Hammer Film returned to India (at Elstree Studios) with this production, but this time the project lacked the punch "The Stranglers of Bombay" (1959) had. It is a moral tale about ethnic pride, patriotism, military honor and love, but surprisingly it lacks passion. While John Gilling handled the story with vivid action scenes, as he did in previous adventure films he made for Hammer, his rather literate script proved too ambitious to be fully developed in 78 minutes. The previous Hammer attempt to describe India under British rule was a darker story by American scriptwriter David Zelag Goodman, dealing with evil followers of goddess Khali, but in this occasion Gilling directly entered the political field and added an adultery subplot with passable results. On the acting side, while Ronald Lewis is at his usual adequate efficiency level as hero, Oliver Reed is bland and noisy in the role of a ruthless rebel chief, easily overshadowed by Yvonne Romain as his wicked sister. (As she had left for Hollywood to work with Samuel Fuller, beautiful "Stranglers" actress Marie Devereux is sorely missed here). Gilling would turn out his best works for Hammer a year later, when the remarkable "The Plague of the Zombies" and "The Reptile" were released.
Add a Review
-
EdgarST8 June 2015
-
dinky-412 June 2002Even those with a fondness for those "Northwest Frontier" movies set in the British Raj of the 1800's will probably be disappointed by this minor, unpersuasive, and somewhat uncharacteristic entry from Hammer Films. The costumes have that clean, new look -- as if they just came from a rental shop -- and the handful of sets are too tidy and well-lit to be anything other than studio creations. Even the rocks have a fiberglass look.
More troubling than the film's skimpy budget, however, is the casting of its main character. He's supposed to be half-English, half-Indian -- one of those chaps who's worked his way up in the ranks of the British Army but who feels he's still regarded with hostility and suspicion by his colleagues. Not only does Ronald Lewis lack the face for this part, (there's nothing at all Indian about him), but he's also short of the darkly-compelling charisma which might make this character "work." He comes across as a provincial English actor who's dressed up in left-over garb from a production of "Kismet." In his defense, however, it must be said that the script gives him little to work with since his character is poorly developed and too often seems simply like the victim of events going on around him.
Oliver Reed might have been a better choice for the lead but here he plays the villain -- a rebellious chieftain who's said to be "half-mad." Unfortunately, this gives him license to indulge in some theatrical behavior which is more embarrassing than enlivening.
At one point a captured British soldier is whipped by the rebels but even this sure-fire scene is too poorly staged to arouse much interest. (Why didn't the rebels tear the soldier's shirt all the way off? Didn't they take Flogging 101?) -
spookyrat13 February 2019An interesting little Hammer offering story wise. You'd think the red coats of the British Army would be the heroes of this Raj story set in 1850. But as it turns out in a welcome twist, they're more the villains, doing the colonial nasty on the local tribespeople, made up generally of black-faced English actors.
Had to laugh at the indignant shock of a couple of reviewers here expressing amazement that more Indians didn't feature in the cast. This is a Hammer production made in around 1964/65 and as such was made on the smell of an oily rag in England. For goodness sake, check out those vintage painted back drops of the castle in the mountains. There is absolutely no Indian location footage and in fact, footage was "borrowed" from a couple of other films to round out the battle scenes. Before we get all lathered up about the casting in a 55 year old "B" grade supporting feature, let's also remember that a bare 3 years before, it was perfectly acceptable for Alec Guinness to play an Arab in Lawrence of Arabia. In fact a couple of years after this, Lawrence Olivier played the Mahdi in Khartoum with little criticism.
As mentioned the only really stand-out feature of this film was the anti-colonial perspective of the British Raj. The villains of the piece were the senior British Officers who fitted up a fellow officer Case for a court-martial, because besides supposedly having "a touch of the tar brush", he had also had an affair with another officer's wife. He ends up running with the local rebel alliance, though their leader, Eli Khan (an hilariously black-faced Oliver Reed), is also depicted as being somewhat cruel and untrustworthy.
It all ends up in a gloriously romantic tragedy of near -Shakespearean proportions, as bodies litter a paper-mache cave hideout and accusing fingers are afterwards pointing in the British establishment direction. Cue the casting credits for this little oddity. I'm sure the production only ever had pretensions to being a support feature, but I give it a 5 for trying something a little different with the story line. -
barnabyrudge4 January 2010Although mainly remembered for its horror output, the Hammer film company occasionally dipped its toes into other genres such as science fiction and historical swashbucklers. The Brigand Of Kandahar is one of these historical pieces and a rather shoddy one at that. Hammer regular John Gilling is the writer and director responsible for this feeble colonial adventure pic – it's hard to believe that he had already made Shadow Of The Cat and The Pirates Of Blood River (two much stronger entries in the Hammer canon), and was a year away from releasing The Reptile and The Plague Of The Zombies (two of the most fondly remembered Hammer films of the 60s). Gilling hits a real low-point with The Brigand Of Kandahar; it is one of the studio's weakest productions. Hardly surprising, then, that it has faded into obscurity and is now all-but forgotten.
