La patrouille égarée

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.

A group of soldiers are in the jungle recording sounds and testing levels for sonic warfare to be tried out on the Japanese at a later date. However, when radio operator private Whitaker can only pick up Japanese signals on his radio, he surmises that they must be within 15 miles of a Japanese camp.

Tensions between the soldiers are raised as they start to protect themselves and plan to withdraw back to base – plans that change when they capture a lone Japanese soldier on patrol. As they debate what to do, the true characters of the men start to come out.

I came to this thinking that this would be a low-key war movie and, in a way, I was right but it is less about war than it is about the true nature of its characters. In this way it is almost better described as social realism set in the Burmese jungle rather than anything else. The plot moves quite slowly and some modern audiences will likely struggle with the lack of fireworks in terms of acting and action for the majority of the running time but for my money I appreciated that the film took its time and developed broad characters only to then dismantle them when they are under pressure. In some regards the film isn't logical as it is more likely that the soldiers would have fled once the enemy closed in as opposed to fighting, but the play simply takes the struggle in all our souls and puts it into several different men, all making sense but not all making moral sense. It broods for a while but the point is there, building to a fine ending where the fireworks are supplied. The fact that the whole issue of treatment of POW's has come up yet again in Iraq (albeit more torture than necessity) ensures this film is still relevant but, even without the POW issue, the debate over morals and the question of 'what would you do' makes it interesting enough.

The film feels a bit stagy due to the material and limitations of the time and budget but more due to the fact that this is a play. As a play, the material serves the actors well and they rise to meet it. Their performances are roundly strong even if they occasionally overplay it as if they were projecting to the back of a theatre where they really should have used the intimacy of cinema a bit better. Laurence Harvey is powerful in the plum role of Bamforth, the man who is anti-establishment etc but turns out to be the moral core of the group, Harris has a small role but is quality throughout. Todd has the most difficult role and manages it well even if he is given fewer acting 'high points' than some of the others. Support is good and everyone has their character, including good performances from McCallum, Ronald Fraser and the less well-known Meillon and Rees.

Overall this is a dated, stagy film that may put off modern audiences unable to handle its slow pace and lack of action (for a war movie!) but this was an intelligent and interesting play and it has been put on the screen well. It is heavily cut of language and content due to the period it was made but this doesn't matter too much as it keeps the moral debate, with the men representing the various thoughts and impulses in all of us. It doesn't have a firm conclusion but to me that was part of its strength – with issues of some moral complexity there are rarely definite answers or solutions.

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.

A great film which I had not watched for twenty years or so.But what really struck me was Lawrence Harvey's terrible accent.What was it supposed to be? I think it was on a par with Dick Van Dyke's in Mary Poppins.Some actors can move effortlessly between upper class and working class and be totally believable but in this case it almost ruined the film for me.It was a little "stagey" I agree and I think it could have been much better if the actors had swapped their parts around in a couple of cases.I would like to see a new version put onto film with a really good cast of contemporary actors and maybe shot on location.

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.