Three Men in a Boat (1956) User Reviews

The Spirit was Willing...

[Adams5905 · 5/10 · 4 September 2017]

Having read most of the other reviews, I do feel that most of the reviewers have missed the point. I seem to be the only person here who's actually read the book (and it's sequel, Three Men on the Bummel), and would suggest that, although the film doesn't follow the book to a 'T' (but then, what film adaptation ever does), it does capture the flavour of JKJ's work-in fact, the opening sequence, the lock sequence and the pineapple chunks sequence are taken almost word-for-word... The setting has been moved forward 30 years or so (the book was published in 1889), and some artistic licence has been taken, but it's all done in good fun-and might entice some people to actually read it... The costumes are fantastic, the girls are wonderful, and , all in all, I should suggest this is well worth a watch on a wet Sunday afternoon... BTW, was Jimmy Edwards born with that moustache?..

Where three is always a crowd.

[RJBurke1942 · 6/10 · 23 August 2008]

It was when I saw a 2006 documentary about three friends taking a boat trip on the Thames River to emulate Jerome K. Jerome's story of Three Men in a Boat, that I realized I'd never seen this movie. I recalled hearing about it from my youth but simply never had the opportunity – until recently when I got a DVD from my library.

Now, I've not read the actual book but, I understand from other reviews I've read elsewhere, the film narrative bears little relationship to the story that Jerome penned – one reviewer even going so far to say that the author would be turning in his grave. No doubt stories from other authors have fared the same or worse.

So, if you have read the story then you may be disappointed. However, as an example of well-produced British humour from the 1950s, it stands the test of time as a light-hearted, albeit cliché-ridden, romp with Jimmy Edwards as Harris, Laurence Harvey as George and the very dapper David Tomlinson as J – the surrogate Jerome. For the love interest encountered along the way, the three men meet up with Shirley Eaton as Sophie, Lisa Gastoni as Primose and Jill Ireland as Bluebell.

The story is filmed, essentially, as a series of set pieces, beginning with the Preparations to Take a Trip – during which the three are shown for the bumbling idiots they are with a hilarious, but predictable, catastrophic attempts to package up all their supplies, all ending in shambles at the bottom of stairs, with a similar situation as they load it onto the boat, almost capsizing.

However, off they row, and their first port of call is Hampden Court where they decide to experience the Largest Maze in Europe (or so we're told) and, naturally, they get confused and confuse everyone else in the maze with their efforts to lead them out which, naturally, leads to more slapstick humour.

Later that evening, there is Making Camp for the Night, which, being England, is wet, very wet – and an occasion for more misery for the trio, and much hilarity for the viewer as they go through all of the mistakes that many people make when erecting tents, building fires, and so forth. During the course of that day, however, they meet up with the three young women and begin the flirtations.

The next day could be captioned the Photo Op whereby, coming upon a large boating fraternity all waiting to get through a lock, and with a local photographer on hand, our intrepid three make further advances towards the women – but simply end up on their bums, legs in the air, and their boat in danger of being swamped. Only the quick action of Bluebell saves them by using a boat hook to prevent disaster, thereby enhancing the budding relationships. The three men, however, are caught on camera, much to their chagrin.

In succession, then, there is the Evening Dance, followed by the funniest attempts I've seen to Open a Can of Pineapple at their camp and which has almost the same level of madcap humour as that greatest of all – when Basil Fawlty (John Cleese of TV's Fawlty Towers) beats up his Austin car, with a tree branch, for refusing to start. If you've seen that, you know what I mean. Now I wonder if Cleese was influenced by the can of pineapple that wouldn't open?

The next morning, they Take a Dip in the river – but skinny-dipping. All goes well, sort of, until a group of women and children decide to have a picnic nearby. Ah, watch how they finally get back on board their boat while retaining modesty. Priceless...

After that, the three manage to Ruin a Racing Eights Race when they cross the river in their boat to reach the women on the other bank; numerous eights are left in shambles with entangled oars, the three blissfully unaware of their transgression. And, the film ends with the old standby: The Cricket Match (only in England, of course) where the three reduce that to chaos, totally, with the help of J's pet dog. I nearly fell off my chair.

Sure, it's a total farce, but that's what the Brits are good at – well, in those times, anyway. The acting is top-notch, as you would expect, although I think Laurence Harvey, to be kind, was more suited to dark dramas like Room at the Top (1959), A walk on the wild side (1962), A dandy in aspic (1968) and so on. Comedy seemed a bit of a strain for him. Not so Tomlinson and Edwards, of course.

The script is very funny also, alive with cracking good one-liners, double entendre and heavy irony. The Eastman colour is vibrant, to put it mildly, but it does enhance the scenery and the idyllic settings. The women act well, although they don't share the same amount of screen time as the men. Jill Ireland, of course, went on to appear in Robbery Under Arms (1957) and met her future husband, Charles Bronson, in the process. The film was directed by Ken Annakin, who went on to direct Nor the Moon by Night (1958), Third man on the mountain (1959), co-director on The Longest Day (1962), and followed that by directing The Battle of the Bulge (1965) and others.

