Jungle Fighters (1961) User Reviews

Morality play masquerading as your standard war movie

[Leofwine_draca · 8/10 · 6 June 2016]

What at first seems to be your typical British war film about a squad of soldiers behind enemy lines in Burma actually turns out to be something far, far different - and better. THE LONG AND THE SHORT AND THE TALL is actually a morality play about the importance of human life, the nature of warfare, and mankind's humanity towards his own kind. It was based on a play and occasionally feels very staged and studio-bound, but it overcomes these flaws to become something very compelling.

What's especially good about this film is that it takes careful time to develop each of the main characters in turn. So we get Richard Todd as the tough, incredibly ruthless sergeant, and Richard Harris as his volatile corporal. Ronald Fraser does well as a man conflicted between kindness and brutality, and David McCallum is a delight as the coward of the group. Best of all is Laurence Harvey, who plays a racist on the outside but at the same time becomes the most humane one of the lot.

THE LNG AND THE SHORT AND THE TALL doesn't pack a great deal of action into the running time, but when it does occur it's incredibly hard-hitting due to the aforementioned characterisation. Kenji Takaki also deserves kudos for playing the Japanese soldier; without a single word of English, he manages to create a thoroughly sympathetic character. Less is more, and this underrated war movie is a great example of that ethos.

a fine, underrated war movie

[df48 · 7/10 · 28 March 2005]

An excellent character study of the effects of war on a small British patrol in the Burmese jungle during WWII. Things heat up when they capture a Japanese soldier and then find themselves pinned down by enemy troops. Sets are stagy but it's the acting and writing that carry this story. An all star British cast lead by Lawrence Harvey and Richard Todd are first rate.Todd is the no nonsense leader trying to get his men out of a potentially deadly situation. Harvey plays a hard case enlisted man whose fundamental decency gives the movie it's moral force. A young David McCallum (Man From UNCLE) plays a spineless radio operator in what must be his first role.And to top it off a theme song to rival the Bridge on the River Kwai. All in all a movie that should saved from obscurity because it's so good.

A well-acted war-drama

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 17 September 2010]

This war-drama was adapted from the stage. To be fair, this is not surprising, seeing as the film is very dialogue heavy with characters standing around delivering lines to each other. Each of the soldiers plays a specific role, which allows the writers to dramatize various issues. It's an anti-war movie at heart and one of the central themes is how prisoners of war are dealt with. The story itself has a group of British soldiers somewhere in the Burmese jungle surrounded by the Japanese enemy. They end up capturing an enemy soldier and this leads to different types of disharmony amongst the men in how they should treat this man. Over and above this though there is a lot of friction between the troops anyhow, as they are not a happy unit in the first place.

I wouldn't say the film is particularly believable to be perfectly honest. It seems highly unlikely that men in the midst of the vicious conflict in the Far East would ever be this philosophical about the civil liberties of an enemy soldier. However, if you suspend your disbelief, you will be rewarded as it's a well written and acted film. For a war movie there is very little action, only at the end is there really any combat. It's essentially a drama set around a combat unit. Its well worth seeking out as it seems to be a fairly obscure film. However, it's well worth your time, especially if you are a fan of older war movies.

A 'kitchen sink' war movie that is more about the real character of men than a comment on war – not perfect but well worth a watch

[bob the moo · 27 June 2004]

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.

Better than expected war film

[gordonl56 · 7/10 · 22 June 2016]

THE LONG, THE SHORT AND THE TALL (aka JUNGLE FIGHTERS) 1961

This 1961 UK production takes place during World War two in the Burmese jungle. The film stars, Richard Todd, Richard Harris, David McCallum, Laurence Harvey, Ronald Fraser, John Rees, John Meillon and Kenji Takaki.

Richard Todd is in charge of a squad testing some "sonic" warfare gear in the Burmese Jungle. The equipment, loudspeakers etc is to be used to fool Japanese about troop movements etc. The tests are not going well and Todd orders the squad deeper into the jungle to try a diff location.

The squad is made up of a group of men who all have a beef with each other, the jungle and the army in general. The biggest arse of the group is played by, Laurence Harvey. Harvey would much rather be home in London than rotting in the jungle. He makes sure everyone knows his views on everything. This in particular rubs the unit corporal, Richard Harris the wrong way.

