weezeralfalfa
In an era when Hollywood was trying to compete with TV by offering lavish exotic spectaculars, filmed in widescreen Cinemascope, with stereophonic sound, this film comes across as one of the dullest ones, with minimal historical relevancy, to boot. The High Sierras in the background provide spectacular mountain scenery, perhaps reminiscent of that in the relevant Afghanistan-present Pakistan border region. Otherwise, there is little to recommend in the film. Tyrone Power, as the supposed half -caste hero Alan King, sleepwalks his way through his role, and looks as half-cast as did Esther Williams as a supposed half-caste Polynesian. Guy Rolfe, as the fictional Afghan rebel chieftain nemesis, Karran Khan, with ambitions to conquer all of India, as a would-be latter day Akbar the Great, had zero charisma, despite his defiant posturing.Terry Moore, much criticized as the choice for the love interest of King, came across as an OK spirited ingénue, bored with life within the frontier garrison, taking to forbidden horse and carriage rides in the surrounding stark countryside, as one means of relieving her boredom. She's immediately smitten by the handsome King, upon his arrival at the garrison, and wastes no time letting King know, practically throwing herself at him. Unlike most of the officers in the garrison, she has no qualms about King being of half caste parentage, and looks forward to a marriage with him, against her father's approval. Unlike Power's comedic tempestuous relationships with Betty Grable, in "Yank in the RAF", or with Maureen O'Hara, in "The Black Swan", all is sweetness, if a tad dull, in their courtship. In their tense last meeting, King agrees with her father that marriage with him wouldn't likely work out socially, and that it is wise to send her back to England, for safety. However, in the last scene, when the victorious Khyber Rifles are parading by, she reappears as a spectator, providing no clue about the current status of her relationship with King, nor whether she still is about to leave for England.This story supposedly takes place in 1857: the year of the Indian Rebellion and frequent mutiny or unrest of native troopers(sepoys) in the Indian Army. Toward the end, news of the rebellion in some other parts of India is received at the garrison, and it's predicted that the people in the surrounding area will soon be in rebellion, probably led by Karram Khan, unless he is first killed. However, historically , the neighboring Punjab, along with the Northwest Frontier Territories, where this garrison is located, was one of the least affected by this rebellion. The concern by the sepoys that the paper cartridges for the newly arrived Enfield rifles reportedly are greased with pig and beef fat is historically correct. In the film, despite assurances by King that this is untrue, the sepoys refuse to use the Enfields when faced with storming the Khan's stronghold at Khyber Pass. Instead, they choose to rely on their short traditional Afghan daggers, against the muskets of the Khan's troops. This whole sequence of storming the Khan's stronghold, along with the prior solitary visit of King, claiming to be deserter from the British army, looks quite implausible. It's highly unlikely that the Khyber Rifles could sneak up in broad daylight on KK's stronghold without being seen by at least one sentry! Also, they were at a distinct disadvantage in fighting with only their daggers, against muskets plus daggers. Yet, they won. King's obligatory grapple with KK is brief and shot under dark interior conditions. Anticlimactically, KK is killed during the grapple, not by King, but by a sepoy who has a special reason for revenge.Incidentally, the historic Khyber Rifles, composed of Afghans, plus a British commander, as shown, didn't begin until the 1880s, several decades after this story supposedly takes place! The screenplay could have, instead, included the important political consequences of the ultimate defeat of the '57 rebellion: the dissolution of the East India Company and last vestiges of the former Moghal empire, and their replacement with the British Raj government.Several previous films had dealt with essentially the same subject. I would recommend John Ford's "Wee Willie Winkie" as being a more interesting version. Instead of a climactic fight to the finish, little Shirley Temple charms the rebellious Khan into giving up his plundering tradition, thus saving many lives.
blanche-2
Director Henry King and star Tyrone Power teamed up for their ninth film, almost 20 years after King helped Power shoot to stardom when he chose him as Jonathan in "Lloyds of London." Why do I think Power was somewhat less ebullient this time around. By 1953, he was surely in a mad rush to finish his contract with Fox, as he had already formed his own production company."King of the Khyber Rifles" gets the full major picture treatment, in CinemaScope, and it is a film filled with battles, adventure, panaromas, and a little romance thrown in. You can't have Tyrone Power in a movie without some of that! He plays a half-caste who is put in charge of the Khyber Rifles. Eventually, he is given the assignment of putting down a rebellion led by a childhood friend, Karram Khan, menacingly played by Guy Rolfe. Terry Moore plays the British daughter of the brigadier general (Michael Rennie) who falls in love with Power, and that's a forbidden love. In real life, when she first saw the actor, she was so staggered that she developed a facial tic. Power asked King if they could sit quietly and run lines before shooting the scene, which allowed her to calm down. She's fairly vapid in the role.The last part of the movie is very exciting and beautifully photographed. The film definitely hold's one's interest.Power looks great - handsome and tanned, as Lieutenant King, but it's really not much of a role. The romantic scenes are marvelous, and he does display a lot of physical prowess. He was unfortunately one of the huge stars of the golden era who did not do a lot of great pictures. Ironically, some of his films not highly thought of at the time have found appreciative audiences today, 47 years after his death. Too bad he's not here to see it.
Artemis-9
The film does give a fairly good contrast between the Indian and the English class systems. From the viewpoint of someone who's totally for racial integration and against class discrimination, this looked like an history, or political lesson, when I saw it in my early teens. What impressed me equally then, was the great beauty of Indian women, particularly that dancer in flimsy dress - and that were shown in erotic scenes or situations that the government censorship in my country would not have approved for 12-y-o minors, if it was not intended as propaganda against the English (who snubbed Portugal for not being democratic), and India who had taken back the former colonies of Goa, Damão and Diu a few years before). I recall the poor colours, and jumpy film, as the copy had been much used in popular theatres during its first release. Reading the critics of people who saw this film at a more mature age than I, I guess I would give it a second viewing if it appeared on video.