Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

dfwesley Here is another great one from the year 1939. I saw it growing up and loved it, and have seen it since several times and still am fascinated. Grant, Fairbanks Jr., and McLaglin, as sergeants Cutter, Balantine, and McChesney, provide all the necessary action and comedy needed to engross any viewer.To me, three outstanding comedic bits were trying to feed the reluctant elephant in the stall, the drunk scene between Grant and McLaglin when Grant is decked, and at the punch bowl where Robert Coote imbibes the potent stuff and drops like a rock. The efforts to prevent Fairbanks Jr. from resigning are also hilarious.I also remember the hideous pit of snakes that Sgt.McChesney (McLaglin) is almost cast into. Instead, the evil Eduardo Cianelli jumps in.Sam Jaffe (Gunga Din) steals the show at the end by his bugle call alerting the unsuspecting British column to the ambush. He gives a touching performance throughout.A battle at the beginning and a major one at the end, provide plenty of action. Even more excitement occurs when the three sergeants are captured by the Thugees.A classic that all adventure lovers should see.

secondtake Gunga Din (1939)A movie with a roaring reputation, but I had trouble getting past its corny humor, and even past its fake British superiority in the wilds of Pakistan.It does have Cary Grant in it just when his career is reaching true stardom. And it has a young Joan Fontaine, who will blossom the next year in Hitchcock's "Rebecca." (The two will star two years later in the Hitchcock film, "Suspicion," as well.) The pair, however, barely cross paths in the filming.The big theme here is how the British are cleverly controlling a tribal area of Northwest India (now Pakistan) where the natives are obviously naive and superstitious and the Brits are so good at being good they can joke and be idiots along the way. It's all in fun on some level, a lighthearted adaptation of the epic poem by British poet Rudyard Kipling.There were actually attempts at a better film originally—William Faulkner began on the script before it ended up in Hecht's able hands, and Howard Hawks was lined up to direct. There are echoes here (good ones) of true screwball comedies, and the transplanted zany humor, mixed with overlong battle scenes and genuine imperialist camp, is weird. But all of this is if you take it seriously one bit. As a vehicle for some gags and some playful rivalry between a bunch of likable guys on the eve of World War II it fares pretty well. For me the humor ebbed and flowed (it might depend on your age and your background), but the overall arc of events was sometimes grand and fictionally dreamlike. I imagine what early explorers felt coming on beautiful remote lands and the people living there, but having no intention of understanding them, just seeing them (and employing them, literally). By the end, it doesn't add up. Even the lionizing of the title character, a local who sides with the British in their battles, is a bit hard to swallow. Certainly the evil guru and his murderous minions is offputting with his face painted to look dark. And the empathies for the three main characters are thrown in the air by their antics, their obviously silly military exploits, and by a kind of loyalty to their stuffy superiors that flies in the face of good logic, even in the sanitized reality of this film.So, Cary and Joan are in my personal pantheon, and I love this period of movies. Even so I couldn't enjoy this movie very well. You might know your tastes and can dive in accordingly.

LeonLouisRicci There is a lot to forgive in this hugely popular Movie, especially among those who saw it as young Boys. But it hardly stand up as a newly viewed Film today. It is another of those that has to be seen with blind reverence. British Colonialism was nothing more than an attempt at World domination while oppressing People and destroying cultures. So it is quite a stretch to view this all with a light Heart.But all that aside, as a Movie this has moments of grandeur but at times is quite a clumsy affair. With its unnecessary sped-up Action Scenes it detracts from some of the wide open wonder and immense battle set-ups.The ending does have quite an amount of Pathos. The final battle at the Temple is a reversal unlike the previous slapstick battles and is quite Dramatic. Overall this is overrated, and dated, but just entertaining enough as a throwback to an era of some pretty shallow renditions of some pretty deep subjects.

writers_reign I'm guessing that back in the day movies that were just Boy's Own Paper in celluloid form were highly popular. Time sure hasn't been kind to this example and it's almost impossible to detect any traces of a George Stevens 'touch', in fact this effort could have been directed by any half competent journeyman. Only in Hollywood would they cast an Italian actor who specialized in Mafiosi type gangsters (Eduardo Cianelli) as not only an Indian but the leader of the Thuggee cult. This is essentially Sergeants Three with trumpets so we get the usual 'knockabout' fun/rivalry between three sergeants in the Raj; oh, look, Ma, aren't they Scamps. Inevitably they have to get in real trouble along about Reel #8 and just as inevitably get themselves out of it and in passing save the regiment from being massacred. You want it? Take it, with my blessing.