The squad holes up in an abandoned tin mine to get out of the daily rains. The close quarters, of course brings out the worst in the bunch. They are soon at each other over everything. (The stage origins of the film are evident as the scenes are quite heavy with dialogue) There is even a fight between Harvey and Ronald Fraser.

David McCallum, the man in charge of the radio gear, picks up a Japanese signal. McCallum figures from the strength of said signal, that the Japanese are very close. Just then, a single Japanese scout wanders into the area of the mine. The man, Kenji Takaki, is captured when he enters the building the men are hiding in.

Sgt Todd sends several of the men, Fraser and Meillon out to have a look further up the trail. Todd figures it is time for the squad to hightail it back to headquarters. The news about the Japanese being this close needs to be turned in. The squad radio is having trouble reaching to the British camp.

Fraser and Meillon are soon back to report to Todd that there are indeed Japanese troops coming. They had a run in with two of the Japanese, killing one. Todd orders all to grab their stuff for a bug out. Todd had originally wanted to take the prisoner along, but now decides it will just slow them down. Of course there is an argument about who is to kill the Japanese soldier.

They drag the man along planning to dump him up the trail a piece. Now they find that the escape route they planned on using is flooded from the afternoon rain. The squad will need to wait a few hours for the water level to drop before continuing. This of course leads to more bickering among the squad.

By the time the squad gets a move on, the Japanese advance forces have closed in. Todd fights a rear guard action while he sends Harris and the rest forward. Harris and the others however run right into an ambush and are shot up. Harris, though wounded, staggers back to where Todd is firing on the Japanese. The Japanese though are far too many and the entire patrol is wiped out.

"Flingers on bonce....flingers off bonce"Mr L.Harvey.

[ianlouisiana · 7/10 · 26 January 2015]

I saw the original stage play from which only Mr Kenji Takaki survived intact to reprise his role as the captured Japanese soldier whose presence presents a moral dilemma to a retreating British Army patrol in the Burmese jungle. The play was a cause celebre at the time because of its use of "barrack room" language,most of which except for the racial slurs you can now here on CBBC. Also,after a decade of uncritical portrayals of the British military,it presented an uncomfortable view of O.R. soldiers under pressure that retired colonels from Cheltenham were extremely unhappy with. Thus its success was ensured by a theatre audience whose make up was for more egalitarian than that of today. When it came to making the film the producers chose "Box Office" actors like Mr R.Todd and Mr L.Harvey for the showy roles where "acting" equated to shouting at the tops of their voices.A close second in terms of sheer volume came Mr R.Harris,with the tragically largely forgotten Mr R.Fraser in third place,several lengths behind. Mr Harvey,possibly the worst "Romeo" in cinema history was unaccountably popular for a brief while,possibly for his profligate use of Brycleem which was obviously hidden somewhere in his kitbag along with eyebrow tweezers and a nailfile. His one golden moment came in "Expresso Bongo" where he was a fast - talking jerk who was not so clever as he thought,a role he was born to play. And not so far removed from Pte Barmforth,whose cockney accent is as transient as his rationality. When the patrol capture the unfortunate Mr K.Takaki, Barmforth takes it upon himself to "civilise" the prisoner by shouting very loudly at him in English - jamais plus change. Mr R.Todd is the "tough" sergeant in charge of the patrol,another whose accent is of the temporary variety,a bit like Mr J.Mills when demoted to the Lower Deck. In real life Mr Todd had led men in battle so he knew at least something about military action which put him in a position of advantage over his fellow thesps,but he was too nice a man to point out their inadequacies,evidently.It's what being British was all about. Viewed from 50 - odd years distance,"The Long and the Short and the Tall"(a quote from the old Soldiers' song "F*** 'em all") may seem quaint and stagey,and,frankly,laughable in the days of sexed - up dossiers,suicide bombers and waterboarding,but it was a pretty big deal in 1961. To be honest I'd forgotten about it until I watched it on television yesterday afternoon. And I was straightaway transported back to the Theatre Royal,smoking My "Gitanes"(pretentious-moi?) with every chance of holding my girlfriend's hand for an hour if I contrived to miss the last bus home . That's worth a "7" in anybody's book.

