Review by planktonrules

I have never understood why so many films came out in the United States which extolled the virtues of British colonial rule. After all, didn't the USA at one time fight the Brits for independence as well?!! Despite this, from the 1930s-50s, a ton of American films portrayed this colonialism as a good thing...with all sorts of heroes in the lead. I guess with "The Bandit of Zhobe", this made a bit more sense as the movie was made by Brits...though why the insane choice was made to cast Victor Mature as an Indian is beyond me. He just didn't look the least bit like an Indian. Here, we are expected to believe he is the bandit, Kasim Khan!!

Shortly after the story begins, the British want to bring in Kasim for questioning. He's innocent and is about to go with them when one of Khan's loyal men creates a diversion...and Khan escapes. During his absence his family is murdered and Khan assumes it was done by the British. He then goes on to form a band of rebels who threaten the peace and British rule.

So is this any good? Well, not especially. Despite a few colorful scenes, the film is pretty dull and Mature seems very willing to take a paycheck for a lackluster performance and film.

The most surprising thing about this movie is that only three years before, Victor Mature (in another great casting decision) plays an Afghani man and the plots are incredibly similar. Watch "Zarak" and you will see what I mean.