Three Men is suitable for all ages, and good for family viewing. Recommended for those who like English humour of the fifties and sixties.

Could Have Been Better

[TondaCoolwal · 6/10 · 2 May 2018]

When I saw this film advertised on Talking Pictures, I just had to watch it. I think I saw it as a child many years ago; but in the meantime I had read the book and wanted to compare the interpretation. To be honest, I didn't find the book that funny despite the opinion of many critics down the years. I had an interest because I'm from Walsall, Jerome K Jerome's home town (didn't his parents have any imagination!). Anyhow, as mentioned elsewhere, the film has little in common with the book. Some of the scenarios used e.g. the picnic, are related as happening to acquaintances rather than the main characters themselves. Having said that, the tin of pineapples scene was pretty faithfully rendered. So far as casting goes, I think they got it about right. I had no problems with Laurence Harvey as George, and thought he was an effective counter to David Tomlinson's bumbling and Jimmy Edward's bull-in-a-china shop approach. Although the slapstick episodes did become tedious.The females were of course window dressing. Jill Ireland played her vacant self, and Shirley Eaton was a bit too modern for the era. Particularly in the bath scene! Strangely, Lisa Gastoni was the only one who convinced (what happened to her?) Martita Hunt, never a beauty, but always a beautiful performance, gave us her usual character; the matriarch. And I wonder if she was ever in anything other than period costume dramas? The Hampton Court Maze scene was the best, with a host of British character actors running around wildly trying to get out. In all it wasn't a bad movie. Like the book, it sought to convey a picture of an idyllic England, long-since vanished. Although in reality, such a vision only ever existed for the privileged few. A true representation of the book would be difficult to reproduce, and probably wouldn't be half as interesting. Coincidentally, when I worked at a college some years ago, three students retraced the journey down the Thames in a boat one summer vac. Like in the film, it apparently rained a lot!

A poor adaption of a great book

[geffers · 3/10 · 13 March 2006]

The trouble with this film is it is very much of its time. It's hardly a film of the book, more an excuse to steal a few sparse ideas and try to string them together into a light-hearted comedy.

There's really far too much slapstick, and 1950's style girl-chasing, no real sense of a journey as there is in the book.

I wonder if anyone will ever make a proper adaption of the book, making proper use of JKJ's wonderful anecdotes? It would be tricky to do - they are often about completely different people from the three in the boat, but they are what make the book so good, and they've simply been discarded in the film.

So, in summary, if you've never read the book, you're in for a nice surprise: comedy that is still funny after a hundred years and more, but don't let this film put you off.

"Jolly Boating Weather................"

[ianlouisiana · 7/10 · 2 August 2006]

Gentle Edwardian tale based on Mr Jerome K. Jerome's popular comic novel. A fifty year old product of a much gentler age that looks even older,"Three men in a boat"features the late messrs Tomlinson,Harvey and Edwards as three upper middle class chaps quietly exploring the posher reaches of the Thames.Some of the finest British character actors of the time happily perform to expectation,the colours are cosy and glowing and nobody believes for a minute that it has anything to do with real life - nor indeed should it have. Mr Jerome - clearly an Anglophile - wrote of England as he would wish it to be,picnic hampers,pet dogs,well-behaved children with Nannies and sailor suits,impeccably-mannered gentlemen and shy modest young ladies. It is his vision of Edwardian England that the movie reflects. It is comforting in it's predictability,satisfyingly droll in a not unpleasantly smug kind of way.These men and their contemporaries were soon enough to disappear from English life,falling in their thousands on the Somme and at Paschendale and Ypres.Let's not begrudge them their last long summer,bumbling harmlessly along the river,fingers trailing in the water,flirting mildly with the gels twirling their umbrellas on the bank.When they died out,something peculiarly English died out with them. The Gentleman with a capital "G".

Tedious and unfunny....not what you're looking for in a comedy!

[planktonrules · 20 July 2011]

The DVD for "Three Men in a Boat" has no captioning. So, if you are hard of hearing or have difficulty with the accents, then you are screwed.

The first thing I noticed about this film is the odd casting decision for the leads. While Jimmy Edwards and David Tomlinson seem like natural choices for a comedy, I cannot understand casting Laurence Harvey as the third lead. After all, he had all the comic flair of a mortician and he was simply too pretty to be believable as the friend of the two idiots, Tomlinson and Edwards. Perhaps this odd casting choice can be explained, just a bit, because Harvey still hadn't established much of a screen persona, as his best films were ahead of him.

