zst zee War for all those that do not glorify it is true hell. This movie is a document to the above statement; it feels like you are watching a play in a jungle the acting is superb the story tackles moral questions that nowadays dont seem to concern anybodyth about the hypocrisy and the utter futility of war, the fact that the action scenes are very old fashioned makes no difference to the superior quality of this production a must see for all those that want a first hand view into this hypocrisy and futility

GusF One of only four Hammer war films, the film takes place in Burma during World War II and it does not pull any punches. In contrast to many films of the period, it depicts war as a dirty, grimy, immoral affair. Like the "Quatermass" films, "The Abominable Snowman" and "Cash on Demand", it was an adaptation of a BBC TV drama, namely a 1958 TV film of the same name which I presume is now lost. According to "The Hammer Vault", the script of the TV version was based on an actual war crime committed by a British officer in Burma.Stanley Baker is brilliant as Captain Alan Langford, a callous, cruel, unprincipled bastard who orders the murder of two innocent Burmese civilians to convince a Japanese informer that he is serious. He is a very intelligent but that just makes him more dangerous. He completely dismisses any argument that he has done something wrong, claiming that it was necessary for the greater good. Yeah, I seem to have heard something like that before. He also orders that the wounded be left behind so that they will not slow them down. The fact that they elect to stay behind before he can tell them of his decision does not make it any less cold blooded. He does what he does so that his men will survive but that doesn't make it right as he crossed a line which soldiers are not meant to cross. If it had been another time and place, he would have been charged with war crimes but of course the victors in war are never charged with war crimes.Guy Rolfe and Leo McKern are excellent in their respective roles as the Padre and the war correspondent Max, the most vocal opponents of Langford's actions with whom the audience are supposed to sympathise. Max compares Langford's behaviour to the killing of Jews in Germany and the Padre unsuccessfully tries to convince him that there is a difference between killing enemy combatants out of necessity and killing innocent non-combatants. While he does not appear until more than an hour into the film, perhaps the strongest cast member in the film other than Baker is the great Korean-American actor Philip Ahn as Major Yamazuki, Langford's Japanese counterpart. Unlike the more rough and ready Langford, Yamazuki tries to present himself as a gentleman as he appears to be a very cultured man who is unfailingly polite, even saying "please" to his captives when he gives them instructions. However, this is just a veneer. Scrape it away and he is just as cold blooded as Langford, as he demonstrates by his actions. There are two sides of the same coin.The rest of the cast is very strong as well such as Gordon Jackson, Richard Pasco, Wolfe Morris, David Lodge, Percy Herbert and, in a very early role, Burt Kwouk. Jackson and Kwouk reprised their roles from the TV version, incidentally. One thing that I liked about the film was that, with the exception of Morris as the informer, all of the Burmese and Japanese characters were played by actors of East or Southeast Asian descent. This adds to the realism of the film, as does the fact that the Japanese and Burmese characters speak their own languages among themselves. The writing by Peter R. Newman is extremely strong and Val Guest's direction is top notch. The film was shot entirely in a studio and this can be seen from the fairly unconvincing backdrops but the jungle, village and forest sets are very convincing.Overall, this is an excellent and powerful anti-war film. While war may give rise to acts of heroism, it is most certainly not an heroic business and the film does not hesitate to point this out, albeit in a comparatively subtle manner.

Spikeopath "When You Go home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For Your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today"There's a school of thought in film world that all war films are anti-war films, some, however, are the definition of such and are cream of the crop. Yesterday's Enemy is one such picture.Out of Hammer Films, it's directed by Val Guest and written by Peter R. Newman. It stars Stanley Baker, Gordon Jackson, Guy Rolfe, Leo McKern and Philip Ahn. Story has the surviving members of a British Army Brigade holing up in a Burmese jungle village, where Captain Langford (Baker) happens upon a map that could prove critical to operations involving the Japanese forces in the area. Unable to get clarity from a potential traitor, Langford must make decisions that will outrage those in his quarters, but could well be for the greater good of the war effort. All while the Japanese are advancing on the village.There is no music here, this is purely a sweaty black and white piece that booms with literary class. These men caught in a claustrophobic crossfire of moral quandaries, faiths and life altering judgements. Complex issues are brilliantly handled by Guest and his superb cast, with ace cinematographer Arthur Grant (shooting in MegaScope) completely making a mockery of the stage bound production to make real a Burmese jungle village. Come the sobering finale the realisation dawns that this was a bold movie for its time, pushing the boundaries of 1950s war movies. It's a must see film for anyone interested in the real side of that famous saying, war is indeed hell. 9/10

Theo Robertson On the surface this is just another war film set in the Far East involving the Occidental fighting the Oriental . The fact that it was produced by Hammer Films probably isn't a great omen either but before watching I came on to the trivia of this site to find to Stanley Baker regarded it as one of his best films . It also has the distinction of being written by Peter R Newman who wrote the 1964 DOCTOR WHO story The Sensorites who also wrote YESTERDAY'S ENEMY originally as a television play for the BBC . This film , the teleplay and his contribution for DOCTOR WHO are his only writing credits . He gave up his career as a writer and worked as a hotel porter till his death in an accident in 1975 This is a slightly different take on the war is hell theme . Baker plays Captain Langford who is leading a patrol of men cut off behind Japanese lines in the Burmese jungle . What becomes very clear long before the halfway point in the movie is that things aren't going to work out nicely for Langford's section . This is a bit more than simple heroic brave white soldiers overcoming the Japs and surviving towards a happy ending What sets it apart from its peers in the 1950s war genre is how it blurs the lines between good and bad . Of course since 1959 when this film was released we have seen a glut of films such as APOCALYPSE NOW and PLATOON where the morality of carrying out certain acts in war are heavily questioned as being for the greater good but this would be a relatively new concept in the war genre . What's the difference between native villagers being shot by the British or the Japanese ? Is there one ? What's the difference between killing civilians being shot by soldiers on the ground or by pilots up the sky ? Is there one ? It's left to the audience to answer these questions in their own minds Where the film falls down slightly is when Langford and his surviving men become prisoners of the Japanese . It's a little bit too convenient and obvious that the events seen in the latter half of the film perfectly mirror those seen in the earlier half and where the tables are now turned 360 degrees , not enough to ruin the film but the first half where Langford has to take practical steps which may or may not be war crimes in that era is probably better than the second half . As Baker pointed out at the time the lack of budget where it's obvious that it's filmed on a sound stage also gives the movie a slightly cheap feel One last point while watching this film in 2013 that needs pointing out is the background of the Second World War . What would be viewed as murder or breaking the rules of war today were somewhat more flexible back then . Rightly if Langford committed some of the acts in a village in Afghanistan today he would face a charge of murder but probably not so back in 1942 in a Burmese village . That said the whole point of the film wants to put the audience in the combat boots of Langford and this is does admirably