KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

gordonl56 THE LONG, THE SHORT AND THE TALL (aka JUNGLE FIGHTERS) 1961This 1961 UK production takes place during World War two in the Burmese jungle. The film stars, Richard Todd, Richard Harris, David McCallum, Laurence Harvey, Ronald Fraser, John Rees, John Meillon and Kenji Takaki.Richard Todd is in charge of a squad testing some "sonic" warfare gear in the Burmese Jungle. The equipment, loudspeakers etc is to be used to fool Japanese about troop movements etc. The tests are not going well and Todd orders the squad deeper into the jungle to try a diff location.The squad is made up of a group of men who all have a beef with each other, the jungle and the army in general. The biggest arse of the group is played by, Laurence Harvey. Harvey would much rather be home in London than rotting in the jungle. He makes sure everyone knows his views on everything. This in particular rubs the unit corporal, Richard Harris the wrong way.The squad holes up in an abandoned tin mine to get out of the daily rains. The close quarters, of course brings out the worst in the bunch. They are soon at each other over everything. (The stage origins of the film are evident as the scenes are quite heavy with dialogue) There is even a fight between Harvey and Ronald Fraser.David McCallum, the man in charge of the radio gear, picks up a Japanese signal. McCallum figures from the strength of said signal, that the Japanese are very close. Just then, a single Japanese scout wanders into the area of the mine. The man, Kenji Takaki, is captured when he enters the building the men are hiding in.Sgt Todd sends several of the men, Fraser and Meillon out to have a look further up the trail. Todd figures it is time for the squad to hightail it back to headquarters. The news about the Japanese being this close needs to be turned in. The squad radio is having trouble reaching to the British camp.Fraser and Meillon are soon back to report to Todd that there are indeed Japanese troops coming. They had a run in with two of the Japanese, killing one. Todd orders all to grab their stuff for a bug out. Todd had originally wanted to take the prisoner along, but now decides it will just slow them down. Of course there is an argument about who is to kill the Japanese soldier.They drag the man along planning to dump him up the trail a piece. Now they find that the escape route they planned on using is flooded from the afternoon rain. The squad will need to wait a few hours for the water level to drop before continuing. This of course leads to more bickering among the squad.By the time the squad gets a move on, the Japanese advance forces have closed in. Todd fights a rear guard action while he sends Harris and the rest forward. Harris and the others however run right into an ambush and are shot up. Harris, though wounded, staggers back to where Todd is firing on the Japanese. The Japanese though are far too many and the entire patrol is wiped out.

ianlouisiana I saw the original stage play from which only Mr Kenji Takaki survived intact to reprise his role as the captured Japanese soldier whose presence presents a moral dilemma to a retreating British Army patrol in the Burmese jungle. The play was a cause celebre at the time because of its use of "barrack room" language,most of which except for the racial slurs you can now here on CBBC. Also,after a decade of uncritical portrayals of the British military,it presented an uncomfortable view of O.R. soldiers under pressure that retired colonels from Cheltenham were extremely unhappy with. Thus its success was ensured by a theatre audience whose make up was for more egalitarian than that of today. When it came to making the film the producers chose "Box Office" actors like Mr R.Todd and Mr L.Harvey for the showy roles where "acting" equated to shouting at the tops of their voices.A close second in terms of sheer volume came Mr R.Harris,with the tragically largely forgotten Mr R.Fraser in third place,several lengths behind. Mr Harvey,possibly the worst "Romeo" in cinema history was unaccountably popular for a brief while,possibly for his profligate use of Brycleem which was obviously hidden somewhere in his kitbag along with eyebrow tweezers and a nailfile. His one golden moment came in "Expresso Bongo" where he was a fast - talking jerk who was not so clever as he thought,a role he was born to play. And not so far removed from Pte Barmforth,whose cockney accent is as transient as his rationality. When the patrol capture the unfortunate Mr K.Takaki, Barmforth takes it upon himself to "civilise" the prisoner by shouting very loudly at him in English - jamais plus change. Mr R.Todd is the "tough" sergeant in charge of the patrol,another whose accent is of the temporary variety,a bit like Mr J.Mills when demoted to the Lower Deck. In real life Mr Todd had led men in battle so he knew at least something about military action which put him in a position of advantage over his fellow thesps,but he was too nice a man to point out their inadequacies,evidently.It's what being British was all about. Viewed from 50 - odd years distance,"The Long and the Short and the Tall"(a quote from the old Soldiers' song "F*** 'em all") may seem quaint and stagey,and,frankly,laughable in the days of sexed - up dossiers,suicide bombers and waterboarding,but it was a pretty big deal in 1961. To be honest I'd forgotten about it until I watched it on television yesterday afternoon. And I was straightaway transported back to the Theatre Royal,smoking My "Gitanes"(pretentious-moi?) with every chance of holding my girlfriend's hand for an hour if I contrived to miss the last bus home . That's worth a "7" in anybody's book.

