Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

JohnHowardReid 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.

Edgar Soberon Torchia 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.

malcolmgsw 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.

Leofwine_draca 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.