A moving account of jungle warfare

[jfdpattison · 10/10 · 16 March 2003]

Rarely does a movie transform from the stage to the screen successfully. The Long and the Short and the Tall is one of few exceptions. A harrowing and moving story of how a group of British soldiers find themselves engaged in combat with the enemy in the Burmese jungle. Not only does the imagery capture the intense feeling of fear engaging the soldiers as they realise the enemy forces are aware of their existence, it also takes the viewer into the minds and exposes the smell of death as it envelopes the humid moment of combat. Well worth watching. One of the best war movies ever made with an all star British cast delivering a perfect script.

Hasn't aged well

[Marlburian · 6/10 · 26 January 2015]

I haven't watched this film for a long time and, having just seen it on BBC2 TV, I felt that it hasn't aged well. Perhaps it was better as a stage play? Ubercommando in his review summed it up well: "I just don't believe in characters who, under such pressure to escape, would just bicker at each other when the enemy is just around the corner... Some characters don't want to shoot the Japanese prisoner because it will make too much noise and alert the enemy, but that doesn't stop them from yelling at the top of their voices!"

The only characters I felt any sympathy for were Private Smith (who seemed the most sensible of the squad) and the Japanese prisoner. Sergeant Mitchem had an impossible task, with a hostile corporal and the intractable Pte Bamforth, but he didn't come over as a likable character. As for the others, I several times thought "what a bunch of losers".

Of course, all this was what (probably) we were expected to feel, but other films portraying a small, disparate group of men up against it have done so far better.

Enough has already been written about Laurence Harvey, who was mis-cast. OK, the character may have been a brash, street-wise London wide boy before he joined the army, but his sympathy for the prisoner did not convince.

Greatest war movie ever made

[drystyx · 10/10 · 4 April 2006]

Indeed, I believe this is the best movie ever made. I saw it first when I was a teenager, and its effect on me was astounding, although I didn't know the title. Twenty years later I learned the title, and it is still the most profound war movie ever made. It proves you don't need a gigantic budget and special effects to have a super story, and a script, in my opinion, is the biggest reason to see a movie. If you don't like great scripts, profound themes, believable characters, great acting and directing, you won't understand what makes this movie great. The characters and fight scenes are uncannily realistic, with human blows and emotions instead of the silly choreography look you get in the modern "dork" fight scenes that leave your eyes wandering in disdain. I won't give away much except to say the plot is much like The Ox-Bow Incident and Southern Comfort. Probably not for right wing war mongers, but it may be just what they need to see.

more about 1961 than 1942 but interesting.

[ib011f9545i · 6/10 · 26 December 2020]

I watched this today,first time in years. I remember reading the play in English class at school. This is really a period piece,tells you a lot about 1961 and not a lot about the war. It is not a bad film but the studio setting really dates it as does the daring for 1961 dialogue. The film,from a play was meant to be realistic depiction of soldiers under pressure but the actors can't use the words soldiers might have used so it feels false watching in 2020. The cast looks good on paper but none of the performances impress me much.

Terrible acting

[antoniobconti · 2/10 · 20 April 2020]

Over acting and a lot of shouting made it an irritating movie...and the set looked like it was in somebody's garage...I thought Lawrence Harvey was supposed to be a good actor

A tense film set in the jungles of Burma

[Tweekums · 8/10 · 23 January 2012]

Most films made in the years after the Second World War focus on the heroism of the Allies as they battle against the odds; always united. This is different; set in the Burmese jungle it follows a patrol were insubordination is rife and there is constant arguing; largely due to Pvt. 'Bammo' Bamforth constantly questioning orders and having a go at the other members of the patrol. They are working with experimental psychological warfare equipment in an area they believe to be far from the Japanese but while sheltering from a shower they capture a Japanese soldier who has become separated from his unit. Now they have a dilemma; do they kill him or risk taking him with them as they try to return to base? Opinions are divided but the Sergeant decides the prisoner will be more useful alive. The situation changes after it becomes clear that the Japanese know where they are. Now the sergeant decides he will have to kill the prisoner who they have dubbed 'Tojo', although he will do it when they get to a more suitable location. The strongest voice against killing Tojo comes from Bamforth and he is determined to protect him; even when it is suggested he may have looted the bodies of British soldiers because he has a cigarette case marked 'Made in Birmingham'. As the film reaches its conclusion the patrol finds itself pinned down by the Japanese; an encounter not all of them will survive.