At Fort Kandahar, half-caste officer Robert Case (Ronald Lewis) returns from a reconnaissance mission with news that his companion Captain Connelly (Jeremy Burnham) has been captured and probably killed by tribal bandits. The commander of the fort, Colonel Drewe (Duncan Lamont), is angered that Case didn't go back to help his stricken companion and his fury is fuelled further when he learns that Case has been having an affair with Connelly's wife, Elsa (Katherine Woodville). Suspicions mount amongst the officers that Case may have deliberately allowed the capture of Connelly in order to "clear the way" for his illicit romance with Elsa. Case is arrested and found guilty on a trumped-up charge of cowardice. He escapes from his cell and flees into the hills, where he joins up with the local bandits, led by the mad and violent Eli Khan (Oliver Reed). From here, he plans to have revenge against the British officers that have poisoned his name and reputation
The Brigand Of Kandahar could have been much better than it is. The character of Case fights back against evil-doers by doing more evil – this makes him a rare and unusual figure in these types of film, an anti-hero some might say, or perhaps the "good guy" simply by virtue of being less villainous than everyone around him. It should make for interesting viewing, but the part is boringly written and played with little enthusiasm by the miscast Lewis. Oliver Reed shows plenty of enthusiasm as the bandit leader, but his pantomime villainy and deranged cackling rapidly wears thin. The only actor to emerge from this debacle with dignity intact is Duncan Lamont as the ruthless Colonel Drewe – how ironic that Lamont gives perhaps his best performance in a Hammer movie in the worst one he ever appeared in! The story itself is strictly routine, with nothing whatsoever to get excited about, while the budgetary restrictions mean that the whole film has a horribly studio-bound appearance which only adds to the overall dispiritedness. One for completists, perhaps, but The Brigand Of Kandahar offers nothing for anyone else. -
stevenjohnsonsj29 December 2018Had too stop watching this movie as it's set in India, but contains no Indian actors or actresses. What a disgrace!
-
A Hammer Film, released in the U.K. by Warner-Pathé (9 August 1965), in the U.S.A. by Columbia (May 1966). Registered: May 1965. "U" certificate. Copyright 1 July 1965 by Hammer Film Productions. Australian release through Warner Bros: 13 October 1967. 7,319 feet. 81 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: Lieutenant Case, a half-caste officer in the Bengal Lancers, runs up against racial prejudice when he returns from a mission in which his colleague, Captain Connelly, was captured by rebel Gilzhai tribesmen; accused of having abandoned Connelly because he coveted the latter's wife Elsa, he is sentenced by Colonel Drewe to ignominious discharge. Furious at the injustice, especially as Elsa refuses to believe his innocence, Case throws in his lot with the Gilzhai leader, Eli Khan, and trains his warriors for an attack on the British. However, he is horrified by Eli Khan's barbarous treatment of his prisoners.
NOTES: Produced at Associated British Studios, Elstree, England.
COMMENT: A significant proportion of this film is made up of footage from Terence Young's "Zarak" — which is marvelous stuff. On the other hand, "The Brigand of Kandahar" itself is awful. The sets look hideously cheap, the direction is barely competent and the script dull.
Most of the acting is of a similar low standard, although Reed, Lamont and Miss Romain make valiant efforts. Production values are virtually nil and entertainment is, at best, slight. -
Marlburian2 May 2022After watching TBoK for some thirty minutes, this started to remind me of a Hammer film, my having missed the reference to Hammer in the opening credits.
Other reviewers have noted its shortcomings, such as uniforms that would not have kept their brightness for very long, artificial-looking studio sets and Ronald Lewis's unremarkable performance - certainly he's no Tyrone Power, who played a similar role - of a mixed-race officer - in "King of the Khyber Rifles".
To which might be added: easily-reloadable rifles used by both sides that were not produced in 1850 and the risible scenes of key characters bouncing along, ostensibly on horses, against back projection as they led their men into battle.
The English countryside served well enough for India for most, if not all, of the film, and, dare I say it in 2022, so did the blacked-up "Indians".
At least the ending was a bit of a surprise, not least because of the hundreds of men that suddenly appeared in a film that up to then had only featured a score or so at any one time. Now I know that scenes were lifted from "Zarak", I plan to watch that film to see how many.
Worth a little more than the 5.4 average rating. I thought. -
Leofwine_draca4 August 2014While Hammer Studios produced some fairly able historical adventures in the early 1960s - titles such as the serviceable FURY AT SMUGGLER'S BAY and THE DEVIL-SHIP PIRATES - they also made their fair share of stinkers, of which THE BRIGAND OF KANDAHAR is probably the worst. This is an entirely stodgy costume adventure, made on a low budget and with a script which feels like it was rushed out in a hurry.
The story is cheap and carries some distinctly colonial racial overtones, not least in the presence of anti-hero Ronald Lewis, blacked-up as a half-caste for his role. Lewis must be the singular most obnoxious heroic character in a Hammer film, a guy who I actually despised throughout much of the running time; were we really supposed to feel sorry for him after he swapped allegiances like that?
