Not surprisingly, they talk about the nuts and bolts mechanics of the story and the film’s style. They just don’t talk about the film as fans but from the point-of-view of filmmakers as well. Soderbergh dishes plenty of fascinating anecdotes about the film (taken from Charles Drazin’s book), including how Carol Reed had three units filming at once and slept two three-hour shifts every day. This commentary is like watching the film with these two guys in your living room – very casual and conversational but never dull.

Very, very good, but also very slightly disappointing - maybe because Sodebergh appears to often simply detail what is in the making of book. But there is golden material - he talks about how movies should have periods of no talking otherwise it's not a movie. Some movies you could just listen to on the radio and that shouldn't be the case. Some of the screenwriting comments are excellent - recalling events and when to do it like it's a mathematical formula.

He argues that The Third Man is a hybrid film with various identities and moralities. He also says that it looks back to the past and ahead to the future of cinema. Polan cites plenty of examples within the film to support his thesis while also exploring its themes. This track is a nice contrast to the first as it is more scholarly in nature.

Excellent commentary, maybe better than the Sodebergh one because Polan concentrates more on themes and analysis rather than production fact. He's very interested in Holly, the anti-hero, allusions to Hitchcock and Welles even. I was outstanding after all of Selznick's meddling that he wanted that ending!!