StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Vornoff-3 There's no getting around the Imperialist/Colonialist undertones in this one, only made worse by the various video guides which claim it is based on "actual events." It isn't quite as bad as Fu Manchu to the Chinese, but I suspect many Indians would find this pretty inaccurate and offensive. Still, looked at as a horror movie, it is pretty fun, and it seems to include more explicit depictions of violence even than other Hammer films of the time – perhaps the claim of historical authenticity made it easier to get away with gore in England at this time. I particularly enjoyed George Pastell's performance, similar in many ways to the one he gave in the previous year's adaptation of "the Mummy." The various tensions among the British colonial officers also add a nice touch, and the direction and cinematography are top-notch, as awkward as the material sometimes gets.

MARIO GAUCI Watching this, I was reminded all over again just how invigorating the output from Hammer Films was during its heyday; even so, this isn't a horror film as such – and, in fact, has recently been released on DVD through Sony as part of a double-disc 4-movie collection entitled "Icons Of Adventure" (none of which I'd previously watched).The film has a good reputation quality-wise, but it's even better-known as one of the company's grisliest efforts – not that there's excessive bloodshed on display, but director Fisher was certainly able to milk the inherent savagery of British-ruled India for all it was worth (there's plenty of implied physical violence throughout, to be sure, which seems all the more obscene for being triggered by religious fanaticism!). Tying up with this fact, the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) came down on THE STRANGLERS OF BOMBAY with particular alacrity. Unfortunately, many of the cuts they enforced back then (notably a female hanger-on's ecstatic reaction shots to the violence perpetrated by the titular cult have been all but eliminated, thus rendering her character virtually pointless!) have been retained for the R1 edition…though a scene involving a fight between a mongoose (the hero's pet which saves its master – having fallen prisoner to the vicious stranglers – from certain death at the eleventh hour) and a cobra, reportedly also trimmed by seven seconds, seems intact here! I'm ambivalent about the picture being in black-and-white: admittedly, this allows it a gritty realism unusual for the company – however, at the same time, the lack of color tends to dilute the film's potential for exotic flavor…especially since this would have alleviated its unremitting bleakness somewhat! Incidentally, while the come-uppance of the cult itself feels a bit rushed, this is eventually redeemed by a satisfactory aftermath – wherein a former spiritual leader, now reduced to mere negotiator between his people and Britain's East India Company, gives himself away as an associate of the so-called "thuggees"; similarly devious had been a half-caste officer, whom the hero dealt with personally during a scouting mission for a 'lost patrol'. In any case, THE STRANGLERS OF BOMBAY features one of Hammer's strongest (and most sympathetic) male leads from this era in middle-aged Guy Rolfe – though he's matched by an intense display of villainy from George Pastell as the High Priest of the strangling cult; on the other hand, Allan Cuthbertson's overbearing snob of an upper-class officer fails to rise above mere cliché! By the way, it's always a pleasure to see the names of all the Hammer stalwarts among the credits – with cinematographer Arthur Grant and composer James Bernard chief among them, they deliver exemplary work on this picture as well; having said that, THE STRANGLERS OF BOMBAY was uniquely scripted by an American – David Zelag Goodman – whose best work (Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS [1971]), coincidentally, would also be filmed in England and prove a censorship milestone!

Chris Gaskin The Stranglers of Bombay was made by Hammer in 1960 and I found this quite good. It is rather violent for its time.A series of rather gruesome murders in India turn out to be the work of a religious cult, known as the Stranglers. These people kill just for fun and they enjoy it. A British soldier based over there investigates these killings and nearly becomes a victim himself, but a mongoose appears and killing one of these animals is one of the Stranglers' tabu's. The leader of the Stranglers is killed at the end, along with most of the other members.The cast includes Guy Rolfe (Mr Sardonicus), Jan Holden, Andrew Cruickshank, George Pastell, Allan Cuthbertson and Roger Delgado (First Man Into Space). Good parts from all.The Stranglers of Bombay is worth checking out, especially if you are a fan of Hammer.Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Bondgirl1 Great directing enhance this tense film about a religious cult who go around murdering and stealing just for the sheer pleasure of it. Even for our times it is still an interesting and gripping horror film. Guy Rolfe (as tall as ever) did a remarkable job of the dedicated soldier who no one will listen too. Lots of fun.