Elsewhere, it's sub-ZULU antics throughout, enlivened by a handful of larger-scale battle sequences which employ some dodgy back projection which saps them of realism. Once again Hammer has an eye for a distinguished supporting cast, but most of them are wasted here; the only ones who come out of it well are Duncan Lamont and Katherine Woodville. Oliver Reed is cast as the bad guy but I feel he would have made a much more compelling protagonist. In any case, this is as dull as dishwater and one of Hammer's weakest efforts. -
malcolmgsw19 April 2015This is an extremely curious film from Hammer.They did look to diversify from their Hammer horrors and this is one of the results.The plot seems quite strange and very muddled.What is more it is difficult to take seriously.Normally in an adventure film you know which side to support.However in this film it is difficult to know who is worse.The Army comes out of it just as badly as the warring tribes.Also here we have a film as late as 1967 where it was thought not to be a problem having a white European actor putting on make up to play an Asian character.The plot revolves around the fact that Lewis is discharged from the army and imprisoned on very circumstantial evidence and racial prejudice.I have to say that "Carry On Up The Khyber" is a far better film and a lot more fun too.
-
It's not on the same level as Hammer's best adventure films such as "A Challenge for Robin Hood", "The Devil-Ship Pirates" and their previous East India Company film "The Stranglers of Bombay" but it's great fun. Based on its title, I had assumed that the film took place in Afghanistan during the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842) but it actually takes place in India in 1850. The protagonist is Robert Case, a half-Indian lieutenant in the service of the East India Company who is convicted of cowardice under dubious circumstances and joins a group of Indian rebels. The film has a good plot and the characters are strong. I liked the fact that both Colonel Drewe and the rebel Ali Khan were presented as being brutal leaders. Neither side was whiter than white so there is a real sense that Case is conflicted, which I appreciated.
Neither Ronald Lewis, who appeared in one of Hammer's best films "Taste of Fear", nor Oliver Reed, in his final Hammer film, make very convincing Indians / Anglo-Indians but they're both very compelling in their respective roles as Case and Ali Khan. The film also has nice appearances in major supporting roles by Duncan Lamont in one of his biggest Hammer roles, Glyn Houston (a much better actor than his elder brother Donald) and Yvonne Romain (another unconvincing Indian but never mind). The weakest link in the cast is Inigo Jackson but he is only in the film for its first half. I'm assuming that Hammer regular Marne Maitland, who was actually Indian, was not in the film because he was busy since he would obviously have been a perfect fit, hence why he had a major role in "The Stranglers of Bombay". It's quite funny considering that he was cast as a particularly unconvincing Chinese man in "The Terror of the Tongs".
In contrast to the exotic locations of bigger budget Hammer adventure films such as "She" (which was shot in Israel) and "One Million Years B.C." (which was shot in Lanzarote), this film was shot in rural England and the attempts to pass it off as India are fairly unconvincing. It's a little distracting, to be honest. John Gilling is a good director but he's no Terence Fisher and I don't think that action scenes were really his forte as the ones here aren't up to much. The film loses its momentum a little in its second half, even though it is only 77 minutes long. -
Colbridge22 July 2021I generally enjoy Hammer Films foray into historical adventure but this is a weak entry and not one of John Gilling's best. Set in 1850's India at the height of the Empire this sees a mixed race British officer with conflicting loyalties help Oliver Reeds character Eli Khan, seen here hamming it up in his last Hammer film, as the bandit leading a revolt against colonial forces with plans to infiltrate the British at Fort Kandahar.
John Gilling was probably trying to offer something a little different and concoct an adventure story using the British Raj as a backdrop to explore issues of race, prejudice and colonialism which could have been an intriguing premise but gets hampered by a weak script, poor acting and a very low budget where certain action sequences are lifted from other movies, and clumsily used at that.
Nice costumes, a few jarring scenes and an unexpected ending makes it worth a watch but what could have been an interesting perspective becomes pedestrian and routine. -
mark.waltz26 November 2023Watchable for the action and certain elements that indicate how things could have been (but probably weren't), it's a Hammet historical piece of fiction that's entertaining, if not enlightening. There's lots of extras and big crowded battle scenes, but David Lean wouldn't have worked at Hammer if his next big epic depended on a salary, so the detail is only in the above average production values and nor fact or casting.
Ronald Lewis is a half British and half Indian soldier kicked out of the army so he goes underground to help his people. There's good and bad on both sides, with a young Oliver Reed representing the villainy on his Indian heritage. The beautiful Katherine Woodville plays Lewis's married British lover, and the exotic Yvonne Romain is there to remind Lewis of his heritage to which he'll never be accepted by the British for.
The battle scenes at the end are certainly epic, but don't go in expecting the grandeur of "Lawrence of Arabia". As good looking as the sets are, they're obviously large clumps of painted styrofoam (particularly the caves and rocky formations), but the uniforms are realistic, and the film never drags. So I give it credit for inventiveness but not in telling anything more than a fable.