While I think this was a good film I wouldn't say that I enjoyed it; few of the characters are particularly sympathetic, in fact the only one without obvious character flaws is the prisoner... and he doesn't speak a work of English. The acting was solid and features several well known actors including Richard Todd, Richard Harris and David McCallum. The jungle scenes were more believable than one might expect given that it was filmed at Elstree Studios; I suspect the fact that it is in black and white might help there. With its small cast the claustrophobia of the situation is obvious; it also means everybody is a 'main character' who is there for a reason; we have the bolshie Bamforth, frightened radio operator Whitaker and a corporal who is not only keen that Tojo should be killed but he is determined that he should be the man to do it. If you want to watch a war film that isn't the clichéd group of heroes fighting against the odds then I'd recommend checking this out; just don't expect a feel good ending.

"Harvey Miscast"

[ianandanne · 6/10 · 17 May 2008]

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.

Irritating

[orkneyislander · 1/10 · 7 June 2021]

Zero realism and the portrait of a unit that is bereft of any military sense or discipline.

The scenery obviously fake and the acting over the top.

For a scenario where absolute stealth, minimal noise and reliance on your buddies is required, these clowns shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it.

Irritating shouting and arguing for the length of the movie. Can't understand the good reviews.

Breakdown in discipline

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 28 January 2015]

Looking at this bunch out on patrol in the China/Burma/India theater of World War II I was reminded of what Clark Gable said to Charles Laughton about the impressed seaman on the Bounty, them not being king and country volunteers. Sergeant Richard Todd has his hands full keeping good discipline and order with crew in The Long And The Short And The Tall. Using that British wartime ballad as a title tells about all the different types one gets in the Armed Services.

So it is in this film where Sergeant Richard Todd has a mission which he figures is a light one. Just go out to get background recordings of jungle sounds to be played in real battle to confuse the enemy. But the Japanese are also full of tricks. This patrol is drawn into enemy held area and then the idea is for the British soldiers to get out alive.

Based on a stage play and the stage roots of his project aren't all that well concealed, the patrol captures a Japanese scout. Just his presence among them brings a breakdown in discipline that spells disaster. It is inevitable in war that one does not see the enemy as human. If you did you couldn't kill them. The more popular the war, the more that spreads to the civilian sector.

Standing out among the patrol members are Richard Harris and Laurence Harvey who would dislike each other intensely in civilian life in any event. Harvey in fact has no kind words for anybody. With him it's like is Joe Lampton character from Room At The Top went off to war, most likely drafted.

The Britsh whose island nation was threatened far worse than continental USA have this film as being the first at least I know of to show their fighting men as less than heroes. The film's main weakness is not successful transition to the screen from the stage. But the acting is vivid especially from Todd, Harris, and Harvey.

Swamp rats and bayonets

[tieman64 · 27 September 2013]

"The Long and the Short and the Tall" is a 1961 war drama by director Leslie Norman. Dated and plodding, the film watches as a platoon of British soldiers apprehend a Japanese scout during WW2's Malayan Campaign. The platoon then wrestle over questions of ethics. Some soldiers abuse the prisoner, some want him executed, whilst others rush to his defence. Laurence Harvey, who plays a gruff private, becomes the platoon's voice of conscience.

"Long" was once renowned for its foul language and gritty tone, but such things are passé today. The film's "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" plot ends with a handful of British soldiers captured by the Japanesese, a "shocking" twist which is meant to jolt us into contemplation. This, unfortunately, has little to do with contemporary warfare. Today the shoe is never on the other foot, and it's no longer an issue of populaces failing to "empathise with the enemy", but rather, something far more toxic; the ability of men to rationalise war as something just, necessary and humane, the apathy of populaces, the designed distortion of history and the ability of leaders to remain at a state of perpetual war yet hide such conflicts from prying eyes. The philosophical questions "Long" poses have little bearing upon either modern warfare or WW2 itself. The film costars Richard Harris.

