Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

Leofwine_draca While Hammer Studios produced some fairly able historical adventures in the early 1960s - titles such as the serviceable FURY AT SMUGGLER'S BAY and THE DEVIL-SHIP PIRATES - they also made their fair share of stinkers, of which THE BRIGAND OF KANDAHAR is probably the worst. This is an entirely stodgy costume adventure, made on a low budget and with a script which feels like it was rushed out in a hurry.The story is cheap and carries some distinctly colonial racial overtones, not least in the presence of anti-hero Ronald Lewis, blacked-up as a half-caste for his role. Lewis must be the singular most obnoxious heroic character in a Hammer film, a guy who I actually despised throughout much of the running time; were we really supposed to feel sorry for him after he swapped allegiances like that?Elsewhere, it's sub-ZULU antics throughout, enlivened by a handful of larger-scale battle sequences which employ some dodgy back projection which saps them of realism. Once again Hammer has an eye for a distinguished supporting cast, but most of them are wasted here; the only ones who come out of it well are Duncan Lamont and Katherine Woodville. Oliver Reed is cast as the bad guy but I feel he would have made a much more compelling protagonist. In any case, this is as dull as dishwater and one of Hammer's weakest efforts.

Jonathon Dabell Although mainly remembered for its horror output, the Hammer film company occasionally dipped its toes into other genres such as science fiction and historical swashbucklers. The Brigand Of Kandahar is one of these historical pieces… and a rather shoddy one at that. Hammer regular John Gilling is the writer and director responsible for this feeble colonial adventure pic – it's hard to believe that he had already made Shadow Of The Cat and The Pirates Of Blood River (two much stronger entries in the Hammer canon), and was a year away from releasing The Reptile and The Plague Of The Zombies (two of the most fondly remembered Hammer films of the 60s). Gilling hits a real low-point with The Brigand Of Kandahar; it is one of the studio's weakest productions. Hardly surprising, then, that it has faded into obscurity and is now all-but forgotten.At Fort Kandahar, half-caste officer Robert Case (Ronald Lewis) returns from a reconnaissance mission with news that his companion Captain Connelly (Jeremy Burnham) has been captured and probably killed by tribal bandits. The commander of the fort, Colonel Drewe (Duncan Lamont), is angered that Case didn't go back to help his stricken companion and his fury is fuelled further when he learns that Case has been having an affair with Connelly's wife, Elsa (Katherine Woodville). Suspicions mount amongst the officers that Case may have deliberately allowed the capture of Connelly in order to "clear the way" for his illicit romance with Elsa. Case is arrested and found guilty on a trumped-up charge of cowardice. He escapes from his cell and flees into the hills, where he joins up with the local bandits, led by the mad and violent Eli Khan (Oliver Reed). From here, he plans to have revenge against the British officers that have poisoned his name and reputation…The Brigand Of Kandahar could have been much better than it is. The character of Case fights back against evil-doers by doing more evil – this makes him a rare and unusual figure in these types of film, an anti-hero some might say, or perhaps the "good guy" simply by virtue of being less villainous than everyone around him. It should make for interesting viewing, but the part is boringly written and played with little enthusiasm by the miscast Lewis. Oliver Reed shows plenty of enthusiasm as the bandit leader, but his pantomime villainy and deranged cackling rapidly wears thin. The only actor to emerge from this debacle with dignity intact is Duncan Lamont as the ruthless Colonel Drewe – how ironic that Lamont gives perhaps his best performance in a Hammer movie in the worst one he ever appeared in! The story itself is strictly routine, with nothing whatsoever to get excited about, while the budgetary restrictions mean that the whole film has a horribly studio-bound appearance which only adds to the overall dispiritedness. One for completists, perhaps, but The Brigand Of Kandahar offers nothing for anyone else.

dinky-4 Even those with a fondness for those "Northwest Frontier" movies set in the British Raj of the 1800's will probably be disappointed by this minor, unpersuasive, and somewhat uncharacteristic entry from Hammer Films. The costumes have that clean, new look -- as if they just came from a rental shop -- and the handful of sets are too tidy and well-lit to be anything other than studio creations. Even the rocks have a fiberglass look. More troubling than the film's skimpy budget, however, is the casting of its main character. He's supposed to be half-English, half-Indian -- one of those chaps who's worked his way up in the ranks of the British Army but who feels he's still regarded with hostility and suspicion by his colleagues. Not only does Ronald Lewis lack the face for this part, (there's nothing at all Indian about him), but he's also short of the darkly-compelling charisma which might make this character "work." He comes across as a provincial English actor who's dressed up in left-over garb from a production of "Kismet." In his defense, however, it must be said that the script gives him little to work with since his character is poorly developed and too often seems simply like the victim of events going on around him.Oliver Reed might have been a better choice for the lead but here he plays the villain -- a rebellious chieftain who's said to be "half-mad." Unfortunately, this gives him license to indulge in some theatrical behavior which is more embarrassing than enlivening.At one point a captured British soldier is whipped by the rebels but even this sure-fire scene is too poorly staged to arouse much interest. (Why didn't the rebels tear the soldier's shirt all the way off? Didn't they take Flogging 101?)