops are surrounded.It's an old fashion war movie akin to cowboys and indians movie. One guy can take out six with only fisticuffs. It's good ole blow-em-up action adventure. It's the kind of movie where Cary Grant can have a bit of fun in between some action scenes. It's rip roaring fun but a bit dated.

George Stevens directed this loose adaptation of the Rudyard Kipling poem that features Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as three sergeants in British controlled India who, when they aren't trying to prevent Fairbanks from marrying his fiancée Emmy(played by Joan Fontaine), are instead getting involved with a resurgent thuggee cult that intends mass murder of all non-believers, and of course the three sergeants lead the fight to stop them... Faithful water bearer Gunga Din(played by Sam Jaffe) also plays a key role. Good cast and direction, though there are some surprising lulls and clunky comedy on display, this is still a reasonably entertaining film that isn't the classic of its reputation, not to mention being outdated...would make quite a double-feature with "Gandhi"!

I know this is supposed to be a "Great Movie". And it's not awful. But the only reason I can see that people think it's "great" is because it's old and it has some "stars" in it. Most of the acting is abysmal caricature. The brits practically strut around saying "Pip pip pip, cheerio, spot of tea, say what?" throughout. Watching the three main characters, the Sergeants, all I could think of was that whoever wrote this must also be moonlighting writing Three Stooges scripts. It *is* an interesting movie in a historical context, both as an expression of movie making of that day and of the underlying story of the Thuggs. But being interesting isn't the same as being "good". Plan Nine from Outer Space is also interesting.... So if you haven't seen it, it's worth watching, but it's no great movie. I would never watch it a second time in a decade.