The Long Duel (1967) watch online HD

The film portrays a group people formed by Indian rebels tribes, banded together against the Brits and they're led by Sultan(Brynner). The rebels surrounded by British army which spent time in the chase. The tough leader Sultan is taken prisoner but his action led to getaway from a stronghold pursued by British military. As adversaries are Young(Trevor Howard), a honorable captain, while Stafford(Harry Andrews) is a cruel officer. The governor(Maurice Denham)assign them to capture the obstinate rebel. Meantime, Sultan is double-crossed by a beautiful dancer(Imogen Hassal). Then he takes action by aiding the tribes group in robbing, raiding and murdering British forces and the rich and higher castes. The Brits contra-attack displaying on a train a machine-gun , making a brutal slaughter.

This is a British attempt to match the US adventures spectacles of the mid-sixties, containing derring-do, spectacular battles, gorgeous outdoors and is quite entertaining, though a little overlong. It's a fiery early 20th-century adventure yarn that makes little sense but bulges with emotion that keeps coming at you, as action and adventures is maintained throughout. It's one of several adventures-action pictures made in Britain in the sixties that such Hollywood stars as Yul Brynner and previously in the fifties as Victor Mature and Robert Taylor. Brynner plays with some of sensitivity, he's habitual in exotic roles , such as Ramses, Taras Bulba, The Buccaneer, Karamazov and Salomon.There are strong performances from Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews, who have made few bad films, they're two contenders officers and Andrew Keir as rebel leader. Furthermore, three beauties, Charlottle Rampling, still successfully playing, as severe captain's daughter, and Virginia North and the early deceased, Imogen Hassal. Latterly, as very secondaries appear Edward Fox,Laurence Nashmaith, Patrick Newell, among others. Luminous cinematography by Jack Hildyard, David Lean's usual cameraman, though with abuse of transparency. The movie was glamorously shot in Spain outdoors and interior filmed in Rank studios.Emotive and atmospheric musical score by John Scott.

The motion picture is well directed by Kenn Annakin, he's a skill and successfully craftsman. He has directed numerous films ,British comedies, his most successful films are the fresh and diverting adventures( The sword and the rose, probably one of the best of his bigger films), dramas of the 1950s, for Walt Disney(Swiss family Robinson, Robin Hood and the Merry men), the Jack London adventures(Call of the wild, White Fang), warlike(Battle of Bulge, The longest day), about the long distance rally(Those magnificent men in their flying machines,The biggest bundle of them all, Montecarlo or bust) and a string of TV movies until his recent demise.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's something you don't see every day . A western that doesn't take place in the United States , has no native American characters or white guys with American accents but THE LONG DUEL is undoubtedly a western that has been relocated from the American plains to British run India . Hey even most of the protagonists are called Indians and that's no coincidence .

THE LONG DUEL is by no means a terrible wretched movie but it is rather mediocre . The story as I mentioned is something that has appeared countless times where an injun war party has gone on the loose and it's up to a sympathetic calvary officer to negotiate with the dove and kill the hawk only this time the Indians are Hindus and the calvary officer is a fine upstanding spiffing chap

The production values are hardly outstanding with some very obvious studio exteriors and back screen projection and no doubt the PC fascists will have a field day when they see that most of the Asians aren't actually Asian at all but a bunch of British actors in dark make up . The film does contain some gun battles and fist fights so it's not exactly a total bore and one scene with a fugitive hiding down a well does contain some suspense . Make up your own mind as to the movies merits

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.

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.

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.

I saw this as a boy on its first release. It was supported by Eric Sykes' much shorter, mainly silent comedy, THE PLANK, still recalled today while DUEL soon vanished into obscurity. I enjoyed it at the time, but then all the scenery and action in colour on the big screen seemed marvellous in those days of black and white TV.

This is similar to several films of a decade earlier, notably Terence Young's ZARAK (1956) which had stony-faced Victor Mature playing the titular rebel, though Yul Brynner and his gang of mostly 'browned-up' British character actors generally do a more efficient job than their counterparts in the former production. DUEL is also set in a later period, the 1920s, reflecting a time in which the futility of British rule was becoming more apparent, but there is little that is overtly political here. Instead we get the collision of attitudes between hard-line authoritarian Harry Andrews and the liberal Trevor Howard, a familiar theme in everything from prison dramas to westerns. Both actors give their usual authoritative performances, all the more impressive given some of the uninspired writing. I always like Charlotte Rampling, but her appearance seems too modern for the time. There are lots of fights, ambushes and shoot-ups and it works on the level of a run-of-the-mill western, but who on earth came up with the idea of the cheesy pop song for the closing credits?

THE LONG DUEL is a British adventure film about an Indian uprising in the 19th century presided over by a bandit leader played by the inimitable Yul Brynner. Watching it these days, it's clear that this is a very dated production, and perhaps the film was picked out for merciless spoofing in the excellent CARRY ON UP THE KHYBER.

However, it isn't a bad film, just not one of the best of the genre. It suffers from being overlong and too slow, with long scenes that drag out between the important bits. Still, the viewer is treated to the spectacle of Brynner doing his patented action man routine and Trevor Howard acting against him as the classic stiff-upper-lip Brit with a heart. Supporting actors include Harry Andrews as the idiot in charge, more minor roles for Hammer players including Andrew Keir, George Pastell, and the lovely Imogen Hassall, and the appearance of a surprisingly young Charlotte Rampling.

The action elements of the film are handled pretty well with the usual excitement. A set-piece attack on a train is a highlight here, as is the fiery ambush on the British barracks, but the film only really kicks into top gear at the excellent large-scale climax. Moments of occasional heart and poignancy make this worth a watch, meanwhile.

Run of the mill historical adventure yarn set on India's North-West Frontier during the British Raj. Yul Brynner plays rebel tribesman Sultan who is pursued by Brit copper Freddy Young (Trevor Howard), who while chasing down the enigmatic rebel comes to respect him and is unwilling to execute the justice requested by his superiors.

The intent to make an historical epic of some worth, that is based on facts, is honourable. It looks nice with an authentic feel to the surroundings of the story, if only it wasn't so laboured, so full of inane posturing and poorly scripted characters, then it might just about crawl its way to being just above average.

It rarely excites, director Ken Annakin unable to inject life into the more perkier aspects of plotting, and a cast that also features Harry Andrews, Charlotte Rampling, Virginia North and Andrew Keir, aren't tasked with much more than reading their lines efficiently. All in all, not very convincing away form the location photography and costuming. 4/10

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".