4/10 – Slow and unconvincing. See "The Burmese Harp".

platoon

[happytrigger-64-390517 · 7/10 · 23 September 2018]

This movie was lent to me by a friend who presented it as his favorite war movie of all time. Knowing the fellow, this movie must have some Marks of developped psychological interest. And yes, the story of this lost small platoon in Burma is completely insane, all soldiers and officers just can't stand each other. Instead of fighting the invisible japanese in a cheap studio jungle (minor weakness of the movie), they fight all together : panic, cowardness, insults, racism (between Scottish, Gaellic, English and Japenese). And there's the second weakness of the movie : they musn't shoot at the japenese prisoner to avoid the noise, but they always bark and yell at each other, and that's a tremendous mistake. My favorite character is of course the japanese character, so touching and fragile : the actor has no charism of a star, on the contrary, he looks like a poor devil victim of those british psychic weirdos. I also like David Mac Callum's character, also fragile as a too young and unexperienced radio operator yelled at by his mates.

All the platoon always have to make the right choices but no one gets satisfaction with each other as the main officer fails to impose his authority. Never mind the poor settings, it's a jungle so the paths are very narrow. We have no time to watch the settings as the dialogues are omnipresent, and there are often two faces in the same shot. And with that low budget on settings, Leslie Norman concentrates on the high energy dialogues. I haven't seen any other movie by Leslie Norman but we all know his "Persuaders" episodes.

Thanks again to that friend who tipped me on this movie, he already tipped me on "Yesterday's Ennemy", directed by Val Guest with Stanley Baker, also the story of a platoon in Burma with hard choices to make. thanks for that Mark of distinction.

Great production of the GCSE set text.

[WERZELG · 10/10 · 30 August 1999]

Having read the Willis Hall play with the school. I watched this film and saw that it was like watching the actual characters arguing. This shows how the different characters react to a war situation and this makes the combat scene at the end deeply moving because we get to know the characters as individuals as well as stereotypes. First class drama

Unpopular with the soldiers who fought in Burma

[malcolmgsw · 6/10 · 9 October 2016]

I remember that when this film was released it raised a lot of controversy amongst the soldiers that fought in the Far East.They were upset at their representation as an undisciplined rabble and at the proposition that they would kill an unarmed prisoner of war.There are a number of factors that prevent this becoming a great film.Firstly there is the obvious artificially of the jungle.Those in TV's It ain't half hot look more realistic.Secondly there is the shear theatricality of the performances.Not the usual stiff upper lip type of film.It has all the characters shouting at each other at the top of their voices.The Maps didn't need radio detection.Thirdly there is the performance of Laurence Harvey determined to make sure that everyone knows who is the star of the film.Shame that Peter O Toole didn't get to reprise his stage roll.I was unable to see this on its release as it was an X certificate and I couldn't pass for 16.Difficult to believe this now.

"The Long & The Short & The Tall" aka "Jungle Fighters"

[dontknowifiknowyou · 8/10 · 6 June 2012]

I've not given away the ending, but I do have major elements of the story on this report, although I've not given away the ending of the story.

This movie is more into the behavior of soldiers, under stress and otherwise, and the commonalities they share with their enemies, than anything else. It centers around a squad of PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS (PsyOps) soldiers. They've been sent to the jungle as a sort of advance party with recordings of mechanized vehicles, troops drilling, etc. to scare away any would-be Japanese invaders to that particular island. Unfortunately, two things become apparent in short order, to quote one of the men "the recorded sounds must be loud enough to drown out jungle noises" and in this case they apparently weren't, and second and most important, the Japanese were already on the island. I won't give the remainder of the plot away, but some of it deals with the mistreatment of a captured Japanese soldier and how a member of that squad is later treated by his Japanese captors. Being a veteran of the US Army, and a witness to the many prejudices common to soldiers especially in war-time situations, I found this movie extremely interesting, important, and a must-see for anyone considering enlisting in the military especially for an MOS (military occupational specialty) which will put him or her in close proximity to the enemy-du-jour.

