Art Vandelay It's sad how little the U.S. has learned from the British Empire that preceded it. But that's the politics and it's somewhat interestingly presented here. The biggest problem with this movie is it opens as a love triangle: Holden/Tambo/Capucino. Before the first scene is over Tambo wander off to become a commie revolutionary and in wanders Susannah Can't Act York. So it's a different love triangle. Except Holden and Capucino aren't in love; they seem to have more of a roommate-with-privileges relationship. A few people get blown up real good. Holden does some dashing things we've already seen in Bridge...Kwai. Snore. This movie is notable for featuring a still-fit Holden, with bags forming under his eyes to show the hard living of the past decade. This might also be the point where he's no longer the cynical individualist with a smile and a wink to the cynical survivor with a bitter smirk. He's closer to the bitter washed-up Pyke of The Wild Bunch at this point. I want some UCLA film student to write his doctoral thesis on Holden's career and life as it played out on the screen. For now I might just have to read Stefanie Powers' book about him.

lyganywern Enjoyable and welcome - just shows how few films were made about the end of the British Empire (India being an exception). Well cast and the excellent supports - Sydney Tafler, Michael Goodliffe and Maurice Denham bring added credibility. Nice to see Tafler in a role other than his usual line in club managers and assorted crooks. Likewise, Goodliffe shows a gravitas contrasting from his normal parts - the seedy (Jigsaw 1962) through to various officer types and police inspectors.

MartinHafer The communist uprising in Malaysia following WWII lasted for many, many years and many people were killed. Yet, oddly, it's seldom the subject of films--as if it never took place.The film begins at the end of WWII---as a MODERN helicopter brings word of the Japanese surrender. Jump forward a decade and two comrades in the struggle against the Japanese have gone on very different paths. One (William Holden) is now a hugely successful plantation owner. The other (Tetsurô Tanba) is now a communist revolutionary--leading the revolt against the interim British government. As for Holden, he's pretty apolitical but his girlfriend (Capucine) is appalled by the stupidity of the British government--she is sympathetic towards the revolutionaries. When she is captured and accused of smuggling weapons for the communists, Holden is finally compelled to take sides.The film is pretty good, but there is another character that was a bit uneven and a bit annoying. Susanna York plays the daughter of the new governor. She appears a bit kooky and flighty for much of the film--even though everything is deadly serious. Only later in the film does she show her pluck--but this is only after she COMPLETELY inexplicably surrenders herself to the revolutionaries. Had her character been written better, the film could have earned an 8. As is, it's still pretty good and worth a look.

sljones44 I agree with most posts. I think this was an underrated film, surprisingly hard to find. It was quite critical of the British elements of counter terrorism. It seemed a little simplistic, but it told a story not usually found in most movies. I think that it was a good, balanced viewpoint of colonialism, terrorism as well as romance. This would be an intriguing remake, if today's times were a little different. Today's culture is far into the anti-terrorist mode to understand the psychology of insurgency. Vietnam was much more complex, with the S.Vietnamese bureaucracy betraying themselves and China masterminding the NVA for its own purposes. William Holden played the naive, if somewhat self-important voice of reason. He played the angle from his side, and was critical of the British viewpoint. The "loyalty" aspect was quite intriguing and prevalent throughout most of the film, and he distinguished that element again in the Wild Bunch. This was a pretty good movie.