Excellent, a Must See

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Watching The Long Duel put me in mind of the story of Joaquin Murietta from early American California days. At least it seemed that way to me as this story of the Himalayan frontier of India plays a lot like an American western.Harry Andrews as the John Bull commander of a Himalayan outpost in the British Raj arrests an entire tribe for some specious allegations of poaching. Yul Brynner as tribal chief is among the arrested, but they break out with one fatality. After that Brynner and the able members of the tribe become brigands and popular heroes in India where the Congress Party is getting most demanding for India's independence post World War I. The provincial governor Laurence Naismith is acutely aware that Brynner and his tribe are becoming popular heroes. Possibly this story is post the Amritsar Massacre which galvanized the move toward independence.The solution they come up with is to give Andrews a co-commander in Trevor Howard. Howard before his army service was an anthropologist and has studied Indian culture. He's also suspected of the unpardonable sin of 'going native'. But he may be the answer to the Raj's Brynner problem.Brynner borrows a lot here from his earlier work in Taras Bulba playing the tribal chief. Howard cuts a sympathetic figure as a most unmilitary officer showing his range. A Captain Bligh he is not. He even gets a love interest in Charlotte Rampling playing Andrews's daughter.I thought the climax was a bit on the unreal side involving both Brynner's son and Howard. More I will not say.The Long Duel is an interesting saga of those last days of the British Raj though it plays like a western with real Indians.

In the dying days of the Raj, a tribal leader struggles for freedom against the Imperial Indian Police forces. The man charged with the task of apprehending the rebels sees things differently from his superiors, who wish to use the blunt instrument of force alone to suppress the insurgents.Ken Annakin knew how to make a good movie and here he had the undoubted talents of Yul Brynner, Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews, Charlotte Rampling, and Edward Fox to hand, amongst others. Behind the camera Oscar-winner Jack Hildyard was DoP.Given the cast and crew, one would expect a movie that looks great and holds your attention. Those with short attention spans may disagree, but I think they did that, and (in a recently broadcast version which appears to have been restored) this movie still looks stunning. The problem perhaps is that the script is not quite up to the same standard as the rest of the film, or that it superficially resembles something else.Superintendent Harry Andrews is well-cast as the blunt instrument of Imperial Power, leading a force that look more like regular soldiers than policemen. Yul Brynner does a competent job too.However Trevor Howard looks somewhat out of place, and unrealistic as love interest for Charlotte Rampling. But to my mind, both these things are quite deliberate; Rampling's character is attracted to Howard's personality, which contrasts with that of her father and (presumably) the others in the police force; of those that inhabit her insular world, she is drawn to him because of this, and despite the obvious age gap.Howard's character looks out of place and it is meant to; not everyone could the job that is asked of him. His humanity and compassion underlie the dilemma he faces, the conflict within, between his idealism and his sense of duty. I thought this a very good performance from Howard; he spends much of the film looking both world-weary and internally riven.Some aspects of this film are well-founded in fact; very many administrators in the days of the Raj loved the country and the people, yet felt deeply conflicted in the course of their duties. For example Eric Blair (better known as George Orwell) served in the Imperial Indian Police force in the 1920s, reaching the rank of Assistant District Superintendent in Burma.He said that, on the one hand, seeing "the dirty work of Empire at close quarters" (which included being hated by much of the local populace) had affected his outlook on almost every aspect of his life; on the other hand he also wrote that "I loved Burma and the Burman and have no regrets that I spent the best years of my life in the Burma police.".This film is not meant to have a happy ending, any more than 'Bridge on the River Kwai' or 'Lawrence of Arabia' (both also psychological studies of the lead character) are meant to. Those that might naively suppose that a younger man could have played Howard's role and then swanned off into the sunset with Rampling or something are completely missing the point. In what may be an allegory of Indian independence itself, no-one involved comes out of it very well; all that remains is a little hope for the future, as symbolised by Sultan's son.

Films of this genre were popular in the sixties,all trying to emulate Lawrence of Arabia and The Guns of Navarone.Now this film may not match up to those but it was a decent film to watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon.The one flaw was the ridiculous romantic interest between 54 year old Trevor Howard and 21 year old Charlotte Rampling.Rampling is of course still going strong nearly 40 years later.Indeed her credits show her currently involved with no less than 7 films.Sadly Imogen Hassell was not able to sustain her career and committed suicide.You Brunner shows us what a commanding presence he was.There are a lot of action sequences well handled,though the machine gun sequences seem very much like those included in North West Frontier.

Given the talent of the star players in this film, I was disappointed. Trevor Howard tries to work with what he's given, but Yul Brynner's performance was wooden and predictable. Despite what some of the other reviewers have said,I thought this film was not nearly as good as it COULD have been, and the biggest problem was the script. Boring, hackneyed, clichéd lines choked any life out of this story which, as noted, has a basis in real life. The battle scenes were poorly done, and I found myself fast-forwarding through them to get back to the dialog, as bad as it was. I can't fault the actors so much as the script and direction. Howard and Brynner deserved better. As an action movie, when compared to some of the other mid-1960s efforts, it falls far short.