We're No Angels (1955)

Meet the 3 Stooges.... Oops!... I mean, the 3 convicts of 1955's "We're No Angels" - That's Curly (Aldo Ray), Larry (Peter Ustinov), and Moe (Humphrey Bogart).Set in the year 1895 (seriously) - "We're No Angels" has these 3 stooges.... I mean, convicts (who are plotting their escape from Devil's Island) literally parading around town in their prison garb for everyone to see. Like - Duh!Containing dialogue that was loaded with the most callous cynicism imaginable - I thought that of the 3 actors playing the lead roles - It was, undoubtedly, Bogart who was the most painfully annoying one when it came to trying to be funny.Like - Believe me - His performance was absolutely cringe-worthy.Anyway - The only character in "We're No Angels" who won his stars for comic effect was, of course, Adolph, the snake.

It's Hollywood's version of The Three Wise Men in this droll, slightly morbid comedy. Of course, the three escapees from Devil's Island prison don't start out as do-gooders. But once they encounter the struggling Ducotel family, their heartstrings are tugged. The chuckles come from how the three use their criminal skills to help the family's failing business, which is also about to be foreclosed by a hard-hearted cousin Andre (Rathbone) and his grasping son Paul (Baer).Now when thinking laughs, Bogart, Ray, and Ustinov don't come to mind. Wisely, each underplays his comedic role letting the unlikely situation they're in dominate; that way, none risk a broader type comedy that might burlesque their established personas. So Bogart's Joseph uses his shady leadership skills to benefit the family. Thus Bogart is still Bogart despite the droll format. At the same time, Ustinov's Jules cracks open about every lock in town, while Ray angles toward the fetching family daughter Isabelle (Talbot). All in all, It's a clever format for the three.Anyway, Talbott's charming, getting to wear about every colorful outfit in Paramount's wardrobe department. Carroll, on the other hand, looks unwell and too old to believably husband the lovely, much younger Bennett. On the other hand, I especially like the scenes where a fast-talking Bogart uses salesmanship on a reluctant over-weight woman (Penman), and an ill-fitting jacket on a paunchy man. As I recall, the movie got a lot of ballyhoo at the time, probably because of Bogart and this slight change of pace.Anyway, the 106-minutes may be a little overstretched for the material. But the results amount to an entertaining X-mas parable that was unfortunately Bogie's last film. But all in all, it's a pretty good one to go out on. One other thing, if someone offers you a little metal box with holes in it, don't take it. I repeat, don't take it.

I saw this on Sky listings. Old, vague, but still strong memories of a 'good' film made me watch it this late evening.What a charming film. Clearly from a stage play , but the film direction was excellent, keeping the pace and the interest in 'What happens next' high.I would say Bogart was a scene stealer, but unfortunately everyone else was too! You have to admire the courage of Peter Ustinov then; he was a young unknown, but did his idiosyncratic twitchy thing confidently in front of the Great Bogart. But that was how great new talent came through. They wouldn't let a Ustinov near a Bogart today. Too risky. Best to stick to the bland.There lies the modern day problem.For Bogart (at the time this film was made) to say something like " We'll bash their skulls, gouge their eyes, then slit their throats, but first we'll do the dishes" said a lot about the man. He was willing to put his lucrative tough guy reputation on the line to deliver this script. How was he to know it was going to turn out well?'The Inbetweeners' is flavour of the moment at the cinema. Ask any of its fans to watch ' We're no Angels' and they might look strangely at you. But leave them on their own with the DVD and five minutes in I bet most of them would be hooked (they just would never admit it, not cool you see). Well, I think this is a really cool film. I will watch it again happily.

UNCONSCIOUS WOMAN ALERT: I feel I have an obligation to those who hate movie clichés to let you know that one of the actresses in this film, Gloria Talbot, faints again and again. In reality people RARELY do this unless there is some sort of serious medical disorder and I hate to see "dumb women" fainting on cue in films--a definitely negative stereotype.BAD IDEA ALERT: In this film, a family is aided by three nice escaped convicts. If you happen upon a group of escaped murderers and thieves, do NOT invite them into your home. This, despite the film, is a rather bad idea and is not advisable! The film WE'RE NO ANGELS is odd in that it plays an awful lot like a play and perhaps it was, though IMDb gives no indication of this. The way people walk in and walk off make this seem play-like as does its rather confined manner--it's almost entirely set within one house.The movie begins with three prisoners (Humphrey Bogart, Peter Ustinov and Aldo Ray) escaping from one of the prisons on in French Guiana. This complex of prisons is known as 'Devil's Island' and once prisoners complete their sentences, they are required to live in French Guiana for the rest of their lives. So, seeing three prisoners walking about free in the colony isn't so unusual--people recognize them as prisoners but mistakenly think they've completed their time.While their goal is to eventually get on a ship heading back to France (why France--why not anywhere but France--where they might be recognized?!?), they need to get some cash. So, they descend upon a poor shopkeeper (Leo G. Carroll) and his family. No, they don't want to kill or rob them necessarily (at least after they get to know them), but see if there is some way they can scrounge up some money. Bogart makes himself at home--and begins selling off merchandise that's just been sitting there for years. Because of this, the family let the men stay--after all, they are helping the shop to finally make money. In some ways, all this is rather reminiscent of the great Edward G. Robinson film LARCENY INC., though this story seems more like a reworking of the older film, not necessarily a remake.While staying with the family, these three very larcenous men seem to become almost like guardian angels for the family--doing little things to help them, such as giving them advice and "finding" a turkey for their dinner. Folks, this is really NOT a good idea. If you come upon some escaped convicts it's actually very unlikely they'll help you straighten out your lives. Murder, rape and/or robbery is actually a lot more likely than their acting like three Mary Poppins wannabes!! It turns out that the family's biggest problem is Carroll's cousin (Basil Rathbone). Rathbone owns the company which owns the store and he is continually threatens to fire him, as the shop makes very little money. When Rathbone arrives, it's up to the three nice murderers/thieves to save the day. And, in the film, this all somehow works out...thanks to a tiny little snake--go figure. Unfortunately, the final lines in the film are rather unexpected and quite dumb! A decent enough film but a terrible finale. Overall, this is an agreeable but not especially inspired film. While a clever idea, the acting is very broad and characters seem a bit too much like caricatures. Not bad...just not particularly subtle or as good as it could be.