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.

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.

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