For skeptics, this very tactic was used very successfully by TWO (2) CIA field operatives in the early 1950s against then communist Guatemala. The two CIA operatives, each at the end of a PRC25 radio, so convinced the Guatemalan army that they were the radio operators for entire armed, and numerically superior battalions of men, that they surrendered without a shot being fired. One of CIA's MANY unheralded successes, and a true story.

Flingers on Blonce

[JamesHitchcock · 4/10 · 9 August 2017]

The title "The Long and the Short and the Tall" is taken from the lyrics of "Bless 'Em All", a rather nonsensical soldiers' song from the First World War which enjoyed fresh popularity during the Second. It would appear that the song is not well-known across the Atlantic, as it was released as "Jungle Fighters" in both the USA and Canada.

The action takes place during the Burmese Campaign of 1942. Seven British soldiers on patrol in the jungle capture a Japanese prisoner whom they nickname "Tojo". Much of the action revolves around their arguments over what to do with him. Their commander, Sergeant Mitchem wants to take the prisoner back to headquarters for interrogation. Several others, especially Mitchem's second-in-command Corporal Johnstone, want to kill him, but one man, Private Bamforth, argues strongly that they should spare his life and that killing a prisoner would be a war crime.

The film was based on a stage play by Willis Hall. In the play Bamforth had been played by Peter O'Toole, and the director Leslie Norman (father of the well-known critic Barry) wanted to cast O'Toole in the film as well. The producers, however, wanted to go for a "big name"- apparently O'Toole did not count as such in 1961- and insisted upon Laurence Harvey. This proved to be a mistake, and not only because Harvey quarrelled not only with Norman but also with his co-stars Richard Todd and Richard Harris. Harvey's performance is the main reason why I disliked the film.

In the opening scenes Harvey is not too bad, if you can overlook his rather dodgy Cockney accent. Bamforth is, to put it mildly, a difficult customer. He is the sort of barrack-room lawyer who knows the King's Regulations inside-out except the parts which state that insubordination and disobedience to orders are offences against military discipline. He takes a great delight in baiting his superiors Mitchem and Johnstone, but he does not just have a problem with authority. He has a problem with the rest of the human race, and dislikes his fellow privates as much as he dislikes the NCOs. He makes no effort to conceal his prejudices against people from other parts of Britain- he himself is a Londoner- and his constant taunting of his colleagues Lance-Corporal Macleish (a Scot), Private Evans (a Welshman) and Private Whitaker (a Northerner) is mean-spirited stuff, not mere friendly banter.

The trouble is, Harvey works so hard to establish his character in the audience's mind as a complete bastard that we do not believe him when Bamforth suddenly and unexpectedly emerges as the conscience of the detachment, especially as he originally tries to humiliate Tojo by addressing him in a patronising pidgin English. ("Flingers on Blonce!"- this being how Bamforth imagines the Japanese would pronounce "Fingers on Bonce!" He is evidently unaware that the Japanese have difficulty with pronouncing the letter "L", which does not exist in their language, and certainly would not try to insert it into English words where it does not belong). Now Hall, Norman and Harvey probably intended us to accept Bamforth's attempts to do the decent thing as quite sincerely meant, but I was left with the impression that this was only part of his ongoing campaign against authority and that if the rest of the detachment had wanted to spare Tojo, Bamforth would have voted to kill him.

Of the other actors, the best is probably Harris as Johnstone, a man who finds it difficult to keep his violent emotions under control. Todd was something of a specialist in war films (as were some other British actors of the period, such as John Mills and Kenneth More), but he makes Mitchem a rather anonymous figure and this is not his best performance.

Norman would have preferred to shoot the film on location, but during this period the British film industry rarely had the financial resources to travel abroad for filming, and the jungles of South-East Asia were definitely off-limits. ("Bridge on the River Kwai", although many of its stars were British, was actually an American film). The film, therefore, had to be made in a studio, and it shows. The budget for creating realistic scenery was obviously limited.