Red-Barracuda This war-drama was adapted from the stage. To be fair, this is not surprising, seeing as the film is very dialogue heavy with characters standing around delivering lines to each other. Each of the soldiers plays a specific role, which allows the writers to dramatize various issues. It's an anti-war movie at heart and one of the central themes is how prisoners of war are dealt with. The story itself has a group of British soldiers somewhere in the Burmese jungle surrounded by the Japanese enemy. They end up capturing an enemy soldier and this leads to different types of disharmony amongst the men in how they should treat this man. Over and above this though there is a lot of friction between the troops anyhow, as they are not a happy unit in the first place.I wouldn't say the film is particularly believable to be perfectly honest. It seems highly unlikely that men in the midst of the vicious conflict in the Far East would ever be this philosophical about the civil liberties of an enemy soldier. However, if you suspend your disbelief, you will be rewarded as it's a well written and acted film. For a war movie there is very little action, only at the end is there really any combat. It's essentially a drama set around a combat unit. Its well worth seeking out as it seems to be a fairly obscure film. However, it's well worth your time, especially if you are a fan of older war movies.

bob the moo A group of soldiers are in the jungle recording sounds and testing levels for sonic warfare to be tried out on the Japanese at a later date. However, when radio operator private Whitaker can only pick up Japanese signals on his radio, he surmises that they must be within 15 miles of a Japanese camp.Tensions between the soldiers are raised as they start to protect themselves and plan to withdraw back to base – plans that change when they capture a lone Japanese soldier on patrol. As they debate what to do, the true characters of the men start to come out.I came to this thinking that this would be a low-key war movie and, in a way, I was right but it is less about war than it is about the true nature of its characters. In this way it is almost better described as social realism set in the Burmese jungle rather than anything else. The plot moves quite slowly and some modern audiences will likely struggle with the lack of fireworks in terms of acting and action for the majority of the running time but for my money I appreciated that the film took its time and developed broad characters only to then dismantle them when they are under pressure. In some regards the film isn't logical as it is more likely that the soldiers would have fled once the enemy closed in as opposed to fighting, but the play simply takes the struggle in all our souls and puts it into several different men, all making sense but not all making moral sense. It broods for a while but the point is there, building to a fine ending where the fireworks are supplied. The fact that the whole issue of treatment of POW's has come up yet again in Iraq (albeit more torture than necessity) ensures this film is still relevant but, even without the POW issue, the debate over morals and the question of 'what would you do' makes it interesting enough.The film feels a bit stagy due to the material and limitations of the time and budget but more due to the fact that this is a play. As a play, the material serves the actors well and they rise to meet it. Their performances are roundly strong even if they occasionally overplay it as if they were projecting to the back of a theatre where they really should have used the intimacy of cinema a bit better. Laurence Harvey is powerful in the plum role of Bamforth, the man who is anti-establishment etc but turns out to be the moral core of the group, Harris has a small role but is quality throughout. Todd has the most difficult role and manages it well even if he is given fewer acting 'high points' than some of the others. Support is good and everyone has their character, including good performances from McCallum, Ronald Fraser and the less well-known Meillon and Rees.Overall this is a dated, stagy film that may put off modern audiences unable to handle its slow pace and lack of action (for a war movie!) but this was an intelligent and interesting play and it has been put on the screen well. It is heavily cut of language and content due to the period it was made but this doesn't matter too much as it keeps the moral debate, with the men representing the various thoughts and impulses in all of us. It doesn't have a firm conclusion but to me that was part of its strength – with issues of some moral complexity there are rarely definite answers or solutions.