I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

This is a watchable British war film, where everyone is appropriately sweaty and greasy, but there are several details that make the film highly unrealistic. The Japanese commander is obviously Chinese. I found that annoying. The entire film had the look of being done in all studio shots; no realism at all. Baker is fine; as is the entire supporting cast. The Asian actors give it their best shot, but only the Japanese assistant is believable. I did like the depiction that the British were no more clever, ethical, or braver than the Japanese; the British always did a much better job of that than Americans ever did (with the exception of Letters From Iwo JIma). All in all, the plot was rather mundane; but did the best it could.

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.

"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

Obviously, TCM's recent showing of this film was an eye-opening experience for many people, as it was for me. The other reviews (with the exception of the one with the historical ax to grind, completely unsubstantiated by the film) express all my own reasons for appreciating the film. The excitement I want to share is this: After 63 years of movie-watching, chancing on a film entirely unknown to me... one that I have never even seen included in anyone's list of "Great War Movies"... that is so well-produced, -acted and -directed... just so damn GOOD. And to have that incredible feeling of DISCOVERY... another prize addition to my "collection" of film-going experiences.And it was gratifying to see Phillip Ahn, so familiar from the 40's, play a key role so effectively.