Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Steineded How sad is this?

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

writers_reign It's difficult to believe that as late as the sixties they were still unable to 'mix' a soundtrack effectively. The way each line of dialogue is crystal clear and redolent of sound-stage 'atmos' verges on the amateur and this is compounded by the real 'jungle' noises which are kept right down to a minimum. And that's before the so-called acting kicks in and let's face it with two of the most 'wooden' actors who ever graduated from the Forestry Commission - Richard Todd and Laurence Harvey - in leading roles it has to be downhill from square one. I didn't see the play upon which the film is based but the fact that only one member, the Japanese prisoner, made it to the screen should tell us something. As if auditioning for the title Mr. Mahogany were not sufficient Laurence Harvey throws in an execrable accent that makes Dick Van Dyke seem polished. This is one of those films which feature a group of actors who contrive to give the impression that they are working in several different films. I'm really sorry I wasted my time on this merde.

oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx The Long and the Short and the Tall is perhaps the most human film I've ever seen. It's meant to be a war film set in the Burmese Jungle, although with absolutely no contour to the ground, and the movie backgrounds all-in-all resembling Kew Gardens or a Rousseau painting, a rather less exotic location must be surmised. With absolutely minimal amounts of fighting you could mislead people by even referring to it as a war movie.The movie follows a platoon of stupid and weak men, I do not for one moment mean that in the sense that they are decadent or immoral, but they struggle for understanding and willpower; I wouldn't have been surprised to see the radio operator ask the Sergeant for a blanky. The Sergeant is a clearly incompetent man, who once got busted down a stripe for losing his patrol, as if it were something easily lost. I stress though that he's not a lazy man, and these two things are often conflated in the movies. The Dream Factory tends to suggest that human limits are to be found only at the limits of our imagination, however most people are profoundly challenged to just get by in life, strive as they might.The 'jock' lance corporal Macleish is a dumb, proud, and self-righteous man, but not in the normal sense of the word, he's not vainglorious at all, he's simply so stupid that he interprets the world via a small and therefore secure moral framework. When he preaches to his leaders about the Geneva Convention, he's not doing it out of some sort of profound understanding, but merely because the Geneva Convention is a rule, and he finds rules easy to grope his way in the dark with.The only one in the bunch who appears to have half a brain says at one point that, "I just do as I'm told". This reminds me of a scene in Mad Max where a guy says to the Toecutter, "Anything you say", to which the Toecutter replies, "Anything...I...say, what a wonderful philosophy you have".These severely challenged men have a moral decision to take, will they manage to do the right thing? Or will they blindly concentrate on the insignia on each other's uniforms? What I like about this film is that we are mostly like that, severely challenged, and I think it's incredibly rare that this is ever acknowledged at the cinema.

ianandanne A great film which I had not watched for twenty years or so.But what really struck me was Lawrence Harvey's terrible accent.What was it supposed to be? I think it was on a par with Dick Van Dyke's in Mary Poppins.Some actors can move effortlessly between upper class and working class and be totally believable but in this case it almost ruined the film for me.It was a little "stagey" I agree and I think it could have been much better if the actors had swapped their parts around in a couple of cases.I would like to see a new version put onto film with a really good cast of contemporary actors and maybe shot on location.

bob the moo A group of soldiers are in the jungle recording sounds and testing levels for sonic warfare to be tried out on the Japanese at a later date. However, when radio operator private Whitaker can only pick up Japanese signals on his radio, he surmises that they must be within 15 miles of a Japanese camp.Tensions between the soldiers are raised as they start to protect themselves and plan to withdraw back to base – plans that change when they capture a lone Japanese soldier on patrol. As they debate what to do, the true characters of the men start to come out.I came to this thinking that this would be a low-key war movie and, in a way, I was right but it is less about war than it is about the true nature of its characters. In this way it is almost better described as social realism set in the Burmese jungle rather than anything else. The plot moves quite slowly and some modern audiences will likely struggle with the lack of fireworks in terms of acting and action for the majority of the running time but for my money I appreciated that the film took its time and developed broad characters only to then dismantle them when they are under pressure. In some regards the film isn't logical as it is more likely that the soldiers would have fled once the enemy closed in as opposed to fighting, but the play simply takes the struggle in all our souls and puts it into several different men, all making sense but not all making moral sense. It broods for a while but the point is there, building to a fine ending where the fireworks are supplied. The fact that the whole issue of treatment of POW's has come up yet again in Iraq (albeit more torture than necessity) ensures this film is still relevant but, even without the POW issue, the debate over morals and the question of 'what would you do' makes it interesting enough.The film feels a bit stagy due to the material and limitations of the time and budget but more due to the fact that this is a play. As a play, the material serves the actors well and they rise to meet it. Their performances are roundly strong even if they occasionally overplay it as if they were projecting to the back of a theatre where they really should have used the intimacy of cinema a bit better. Laurence Harvey is powerful in the plum role of Bamforth, the man who is anti-establishment etc but turns out to be the moral core of the group, Harris has a small role but is quality throughout. Todd has the most difficult role and manages it well even if he is given fewer acting 'high points' than some of the others. Support is good and everyone has their character, including good performances from McCallum, Ronald Fraser and the less well-known Meillon and Rees.Overall this is a dated, stagy film that may put off modern audiences unable to handle its slow pace and lack of action (for a war movie!) but this was an intelligent and interesting play and it has been put on the screen well. It is heavily cut of language and content due to the period it was made but this doesn't matter too much as it keeps the moral debate, with the men representing the various thoughts and impulses in all of us. It doesn't have a firm conclusion but to me that was part of its strength – with issues of some moral complexity there are rarely definite answers or solutions.