Diagonaldi Very well executed

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

StrictlyConfidential 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.

vissini95 I found and decided to watch that film as I looked for a Christmas movie to see during the holidays. I've seen almost every holiday classic so I went for this rather unconventional Christmas film. And got rewarded.A rather unusual trio of Humphrey Bogart, Aldo Ray and Peter Ustinov star as three escapees in 1895 Devil's island who find refuge in a store owned by a family in financial trouble on Christmas Eve. Their first thought is to rob them and flee, of course, but they seem to be rather good-natured and helpful to the family when they encounter their problems. Eventually, they help the family deceive their sinister cousin, brilliantly portrayed by Basil Rathbone, who along with his son try to exploit the situation and take over their enterprise. A pet rattlesnake owned by Ray's character and named "Adolphe" provides help when needed.Although the film depicts convicts, crimes and even deaths, it's a pure comedy. It's a little weird to watch Bogie play in one, but the truth is that Ray, Ustinov and Rathbone are much more funnier than him. Coincidentially, there was another film in 1955 depicting three escaped convicts finding refuge in a house where a family lives, The Desperate Hours, and it also starred Bogart. Of course, the later film is a tough noir with Bogie portraying a lunatic criminal, while here he and his fellow escapees seem rather sympathetic.Only one thing is a complete fail in this film, and it's the final minute. Having solved all the problems, our friends are ready to escape to via ship, but they decide to return to the jail as they "like it more there". It's clear as sky that this ending was influenced by the Hays Code, which was in force at the time and demanded punishment for every criminal action, including escape. However, telling us that they preferred the Devil's island to freedom in is, in my opinion, a serious offense to all these people, guilty or not, who lived their Hell on Earth in one of the most infamous prisons of all time.Ignoring this little blemish, the film is a funny comedy and a great choice for the holiday season. A great cast, witty dialogue and some hilarious scenes ensure it.

irishm I had high hopes for this one… I guess they were TOO high. First of all, I've often had trouble with the concept of obviously filmed plays… "Noises Off" and "The Man Who Came to Dinner" were two of the worst offenders in my opinion. Static, motionless, tons of expositional dialogue crammed in as fast as they possibly could. And that was my experience with "We're No Angels". (I should note that I was unaware it had originally been a play when I started it… but I figured it out in about five minutes. How did "Arsenic and Old Lace" manage to be so entertaining, since it basically had the same limitations? I don't know, but 'static' is not a word I would apply to that film.) The first fifteen or twenty minutes of this one are basically filled with Bogart, Ustinov and Ray up on the roof watching and listening as the Ducotel family rolls out their long list of woes. How long can you watch someone looking in a window? What worked on the stage doesn't necessarily translate well to the screen. There was no action that I needed to see in order to follow the film, so about the time the daughter fainted for the second time, I went to work on a project in the kitchen and finished the film by listening only. It was so incessantly talky that it was like listening to a radio dramatization… perfect background for a little DIY puttering; not enough to keep me sitting and staring at the screen for the entire running time. I certainly had no trouble following it from the next room.That said, I thought Peter Ustinov and Aldo Ray were both excellent; they both presented well-drawn characters and delivered their lines (including some real zingers) with appropriate gusto. Bogart was all right, but I've been much more impressed with him in other pictures. He didn't seem to be working as hard as the other two were.Dull, predictable, nothing special. Wanted to like it more; wish I had.

tiptop-1 I wasn't alive back in 1955, but upon seeing this film at my birth, I might have re-entered the womb. I was hopelessly disappointed by this silly, asinine plot, which Humphrey Bogart seems to saunter through as if imitating a tipsy Frank Sinatra.The characters' actions are not realistic: not even in my wildest imagination could I have believed that these 3 lummoxes were even on "Devil's Island." This movie can't even copy the antics of the Marx Brothers or the classic slapstick of "the Three Stooges," so why it tried, I'll never know. The trio of actors lopes and shuffles through each turn of events as if they were all on their day off. I saw no drama, suspense or comedy.This dud of a movie should be erased from cinematic history. --A lifeless, boring, pale, pastel bore of a film. I give only one star to be shared by all the actors who got paid less than the three main principals.