Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

GusF One of only four Hammer war films, the film takes place in Burma during World War II and it does not pull any punches. In contrast to many films of the period, it depicts war as a dirty, grimy, immoral affair. Like the "Quatermass" films, "The Abominable Snowman" and "Cash on Demand", it was an adaptation of a BBC TV drama, namely a 1958 TV film of the same name which I presume is now lost. According to "The Hammer Vault", the script of the TV version was based on an actual war crime committed by a British officer in Burma.Stanley Baker is brilliant as Captain Alan Langford, a callous, cruel, unprincipled bastard who orders the murder of two innocent Burmese civilians to convince a Japanese informer that he is serious. He is a very intelligent but that just makes him more dangerous. He completely dismisses any argument that he has done something wrong, claiming that it was necessary for the greater good. Yeah, I seem to have heard something like that before. He also orders that the wounded be left behind so that they will not slow them down. The fact that they elect to stay behind before he can tell them of his decision does not make it any less cold blooded. He does what he does so that his men will survive but that doesn't make it right as he crossed a line which soldiers are not meant to cross. If it had been another time and place, he would have been charged with war crimes but of course the victors in war are never charged with war crimes.Guy Rolfe and Leo McKern are excellent in their respective roles as the Padre and the war correspondent Max, the most vocal opponents of Langford's actions with whom the audience are supposed to sympathise. Max compares Langford's behaviour to the killing of Jews in Germany and the Padre unsuccessfully tries to convince him that there is a difference between killing enemy combatants out of necessity and killing innocent non-combatants. While he does not appear until more than an hour into the film, perhaps the strongest cast member in the film other than Baker is the great Korean-American actor Philip Ahn as Major Yamazuki, Langford's Japanese counterpart. Unlike the more rough and ready Langford, Yamazuki tries to present himself as a gentleman as he appears to be a very cultured man who is unfailingly polite, even saying "please" to his captives when he gives them instructions. However, this is just a veneer. Scrape it away and he is just as cold blooded as Langford, as he demonstrates by his actions. There are two sides of the same coin.The rest of the cast is very strong as well such as Gordon Jackson, Richard Pasco, Wolfe Morris, David Lodge, Percy Herbert and, in a very early role, Burt Kwouk. Jackson and Kwouk reprised their roles from the TV version, incidentally. One thing that I liked about the film was that, with the exception of Morris as the informer, all of the Burmese and Japanese characters were played by actors of East or Southeast Asian descent. This adds to the realism of the film, as does the fact that the Japanese and Burmese characters speak their own languages among themselves. The writing by Peter R. Newman is extremely strong and Val Guest's direction is top notch. The film was shot entirely in a studio and this can be seen from the fairly unconvincing backdrops but the jungle, village and forest sets are very convincing.Overall, this is an excellent and powerful anti-war film. While war may give rise to acts of heroism, it is most certainly not an heroic business and the film does not hesitate to point this out, albeit in a comparatively subtle manner.

Theo Robertson On the surface this is just another war film set in the Far East involving the Occidental fighting the Oriental . The fact that it was produced by Hammer Films probably isn't a great omen either but before watching I came on to the trivia of this site to find to Stanley Baker regarded it as one of his best films . It also has the distinction of being written by Peter R Newman who wrote the 1964 DOCTOR WHO story The Sensorites who also wrote YESTERDAY'S ENEMY originally as a television play for the BBC . This film , the teleplay and his contribution for DOCTOR WHO are his only writing credits . He gave up his career as a writer and worked as a hotel porter till his death in an accident in 1975 This is a slightly different take on the war is hell theme . Baker plays Captain Langford who is leading a patrol of men cut off behind Japanese lines in the Burmese jungle . What becomes very clear long before the halfway point in the movie is that things aren't going to work out nicely for Langford's section . This is a bit more than simple heroic brave white soldiers overcoming the Japs and surviving towards a happy ending What sets it apart from its peers in the 1950s war genre is how it blurs the lines between good and bad . Of course since 1959 when this film was released we have seen a glut of films such as APOCALYPSE NOW and PLATOON where the morality of carrying out certain acts in war are heavily questioned as being for the greater good but this would be a relatively new concept in the war genre . What's the difference between native villagers being shot by the British or the Japanese ? Is there one ? What's the difference between killing civilians being shot by soldiers on the ground or by pilots up the sky ? Is there one ? It's left to the audience to answer these questions in their own minds Where the film falls down slightly is when Langford and his surviving men become prisoners of the Japanese . It's a little bit too convenient and obvious that the events seen in the latter half of the film perfectly mirror those seen in the earlier half and where the tables are now turned 360 degrees , not enough to ruin the film but the first half where Langford has to take practical steps which may or may not be war crimes in that era is probably better than the second half . As Baker pointed out at the time the lack of budget where it's obvious that it's filmed on a sound stage also gives the movie a slightly cheap feel One last point while watching this film in 2013 that needs pointing out is the background of the Second World War . What would be viewed as murder or breaking the rules of war today were somewhat more flexible back then . Rightly if Langford committed some of the acts in a village in Afghanistan today he would face a charge of murder but probably not so back in 1942 in a Burmese village . That said the whole point of the film wants to put the audience in the combat boots of Langford and this is does admirably

