Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

JohnHowardReid A Hammer Film, released in the U.K. by Warner-Pathé (9 August 1965), in the U.S.A. by Columbia (May 1966). Registered: May 1965. "U" certificate. Copyright 1 July 1965 by Hammer Film Productions. Australian release through Warner Bros: 13 October 1967. 7,319 feet. 81 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Lieutenant Case, a half-caste officer in the Bengal Lancers, runs up against racial prejudice when he returns from a mission in which his colleague, Captain Connelly, was captured by rebel Gilzhai tribesmen; accused of having abandoned Connelly because he coveted the latter's wife Elsa, he is sentenced by Colonel Drewe to ignominious discharge. Furious at the injustice, especially as Elsa refuses to believe his innocence, Case throws in his lot with the Gilzhai leader, Eli Khan, and trains his warriors for an attack on the British. However, he is horrified by Eli Khan's barbarous treatment of his prisoners.NOTES: Produced at Associated British Studios, Elstree, England.COMMENT: A significant proportion of this film is made up of footage from Terence Young's "Zarak" — which is marvelous stuff. On the other hand, "The Brigand of Kandahar" itself is awful. The sets look hideously cheap, the direction is barely competent and the script dull.Most of the acting is of a similar low standard, although Reed, Lamont and Miss Romain make valiant efforts. Production values are virtually nil and entertainment is, at best, slight.

malcolmgsw This is an extremely curious film from Hammer.They did look to diversify from their Hammer horrors and this is one of the results.The plot seems quite strange and very muddled.What is more it is difficult to take seriously.Normally in an adventure film you know which side to support.However in this film it is difficult to know who is worse.The Army comes out of it just as badly as the warring tribes.Also here we have a film as late as 1967 where it was thought not to be a problem having a white European actor putting on make up to play an Asian character.The plot revolves around the fact that Lewis is discharged from the army and imprisoned on very circumstantial evidence and racial prejudice.I have to say that "Carry On Up The Khyber" is a far better film and a lot more fun too.

bkoganbing Half King Of The Khyber Rifles, half Duel In The Sun, The Brigand of Kandahar doesn't come close to being as good as those other two classics.Mixed race British army officer Ronald Lewis comes home without another officer with whom he was out on a scouting expedition. Colonel Duncan Lamont doesn't believe that he had to flee to give his report and charges him with cowardice. The racism involved here is rather obvious, but Lewis is still drummed out of the service. While in jail the agents of charismatic Afghan tribal leader Oliver Reed free Lewis and he joins Reed's tribe to make war on the British. Lewis also has an eye for Yvonne Romain who is Reed's sexy sister. From what we know now and we know plenty more since 9/11 about Moslem culture, sisters of charismatic would be Mahdis don't walk around in the sexy outfits Romain wears accenting some really mountainous chest construction. Lewis was also kanoodling with Katharine Woodville the wife of the officer he allegedly deserted. The final battle scenes are staged nicely with an ending totally ripped off from Duel In The Sun.Recent events have both dated this film and made it somewhat amusing. Oliver Reed is always interesting even in mediocrity. But unless you're an Oliver Reed fan or like size 36 and up, The Brigand Of Kandahar really isn't for you.

Leofwine_draca While Hammer Studios produced some fairly able historical adventures in the early 1960s - titles such as the serviceable FURY AT SMUGGLER'S BAY and THE DEVIL-SHIP PIRATES - they also made their fair share of stinkers, of which THE BRIGAND OF KANDAHAR is probably the worst. This is an entirely stodgy costume adventure, made on a low budget and with a script which feels like it was rushed out in a hurry.The story is cheap and carries some distinctly colonial racial overtones, not least in the presence of anti-hero Ronald Lewis, blacked-up as a half-caste for his role. Lewis must be the singular most obnoxious heroic character in a Hammer film, a guy who I actually despised throughout much of the running time; were we really supposed to feel sorry for him after he swapped allegiances like that?Elsewhere, it's sub-ZULU antics throughout, enlivened by a handful of larger-scale battle sequences which employ some dodgy back projection which saps them of realism. Once again Hammer has an eye for a distinguished supporting cast, but most of them are wasted here; the only ones who come out of it well are Duncan Lamont and Katherine Woodville. Oliver Reed is cast as the bad guy but I feel he would have made a much more compelling protagonist. In any case, this is as dull as dishwater and one of Hammer's weakest efforts.