Les Étrangleurs de Bombay

There's no getting around the Imperialist/Colonialist undertones in this one, only made worse by the various video guides which claim it is based on "actual events." It isn't quite as bad as Fu Manchu to the Chinese, but I suspect many Indians would find this pretty inaccurate and offensive. Still, looked at as a horror movie, it is pretty fun, and it seems to include more explicit depictions of violence even than other Hammer films of the time – perhaps the claim of historical authenticity made it easier to get away with gore in England at this time. I particularly enjoyed George Pastell's performance, similar in many ways to the one he gave in the previous year's adaptation of "the Mummy." The various tensions among the British colonial officers also add a nice touch, and the direction and cinematography are top-notch, as awkward as the material sometimes gets.

I saw this for the first time recently cos Thugs of Hindustan aroused my interest in the Thugee cult. While Thugs of Hindustan is more of an action, adventure n comedy film, Stranglers of Bombay is a horror film.

Captain Lewis of the British East India Company, is investigating why a large number of natives are missing. Lewis believes an organized cult group is robbing n killing people. The cult is headed by a godman (George Pastel). The film has lots of strangulation scenes, a nasty eye piercing scene (fans of Fulci rejoice), a snake n a mongoose fight, a glimpse of a tiger n most of all a very horrifying truth. The Britishers eradicated the worst horror, Sati n gave us Indians education but our recent politicians r taking us n our country back to the medieval era with the kinda lynching prevailing in India.

The Stranglers of Bombay was made by Hammer in 1960 and I found this quite good. It is rather violent for its time.

A series of rather gruesome murders in India turn out to be the work of a religious cult, known as the Stranglers. These people kill just for fun and they enjoy it. A British soldier based over there investigates these killings and nearly becomes a victim himself, but a mongoose appears and killing one of these animals is one of the Stranglers' tabu's. The leader of the Stranglers is killed at the end, along with most of the other members.

The cast includes Guy Rolfe (Mr Sardonicus), Jan Holden, Andrew Cruickshank, George Pastell, Allan Cuthbertson and Roger Delgado (First Man Into Space). Good parts from all.

The Stranglers of Bombay is worth checking out, especially if you are a fan of Hammer.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

If the British did accomplish one good thing in India it was getting rid of the strangling cult Thugee. It took years to eradicate them and there are some who would say they've not been completely eradicated. But if India had been another planet and the British were operating under the Prime Directive it would have made for some interesting history.

As it was this particular film, The Stranglers Of Bombay takes place in the early part of the 18th century when India was ruled not by the crown directly, but through the British East India Company. The soldiers you see report to them in London and the idea of course is take care of whatever is slowing down company profits.

Guy Rolfe who has played some really nasty villains in such films as Ivanhoe, Taras Bulba, and King Of The Khyber Rifles is a time serving captain in their army who has spent twenty years in India and is rather steeped in their culture. He's the right man for finding out what's at the bottom of a lot of mysterious disappearances, but Colonel Andrew Cruickshank selects the arrogant and fatuous Allan Cuthbertson, newly arrived in India for the job. Kind of dumb, but if he had given Rolfe a free hand we wouldn't have had much of a film.

Classic movie fans recall Eduardo Ciannelli as the Guru of the Thugs in Gunga Din who had some really ambitious goals for followers. The head of the cult here is far more local and a man not quite of Ciannelli's vision of eradicating the British and sweeping the world for Kali.

There were some plot holes in the script or otherwise I would have given The Stranglers Of Bombay a higher rating. Still it was an unusual subject for Hammer films, no unworldly demons or monsters to deal with, just some very human villainy.

The closing title card of this lesser-known title from Hammer's back catalogue reads "if we have done nothing else for India, we have done this one good thing." Referring to the British East India Company's governance over India for over a hundred years, The Stranglers of Bombay depicts the disappearance of thousands of India's population at the hands of the 'Thugees', an organised gang of murderers and thieves who operated relatively undetected for more than 600 years, and how their operations were eventually brought to an end. It is a subject that would no doubt be handled more delicately if tackled today, and I'm sure that those sensitive to modern PC standards may be somewhat offended by the film, but Stranglers is well-balanced and ultimately apologetic for the Company's occupation, finding a positive note in what was a barbaric time.

Captain Harry Lewis (Guy Rolfe) of the East India Company is the only person interested in the reports of over a thousand disappearances, attempting to bring the mystery to the attention of his superiors. However, Colonel Henderson (Andrew Cruickshank) is more concerned with solving the mystery of how English merchants' caravans are similarly disappearing without a trace. To get Lewis off his back, Henderson agrees to an investigation, but opts to hand the reigns to the inexperienced and pompous Captain Connaught-Smith (Allan Cuthbertson). Frustrated at Connaught-Smith's bungling and the general disdain he has for the Indian people, Lewis quits the Company to carry out his own inquiry, and uncovers a murderous cult who make sacrifices in the name of their god, Kali. Led by the High Priest of Kali (George Pastell), the gang's influence goes all the way to the very top, which is how they have managed to remain in the shadows for centuries.

The Stranglers of Bombay is low on horror but higher on adventure. The violence is implied rather than shown, but the film doesn't shy away from their grotesque acts. Eyes and tongues are removed, but most are garrotted with a ceremonial silk scarf. It's off-camera, but nevertheless effective. When the action is away from the thugees, the story plays out more like a period detective thriller, as Lewis plunges himself deeper into this secret world while the population denies the group's very existence. It's no surprise then to learn that frequent Hammer collaborator Terence Fisher is behind the camera, who would always shoot efficiently and make his films appear more expensive than they actually were. The absence of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing is almost always felt when watching a Hammer horror, but leading man Guy Rolfe proves to be a perfectly watchable leading man, earning our sympathy as the one decent white man in a company of incompetent and uncaring fellow officers. While more attention could have been given to the suffering of the Indian people, the film's heart is certainly in the right place, making it one of Hammer's most interesting, while not their most thrilling, entries into the genre.