JohnHowardReid A Hammer Film, released in the U.K. by Warner-Pathé (9 August 1965), in the U.S.A. by Columbia (May 1966). Registered: May 1965. "U" certificate. Copyright 1 July 1965 by Hammer Film Productions. Australian release through Warner Bros: 13 October 1967. 7,319 feet. 81 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Lieutenant Case, a half-caste officer in the Bengal Lancers, runs up against racial prejudice when he returns from a mission in which his colleague, Captain Connelly, was captured by rebel Gilzhai tribesmen; accused of having abandoned Connelly because he coveted the latter's wife Elsa, he is sentenced by Colonel Drewe to ignominious discharge. Furious at the injustice, especially as Elsa refuses to believe his innocence, Case throws in his lot with the Gilzhai leader, Eli Khan, and trains his warriors for an attack on the British. However, he is horrified by Eli Khan's barbarous treatment of his prisoners.NOTES: Produced at Associated British Studios, Elstree, England.COMMENT: A significant proportion of this film is made up of footage from Terence Young's "Zarak" — which is marvelous stuff. On the other hand, "The Brigand of Kandahar" itself is awful. The sets look hideously cheap, the direction is barely competent and the script dull.Most of the acting is of a similar low standard, although Reed, Lamont and Miss Romain make valiant efforts. Production values are virtually nil and entertainment is, at best, slight.

GusF It's not on the same level as Hammer's best adventure films such as "A Challenge for Robin Hood", "The Devil-Ship Pirates" and their previous East India Company film "The Stranglers of Bombay" but it's great fun. Based on its title, I had assumed that the film took place in Afghanistan during the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842) but it actually takes place in India in 1850. The protagonist is Robert Case, a half-Indian lieutenant in the service of the East India Company who is convicted of cowardice under dubious circumstances and joins a group of Indian rebels. The film has a good plot and the characters are strong. I liked the fact that both Colonel Drewe and the rebel Ali Khan were presented as being brutal leaders. Neither side was whiter than white so there is a real sense that Case is conflicted, which I appreciated.Neither Ronald Lewis, who appeared in one of Hammer's best films "Taste of Fear", nor Oliver Reed, in his final Hammer film, make very convincing Indians / Anglo-Indians but they're both very compelling in their respective roles as Case and Ali Khan. The film also has nice appearances in major supporting roles by Duncan Lamont in one of his biggest Hammer roles, Glyn Houston (a much better actor than his elder brother Donald) and Yvonne Romain (another unconvincing Indian but never mind). The weakest link in the cast is Inigo Jackson but he is only in the film for its first half. I'm assuming that Hammer regular Marne Maitland, who was actually Indian, was not in the film because he was busy since he would obviously have been a perfect fit, hence why he had a major role in "The Stranglers of Bombay". It's quite funny considering that he was cast as a particularly unconvincing Chinese man in "The Terror of the Tongs".In contrast to the exotic locations of bigger budget Hammer adventure films such as "She" (which was shot in Israel) and "One Million Years B.C." (which was shot in Lanzarote), this film was shot in rural England and the attempts to pass it off as India are fairly unconvincing. It's a little distracting, to be honest. John Gilling is a good director but he's no Terence Fisher and I don't think that action scenes were really his forte as the ones here aren't up to much. The film loses its momentum a little in its second half, even though it is only 77 minutes long.

malcolmgsw This is an extremely curious film from Hammer.They did look to diversify from their Hammer horrors and this is one of the results.The plot seems quite strange and very muddled.What is more it is difficult to take seriously.Normally in an adventure film you know which side to support.However in this film it is difficult to know who is worse.The Army comes out of it just as badly as the warring tribes.Also here we have a film as late as 1967 where it was thought not to be a problem having a white European actor putting on make up to play an Asian character.The plot revolves around the fact that Lewis is discharged from the army and imprisoned on very circumstantial evidence and racial prejudice.I have to say that "Carry On Up The Khyber" is a far better film and a lot more fun too.

bkoganbing Half King Of The Khyber Rifles, half Duel In The Sun, The Brigand of Kandahar doesn't come close to being as good as those other two classics.Mixed race British army officer Ronald Lewis comes home without another officer with whom he was out on a scouting expedition. Colonel Duncan Lamont doesn't believe that he had to flee to give his report and charges him with cowardice. The racism involved here is rather obvious, but Lewis is still drummed out of the service. While in jail the agents of charismatic Afghan tribal leader Oliver Reed free Lewis and he joins Reed's tribe to make war on the British. Lewis also has an eye for Yvonne Romain who is Reed's sexy sister. From what we know now and we know plenty more since 9/11 about Moslem culture, sisters of charismatic would be Mahdis don't walk around in the sexy outfits Romain wears accenting some really mountainous chest construction. Lewis was also kanoodling with Katharine Woodville the wife of the officer he allegedly deserted. The final battle scenes are staged nicely with an ending totally ripped off from Duel In The Sun.Recent events have both dated this film and made it somewhat amusing. Oliver Reed is always interesting even in mediocrity. But unless you're an Oliver Reed fan or like size 36 and up, The Brigand Of Kandahar really isn't for you.