Sete Contra a Selva

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.

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.

"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".

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.

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.