JohnHowardReid Producer: Ken Annakin. Executive producer: Sydney Box. Photographed in Technicolor and Panavision.Copyright 12 September 1967 by the Rank Organisation and London Independent Producers. Released in the U.S. through Paramount: 4 October 1967. New York opening at local theaters as the lower half of a double bill with "Chuka": 1 November 1967. U.K. release: through Rank Film Distributors: 27 August 1967. Australian release through British Empire Films: 3 November 1967. 10,350 feet. 115 minutes.SYNOPSIS: In the India of the 1920s, British police officer Freddy Young strongly opposes his government's harsh treatment of local tribes, most recently reflected in his senior colleague Stafford's internment of the Bhantas following allegations of petty poaching made by a local landowner. Sultan, the tribe's chief, engineers an escape from the fort, taking with him a small band of loyal followers and his pregnant wife. When she dies in labor on the long ride back to the hills, Sultan resolves to deliver his people from their bondage. Although the British officers regard Sultan as a dangerous criminal, Young recognizes him as a fellow idealist and an enemy to respect. Young's admiration for the tribal chief conflicts with his assignment to capture the rebel: he even spares Sultan's life during a religious festival, realizing that the leader's murder during public worship would only arouse wider rebellion. While Stafford's daughter Jane is moved by Young's concern for the tribe and its leader, British authorities demand the immediate capture of Sultan. Young reluctantly agrees.NOTES: Made at Pinewood Studios, London, and on location in Spain.VIEWERS' GUIDE: A "Boys Own Paper" story, but too violent for Saturday matinees.COMMENT: CinemaScope was turned loose on "India" at an early stage with "King of the Khyber Rifles" and "The Rains of Ranchipur". Other Scope movies to take advantage of the pictorial and action opportunities of the sub-continent include "North West Frontier", "Stranglers of Bombay", "The Tiger of Eschnapur", "The Indian Tomb", "Nine Hours to Rama", "The Brigand of Kandahar", "Tarzan Goes to India", "Harry Black and the Tiger" and "Bhowani Junction".What does "The Long Duel" add to this lore? Not a great deal. Certainly the action scenes are splendidly staged — and there are plenty of them. Unfortunately, the story itself, though most promising, fails to fully develop its themes of command conflict and romantic entanglement. Indeed the romantic scenes are treated in such a perfunctory fashion, you get the impression they were written in after the movie was completed in order to expand the otherwise insignificant role played by Charlotte Rampling. The seeds of conflict between the Howard and Andrews characters are astutely sown early on, but their growth is stunted partly by a lack of black and white character differentiation in the writing (which is not altogether a bad thing), but mostly by the tired, jaded and indifferent performance handed out by Trevor Howard. Howard's lack of spark also undermines the title duel between himself and Brynner — though as in the conflict with Andrews, this is not clearly a hate-hate relationship either. Brynner's portrayal is certainly forceful enough, but its effectiveness is dissipated by his unexplained American accent.Aside from Andrews, the film's best portraits come from the minor characters — Virginia North as a dancing spy, Laurence Naismith as the collector, Maurice Denham as the governor, George Pastell as a treacherous merchant. Edward Fox can be spotted at the Gymkhana Club (he has one line). Annakin has directed many of the studio and dialogue scenes in a listless style. But the movie really comes to life in its many action episodes where the anamorphic screen, filled to bursting with horses, men, gunfire and explosions, really comes into its own. The location scenery (the film was actually photographed in Spain) looks rugged enough to be authentic too.OTHER VIEWS: It's a lucky thing "The Long Duel" has such rousing action footage, for in most other respects it's neither very convincing nor exciting. Trevor Howard is getting a bit old for this sort of lark, though it is nice to see Miss Rampling in a role somewhat different from that in "Georgy Girl". The script is okay, but, on the technical side, the film cannot escape the charge that it is actually a considerable mish-mash. Location exteriors do not blend very harmoniously with some garish interior sets and there is also some matte work of unbelievable amateurishness. — JHR writing as George Addison.

clanciai This has simply been unfairly misunderstood. It's a great romantic adventure story exposing conflicting mentalities in the last days of the Indian Raj, when some British already started to doubt their presence there. Harry Andrews is the hopeless imperialist who knows only one way to govern and that by force, while Trevor Howard tries the other way: dialogue and understanding. Yul Brynner is the freedom fighter with a just cause who knows he is right and struggles against opposition in his own camp to achieve it with tragic results, due to the hardcore inflexibility of the British military authorities (Harry Andrews). Charlotte Rampling plays an unusual part as a female diplomatic intermediary, and her character is the only one who is not quite convincing, which unfavourable impression is worsened by her horrible hair style - utterly impossible in India.Additional merits of the film is the overwhelming sweeping landscape scenes catching the wilderness of the Himalayas, and the music, which underlines and augments the romantic character of the film. Yul Brynner is always interesting and makes memorable characters, and also Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews are well up to their ordinary excellent standard, while the story and its lesson of experience, wisdom and humanity is the main importance of this very underrated film.

jastdi2 There is a real give-away in an early scene in this movie. Happy mountain villagers are baiting the local dancing bear. The evil Brits, when they take the village, kill the bear (probably putting it out of its tortured existence, but I digress). Given the star quality of the leads (and even some of the minor actors)in this film, I expected much more. Almost any Raj movie is better than this one. Howard looked embarrassed to be there. Rampling to find him a love interest? I don't think so!(Spoiler: I think even she looked relieved when he said no.) I will give marks for efforts in verisimilitude in making the Indian Police look like they were of the era, even though most were played by white men in brown-face. The fort set was terrific. As always, Harry Andrews was excellent playing Harry Andrews. Buy "The Drum".

dbdumonteil The adventure yarn as it used to be a long long time ago.There's the proud rebel "Sultan" (Brynner) who's fighting against the English (represented by a loyal brave generous officer-Howard- and a villain one -Andrews-).And Andrews looks the part ! As the case often happens,to hear the scenarists ,if a father is wicked,then the daughter is adorable:she's played by a decorative Charlotte Rampling ,who tells Howard -whom she's in love with of course-:"one day ,Sultan and you ,you will meet".Main interest remains the splendor of the landscapes.