Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

swojtak First off, actually filming in the Khyber Pass was really interesting especially considering the history and the current events. The acting was all right and nothing special. However, like a John Ford movie, the scenery and location are the real actors. To film where the actual events took place was a real thrill. The whole British military experience was also a thrill. Even though a reviewer mentioned the uniforms were not accurate for the period, I thought they were great. To see the training and what they went through was also a thrill. Although, some scenes shown, the men were using a Mauser bolt action type of rifle I do not think was accurate. I thought they used Martini Henry rifles but I could be wrong. I did see some bolt action Enfield rifles too. The battle scene was the most exciting. It showed a camel being used to take a wounded officer back (you will see what I mean). Then to see the soldiers using camels and mules to transport cannons and other weapons that were taken apart and transported on mule back. They showed cannons in pieces on the backs of the animals and then the men, who were military trained, take the cannons, assemble them, load, and actually shoot them. Some scenes the cannons fired and no recoil but some were loaded, fired, and then the cannons recoiled and almost flip over. This was the real thing. When I say assemble, I mean, the cannon barrels were in two pieces, then screwed together and a band in the middle tightened down with a big screw. The wheels put on, the men readied it to fire and then fired. To me, skip the first half and just watch the battle scene and you will be amazed.

esmondj This is our old friend the Bengal Lancers movie. Hero in disgrace, redeems himself by saving the honour of the regiment. Unlike most of the genre (The Charge of the Light Brigade, The Four Feathers, etc) this one is actually set in India or nearby for the most part. Peter Lawford is too weak for the lead; Richard Greene slightly too fruity, as always, for the second banana; and I don't know how Janice Rule got a gig as the English girlfriend, although she wears her best corset and a stunning Victorian ballgown trimmed with flowers at the bodice. Overall it's a fun example of the genre, and the battle scenes at the end, shot in the real Khyber Pass somehow, are alone worth the price of admission, giving you some idea of strategy & tactics, not just the usual hand to hand biffing.

RanchoTuVu After an officer is drummed out of one of the brigades of the British empire for being accused of and then convicted of selling secrets to Russian agents, he joins a different brigade and eventually winds up having to deal with his accusers and the real culprits, everything being shifted from London to a remote part of India where an insurgency is being stoked by the Russians. The similarity to what is happening today in Afghanistan makes this rather intriguing, though the best parts occur in London before the action shifts to India. Peter Lawford was an original Rat Pack member (with Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., etc..), and even if this film is pre Rat Pack, with this film you can see why he'd later fit in so well in Las Vegas. Even as he's being officially kicked out of his elite brigade in front of all the assembled ranks, which is one of the films better parts, he still looks like he could care less. On the lam in London for escaping from the civilian police, he gets a job as a bartender in a rundown section of town and listens in on and then butts into a conversation as a sergeant is busy trying to pick up on a supposedly loose woman. Lawford's character is socially above them, but due to the circumstances he's now at the bottom of the social ladder in civilian society. When he joins another regiment he comes in as a private, yet through it all this guy has undeniable class and a saving sense of humor. The film itself isn't half bad, as Lawford's character finds out who actually did sell those military secrets. His character's eventual reinstatement into his rightful place in the military and society is a foregone conclusion. The battle scenes are filmed on location (in Southern California?), and aren't that impressive. What's more impressive is what the Russians do to the real culprit in another scene which is the most intense in a film that lacks, for the most part, intensity.

John Seal Peter Lawford is set up by Russian spies, accused of treason, and drummed out of the British Army on the Northwest Frontier in this well made if implausible MGM programmer. So what does our dapper hero do? He shaves off his ridiculous moustache, of course, and joins up again, just in time to put the kibosh on the Tsar's plot. Rogue's March is an intriguing picture that will have viewers considering the current historical situation. Shot on location in and around India's Khyber Pass, the film portrays the Great Game struggle for control of Afghanistan, a struggle that was reignited in the late twentieth century and resulted in the rise of the Taliban and all that followed. The location footage and action sequences are extremely well shot, making up for the film's many inadequacies in other departments, and it would be fascinating to learn how MGM got access to the region and why it decided to shoot a second feature half way around the world. Worth a look for action fans.