The film is a very slight comedy involving three male friends who decide to spend their holiday punting down the Thames (for non-Brits, this is 'boating down river'). They are definitely roughing it--camping out and cooking in the great (and often wet) outdoors. Such a vacation seems completely miserable but the three have some adventures (and, now that I think about it, this is practically the same plot as "Deliverance").

What bothered me about this film (aside from the casting) was the obviousness of the comedy. This is not to be confused with a sparkling Ealing comedy, as pratfalls and occasionally silly sound effects are the norm for "Three Men in a Boat". Oddly, however, despite this, the film often was very, very mundane--a very strange combination to say the least. As a result, I found the film tedious and unfunny.

Noisome Nonsense

[icaredor · 2/10 · 10 February 2010]

I read the reviews of Three Men in a Boat before watching the film and couldn't believe that it is as bad as most reviewers claim. I mean to say, just look at the cast. Tomlinson, Edwards and Harvey are not a collection of comedic geniuses, perhaps, but surely they amass enough talent to produce an amusing adaptation of this admired novel. However, the negative reviewers are correct: this film is simply terrible. Although it only runs to 84 minutes it took me five sittings to get through it. I could barely tolerate watching twenty minutes at a time. I persevered because…well, look at the cast, surely they would deliver something funny eventually; perhaps the finale would be hilarious.

I grew up in Britain and still love old British comedies: Ealing, of course, Will Hay, Alastaire Sim, Peter Sellers, and so many others. I even like the lower-level comedy of the Carry On series, Benny Hill, or Frankie Howerd. This film, though, has less laughs than Polanski's Macbeth.

Some reviews have suggested that some people find the film unamusing because it is 'dated.' It was made in the fifties and set in the 1880s. However, these facts alone shouldn't be detrimental to a film's appeal. A good number of Britain's best and most appreciated comedies were made in the fifties, such as The Lavender Hill Mob, Hobson's Choice, and I'm All Right Jack. In fact, the decade is a Golden Age for British film comedy. The story's setting in an earlier period can hardly be detrimental either. Kind Hearts and Coronets stands easily as one of the best British comedies, yet it was set in the same historical period as Three Men in a Boat, was released six years earlier and was filmed in black and white. Similarly, Ken Annakin, this film's director, had his biggest successes with Monte Carlo or Bust! (1969) and Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965), both of which are set in times only slightly later than Three Men in a Boat and are equally far removed from contemporary audiences, but are still relatively amusing.

Some films age badly because of the focus of the material. George Formby and the Old Mother Riley comedies relied for their context on a particular interwar period and a British working class culture that had largely disappeared by the 1960s and has little meaning for people in contemporary Britain, let alone the rest of the world. Other examples are the sex comedies made in Britain in the 1970s or the blacksploitation movies made in the US in the same decade. These films are clearly dated but retain entertainment value because of their anachronistic fashions and dialogue.

Astonishingly, Three Men in a Boat was nominated for a BAFTA for, of all things, best screen play. This is baffling because the writers make little effort to drive the story with witty dialogue. Dialogue is, in fact, rather scant. The attempts at comedy come mostly from slapstick situations where our heroes wave tent poles and oars around for insufferable lengths of time, fall in the water repeatedly, and prattles on loudly and unintelligibly. The assumption is, apparently, that if these situations continue for long enough something funny simply has to happen. It doesn't. Slapstick can be badly done but it doesn't become dated. The silent movies of Chaplain and Keaton are still wonderful; the Three Stooges are still ridiculous and funny; much in Norman Wisdom's movies is dated, but when he falls through a window he is still hilarious. Not so Tomlinson, Edwards and Harvey.

On this one, I'm afraid, I concur with the "smug" negative reviewers. This is the least funny Brit Com I've ever seen, and I've seen "Carry on England."

Down the river, and not in 80 days.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 4 January 2021]

For three buddies desperate for a getaway, a boat trip down the Thames seems like the perfect holiday. The issue is that it's a row boat and their nightly stops involve roughing it. Still, they manage to have many amusing adventures that bring them back into society. Handsome Laurence Harvey, clumsy David Tomlinson and big mustached Jimmy Edwards are a complete mismatch of personalities which makes their situation all the more amusing. Each of them has a good reason for needing a holiday whether it's necessary time away from their spouse or a rest from a hideous employer.

A very funny sequence has Tomlinson and Edwards ending up as leaders in a maze made from shrubbery, going on for nearly 15 minutes and never running out of steam, and trying to build a tent on the banks during a windstorm. The law is also on their trail as word of their mishaps gets around, while issues with the young ladies they encounter creates all sorts of situations as well.

While this is very colorful and funny, the problem is that it goes from one situation to another like TV sketch shows so the structure seems very off as opposed to connecting events in a linear way. But it's directed by great flair by legendary British director Ken Annakin who directed many fast moving caper comedies and had a marvelous eye for making silly situations actually funny rather than obnoxious. The three men all seem to be having a lot of fun in acting like boys which makes this fun to watch in spite of the lack of a strong continuous story.