SimonJack "Yesterday's Enemy" is a gritty film about a small British force in World War II Burma. It is also a film about the horrors of war, including unconventional actions. My high rating of this film is for the excellent acting jobs by all the cast. The quality of the film and its "feel" of a studio set in the jungle scenes detracts somewhat. This is a type of story that should be told. The one criticism I have is that the film seems to condone what takes place. It conveys the message that, while war is hell, sometimes things like this may be necessary. The chaplain and the news correspondent rightly protest the captain's plan to kill two innocent natives as a means to get a suspected collaborator to talk. Why did the captain not shoot the suspect in the arm or leg instead? The threat and proof of personal injury are very convincing to people, and wounds can be treated. But the killing of two innocent villagers appears nothing more than mindless barbarism. If anything, it would tell the suspect that he needn't worry. His captors don't want to hurt him. So where is his "incentive" to talk? Only after the British shoot the two natives, and the captain says that he is next, does the suspect agree to talk. But had he been shot in the arm or leg, might he not have gotten the message right away? And thereby, the captain would not have killed two innocent men. No doubt, direct and intentional killing of innocent civilians took place in WWII, and in other wars. But there never can be a justifiable reason for such killing. We know of the atrocities of the Japanese against the Chinese people in December, 1937. Some 300,000 people were murdered and tens of thousands raped and brutalized in the rape of Nanking. We know of the inhumane treatment of military and civilians in many Japanese prison camps of WW II. We know of the Nazi holocaust that killed six million Jews; and of the Nazi brutality and killing of many thousands more. Hitler intended to kill civilians when he bombed London as a way to defeat Britain. We know of the Soviet massacre of 22,000 Polish prisoners – mostly civilians – in the Katyn Forest in April, 1940. In the past century, there were other horrors of war against the unarmed. Most people over 55 will remember the My Lai Massacre of March 16, 1968. U.S. soldiers slaughtered 350 to 500 innocent women, children, babies and elderly in one village in South Vietnam. During World War II, Allied bombers killed many civilians when they hit industrial plants and war supply targets. Navy ship guns surely killed civilians when they pounded islands in the Pacific. While such killing is part of the horrors of war, it often cannot be avoided and is not carried out for the sake of killing the innocent. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WW II, but we will never forget the horrors of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed or injured for life. Many veterans suffer trauma from their experiences in war, most often from the killing of other people, whether directly or inadvertently (as in bombing or shelling enemy sites). In a cause of justice that is foisted upon men in war, there is a big difference between direct killing of enemy combatants and all other killing and treatment. The mark of civilization is the humane treatment of civilians, prisoners, the wounded and defeated. It is never right directly and intentionally to kill innocent civilians, or to mistreat or kill prisoners of war. That is the difference between civilized and uncivilized people. To the extent that countries and armies have carried out such atrocities as these and others, we show that we are uncivilized. To the extent that we abhor such actions and strive to live with civility toward others, we may yet save our humanity. It is only by civility that mankind is able to survive and coexist in the world.

benbrae76 This 1959 black and white WWII movie is one of the most realistic depictions of jungle warfare I have ever seen. Wonderfully acted by all concerned, and the script strikes a clever balance between duty and anti-war opinions. It is about a lost group of soldiers from the "forgotten army" in Burma, trying to reach their own lines, and whilst doing so take over a Japanese held village.The tension is almost unbearable, and the movie never relies on music to enhance that tension, for there is no music in it from start to finish. (And to be truthful in this movie it's not missed.) It's impossible to pick out a star performer. They all are, but I suppose the two that really stand out are Stanley Baker as the commanding officer and Leo McKern as the cynical war-correspondent attached to the group.I have yet to see this movie screened on TV (although someone may set me right if it has), and considering the pap that is aired, I can't think of one reason why it hasn't. It's a terrific film and if you enjoy realistic gritty war movies, then this is the one for you.