Ein anachronistischer strenger Regimentsfeldwebel, der sich in einer abgelegenen kolonialen afrikanischen Armee befindet, die bei einem lokalen Staatsstreich gefangen genommen wurde, muss se... Alles lesenEin anachronistischer strenger Regimentsfeldwebel, der sich in einer abgelegenen kolonialen afrikanischen Armee befindet, die bei einem lokalen Staatsstreich gefangen genommen wurde, muss seine Erfahrung nutzen, um die ihm anvertrauten Personen zu verteidigen.Ein anachronistischer strenger Regimentsfeldwebel, der sich in einer abgelegenen kolonialen afrikanischen Armee befindet, die bei einem lokalen Staatsstreich gefangen genommen wurde, muss seine Erfahrung nutzen, um die ihm anvertrauten Personen zu verteidigen.
- 1 BAFTA Award gewonnen
- 2 Gewinne & 2 Nominierungen insgesamt
Empfohlene Bewertungen
The film is set in Africa in one of the nations that is still a member of the Commonwealth--though it has achieved the distinction of finally having its own government. However, like so many nascent African nations, it's unstable--and soon after the film begins there is a coup and the government topples. The problem is that a group of British soldiers are stationed there and the new leaders want the Brits to give up their weapons as well as surrender a man to them. But, the tough-as-nails Sergeant Major isn't about to do either of these unless he has a direct order to do so. And, it doesn't matter if there is a know-it-all member of Parliament (Flora Robson) telling him to do this--she is not his superior officer and he is not about to break the chain of command.
As I said, it's a very tense little film. You may not appreciate the Brit-focus (after all, they were a Colonial nation until just before the film took place) nor casting an unnecessary sex interest (why include this--isn't there enough action already--plus who stops to have sex when they are facing what appears to be certain death?!). I could look past these things and just saw it as a darn fine action-adventure film. Worth seeing.
Over the top? Yes... a little...but show me a TRUE RSM who isn't. Such men really existed... and they were a source of inspiration, guidance and customs and traditions for many.
Well done by Sir Richard.
From what I've heard, he spent a year preparing for this role by understudying real RSMs at the RSM-prep school in Sandhurst.
I've used this film as a training aid when teaching leadership to young soldiers - and I continue to enjoy it today.
The film stands squarely on Richard Attenborough's pitch-perfect performance as a Regimental Sergeant Major - the performance of a lifetime, especially when you consider that Attenborough is the complete opposite of the character he plays in this film - in reality he's soft-spoken and unassuming, yet the character he's playing is not at all those things. To say that this role was a stretch somehow doesn't do the performance justice - Attenborough literally becomes the RSM, and every moment he's on screen is incredible. Some reviewers assume that his performance is over-the-top, but I can assure everyone that British NCOs do act like this - or at least they did in the 1960s - I had the honour of knowing one of them.
Not that Attenborough is doing it all alone - the other performances are perfect too, as is the direction. The fact that the film was made in a studio in England makes you realise what a great job a truly great crew can do for a film - there's no way you'd think this movie wasn't made in Africa.
Altogether a fantastic movie - probably the best new film (new to me anyway) I've seen in the last two years. This blows everything else out of the water.
Oh, and for those worried that it's a war film - definitely not. It's a drama set in a military barracks, but psychological drama is what we have here, and unlike a lot of those kinds of films this one has a heart and a sense of humour. Don't miss this one!
Or maybe it's because the first time I saw it I did not expect much from it, but Guns at Batasi lept to the top of my all-time favorites list the first time I saw it.
It stays there no matter how many times I see it.
It's hokey, it's overdone and it's certainly low-budget. But it does have a sterling cast of British character actors, and it has several powerful scenes and Attenborough is magnificent as the sergeant-major. A great character study.
Here's a man, who has dedicated his entire adult life to a code, a way of life. It's all he knows, it's all he wants and in this one incident everything he has ever stood for or worked for it tested and threatened.
The sergeant major, despite what you might think of the military is a man of honor and courage. He's the kind of guy you would want on your side no matter what.
If you have not seen this movie. Find it, see it. Give it a chance. I think you will like. A definite thumbs up.
It's a splendid character study of a British Army Regimental Sergeant Major set in an absorbing - and rather accurately prophetic - plot of a post-colonial African revolution.
After Richard Attenborough, properly dominant as the thoroughly professional, no-nonsense Regimental Sergeant Major, the almost uniformly solid casting gives us nice turns by the four sergeants, Leyton as Pte. Wilkes, Flora Robson as the gullible MP keen to believe her ilk's pie-in-the-sky Marxisant p.c. propaganda, Errol John as the African rebel officer, and the always splendid Jack Hawkins as Lt. Col. Deal (an apt name considering the part his character fulfils in the story). Teenaged Mia Farrow has a small role (her first in cinema, I think) as a events-stranded UN secretary who shares a mutual lust interest with Leyton's Pte. Wilkes (Farrow's scenes were re-shoots owing to the originally-cast Britt Ekland's desertion from the filming to fly to her then-paramour Peter Sellers' side while he was working in the U.S.). The writing is very good and, as I said, prescient in view of the continuing undeserved credibility placed in chiefly venal Third World leaders by Western politicians, media, and p.c. types; Guillermin's direction is sure-handed; and production design and cinematography - some very good B&W work here aided by capable lighting - are a cut or two above workmanlike.
Though shot entirely at England's Pinewood Studios on a rather low budget, the strong script and fine acting raise 'Guns At Batasi' to the level of a minor classic well worth appreciating.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesBritt Ekland had been cast as Karen Eriksson but pulled out three weeks into production. She had just married Peter Sellers who apparently was so jealous of her casting alongside John Leyton that he asked his actor friends David Lodge and Graham Stark who were also in the cast, to secretly spy on her. After being frequently quizzed on the telephone by Sellers about the shooting and who she acted with, Ekland left the Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire, and joined Sellers in Los Angeles. 20th Century-Fox sued Ekland for $1.5 million; Sellers counter-sued for $4 million claiming the Fox suit caused him "mental distress and injury to his health".
- PatzerThe personal weapon used by the British is the Sterling sub machine gun which replaced the Sten in the British Army in 1953. This weapon is held with the left hand on the barrel and never the magazine or housing. Holding the magazine is a throwback to its predecessor, the Sten. The experienced senior members of the Mess are holding it incorrectly whilst the most inexperienced among them (Private Wilkes) holds it correctly and naturally.
- Zitate
RSM Lauderdale: Will you stick a boomerang in that great Aussie cakehole of yours until I've finished?
- VerbindungenFeatured in Film Review: Richard Attenborough (1968)
Top-Auswahl
- How long is Guns at Batasi?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Guns at Batasi
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 43 Minuten
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39 : 1