The Brigand of Kandahar

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.

Now, in 2024, we often forget that the UK film industry gave us many adventure movies in the fifties and sixties, at the scale of many Hollywood films, with as much budget, actors, directing skills. It was during an era when UK still had many colonies around the world; it was the opposite to the social tendancies that this movie industry will show us during the same period. And which begun in the forties, just after WW2 and for instance London after the Blitz,, among ruins. The roots of the kitchen sink tradition of the British cinema. Now,, concerning this John Gilling's film, I was so amazed by the quality. I often counfound this film with BANDIT OF ZHOBE, same director, also an adventure film, but with Victor Mature instead of Ron Lewis. We have here the proof that director John Gilling was not only an excellent thriller and crime director and also a terrific horrorr provider - SHADOW OF THE CAT, PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES - but also a little genius in terms of adventure flicks: FURY AT SMUGGLER'S BAY, PIRATES OF BLOOD RIVER...Do not miss them because they are "just" British.

While 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.

After 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.

This 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.