Both play and film were controversial when they came out. They were particularly unpopular among British veterans who had fought in Burma, partly because of the implication that British soldiers might kill an unarmed prisoner, but also because the patrol are portrayed as an incompetent and undisciplined rabble. The play was at one time popular as a set text for English Literature O-Levels, although (as with many set texts) this may be a reflection not of its literary merits but of the fact that it is an easy work to write an essay about. I have never seen the play on stage, but then it is rarely performed these days. As for the film, it comes across as very dated today. Its main point of interest is that it represents a move away from the gung-ho, patriotic war films of the fifties towards the more questioning, sceptical world view of the sixties, but it does not represent a very interesting treatment of its theme. 4/10

Human weakness

[oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx · 10/10 · 7 March 2012]

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.

Wholly unconvincing

[ubercommando · 4/10 · 12 April 2004]

A terrific cast and a talked about play does not make for a good big screen adaptation. The stagey sets; trying to make a Burmese jungle in a sound stage, detracts from the procedures and gets in the way of what little action there is.

For me, the biggest problem is one of credibility and this goes back to the play itself. I just don't believe in characters who, under such pressure to escape, would just bicker at each other when the enemy is just around the corner. Maybe that was the point of the play, but it doesn't resonate with truth. Some characters don't want to shoot the Japanese prisoner because it will make too much noise and alert the enemy, but that doesn't stop them from yelling at the top of their voices! No one considers an idea to just tie up the prisoner and leave him behind as they make their escape and they just dawdle for the sake of more dialogue scenes about justice and seniority. The characters have some interesting ambiguities; Harvey is a barrackroom lawyer but has the most tactical nouse, Todd is a hard bitten professional solider but cannot control his section and Harris is the bully who surrenders at the end. But if this is a piece of wartime kitchen sink drama, designed to expose hypocricy in the British army, then it doesn't work. "The Hill" is a far, far better film that deals with these issues.

Claustrophobic and Well-Acted

[richardchatten · 8/10 · 5 February 2018]

The studio sets at Elstree don't convince for a moment, but this soon ceases to matter as you get drawn into the drama; it certainly made me very relieved indeed that I've never had to take part in jungle warfare.

Few actors divide opinion more than Laurence Harvey, and the fact that he took over a part created on the West End stage by Peter O'Toole hasn't helped estimations of this film. But I personally have always found Harvey compulsive viewing, and the fact that he was apparently a pain to work with on the set simply heightens the tension.

Good on the level of a "morality play" but a poor example of military discipline.

[robertguttman · 5/10 · 11 May 2019]

This was obviously written as a morality play about man's inhumanity to man, and it works on that level. However, as an example of military discipline, it is pretty appalling.

The characters are members of a British Army patrol sent into in the jungle in Burma during WW-II. It consists of a Sergeant, a Corporal, a Lance-Corporal, and four Privates. More to the point, it includes one of each of the obligatory British ethnic stereotypes: a professional-soldier Sergeant, an Irishman, a Scotsman, a Welshman, a Geordie, an Australian and a Cockney.

However, what dooms this patrol is not its' ethnic diversity, but the fact that they are all totally incompetent. The Cockney, played by a miscast Lawrence Harvey, is a loud-mouthed wise-guy who constantly antagonizes everybody around him, provoking them into constant arguing. Beyond that, however, is the fact that the two senior noncoms continuously permit him to get away with it. One cannot help wondering why, if they already knew what this character was like, why he should ever have been permitted to accompany a patrol such as this in the first place? Furthermore, one cannot help wondering what the officer was thinking who assembled these particular misfits together, and ordered them into the bush without an officer in charge?

Although they are deep in the Burmese jungle, surrounded by the enemy, these men seem to spend all of their time arguing at the tops of their voices. They literally make more noise than a busted chainsaw. Any Japanese within five miles should have had no trouble finding them. However, to make things easier for the enemy, despite the fact that he is aware that the Japanese are in the vicinity, the Sergeant insists that their radio operator constantly attempt to contact their base by radio. Not surprisingly, the enemy quickly pinpoint their position.

While the Japanese are depicted as quiet, stealthy, well-disciplined and professional, the British are depicted as clumsy, noisy, ill-disciplined and completely incompetent. As I said, I realize that this story is intended to serve as an allegory on man's inhumanity to man, but I simply cannot believe that any British troops could ever possibly be as bad as this lot. If they were, how could they ever have won a war?