Very poor, up the river with no paddle

[dickofish · 1/10 · 24 September 2005]

The only two similarities to this classic novel were the title and the names of the main characters. Poor old Jerome must have turned in his grave as he looked down and watched this being created. The original book contained a multitude of comic situations which could have been harvested to create a memorable film but someone somewhere had a better idea ! All three leading actors where perfectly cast to play Jerome's characters, if only they had been allowed to do so then this could well have become a British comedy classic.

Poor acting, directing and script with lightweight story line. One for all concerned to erase from their memoirs ! A great cast who must have shuddered and shrunk down in their seats at the showing of each days rushes.

good locations

[dmcslack · 3/10 · 21 April 2007]

I recall seeing this movie when I was young and being a fan of the book (the 'tin of pineapple chunks' scene is still the funniest bit of writing I've ever read) but having just watched it again, I am sorely disappointed. The slapstick is completely at odds with JKJ's gentlemanly humour. However the location scenery on the Thames helps to make up for the poor direction and dialogue. I always liked Jimmy Edwards' style on TV, but it doesn't translate well after 50 years. Laurence Harvey made a big mistake with this, he is not a comedian but as usual David Tomlinson provides a solid performance. Jill Ireland, Shirley Eaton and Lisa Gastoni as the female interest are much much better than the boys

A Marvelous Comedy that is largely forgotten...

[plantern · 9/10 · 22 February 2005]

This film is one of many that stick out from my childhood, unlike many children I always found my laughs in old films from the 50's, and 60s rather than the many poor cartoons available to kids in the 80's. This was one that my parents had recorded, that I watched over and over laughing as hard at the next viewing as I had from the previous. Upon reading the book many years later I discovered it hardly follows the story closely, but that doesn't matter because its a great film nonetheless. The cast are delightful in their comic turns, which even use slapstick to rather amusing consequences (my favourite scene involving a tin of pineapple slices). The story following 3 gents in the 1920's as they attempt to have a relaxing holiday on the river Thames, despite the distractions of women and the English weather - it's delightful to see how society didn't allow women of standing to simply meet men without a formal introduction first. There's no real point to the film but its nice to see great traditional comedy without the swearing and sex that is poured into films these days... A timeless film that I shall always treasure.

Bad film of a good book

[tord-1 · 2/10 · 16 March 2007]

Seldom have I seen a film this bad, no matter that the book it is based on is one of my favorites. It begins OK, but then turns into a bad slapstick movie, dated in every way - even Ed Wood's films are better!

Nothing basically wrong with the acting, nothing very wrong with the photography (the colors have aged badly, though), the sets, or the wardrobe, but it is far more dated in every way than any other film I can think of. Very fiftyish, very safe, very boring!

Ken Annakin has made a few good films throgh the years, like "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines, or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes", but this is definitely not one of them!

As a whole the girls do a better job than the males - even when trying to laugh the the three men just sound very amateurish! Their battles with the tent and the boat is just silly, not funny, and as my wife commented: "Men can be stupid, but not that stupid"!

Overall, the dog wins as best actor, by a wide margin!

Not as good as I expected

[stephen-wagstaff2 · 5/10 · 24 December 2011]

I watched this film for the first time last night and was quite disappointed by it. As someone you has read the book on many occasions I found this film to be a very poor adaption of it. I suppose if you were not trying to compare it with the book it was a fairly decent comedy from the fifties. I did not think think that the casting of Laurence Harvey as George was right though Jimmy Edwards and David Tomlinson seemed to fit into the light hearted romp very well. I think to be fair to the film I was expecting it to be much closer to the book then in fact it was but still it was a good representation of British Cinema from that era.

3 Men in a Travesty and a dog of a film.

[johnrgreen · 2/10 · 2 August 2018]

So Jerome wrote this book packed full of comic incident about 3 bachelors on the river and what did the film-makers do here? they re-wrote and added,made them married or hen-pecked and hapless and so on until I couldn't watch any more.It's best to unearth the Beeb version with Palin.A vulgar mis-representation and only for those unfortunates who haven't read the book.For what it's worth I found the book's digressions tiresome but i suppose without them it would've been a very short story.

Better than I remember.........

[a-ferneyhough · 8/10 · 15 February 2006]

I remember watching this film on the TV in the 1960s on a wet Sunday afternoon. I really enjoyed it. I have never seen it since or been aware of it being shown on the TV again.

But............looking through your website, I was reminded of it when I looked at Shirley Eaton's films. I even managed to find it on DVD - it had just been released. We watched it with some friends on Saturday - it was great, even better than I remember. There is a laugh every minute and it is good clean fun. The only criticism was the quality of reproduction - it could do with re-mastering (or whatever the technical term is!).