l_rawjalaurence Let's get the obvious out of the way: George Stevens's film contains many of the orientalist tropes that characterized many of the Hollywood India epics of the Thirties: a hero (Sam Jaffe) in blackface, an unashamedly imperialist message positing the British as the saviors of civilized India against the threat of the Thugs led by the Guru (Eduardo Ciannelli), and a celebration of the British virtues of friendship and loyalty as personified by the American Douglas Fairbanks jnr, and the English-born Victor McLaglen and Cary Grant.On the other hand the film must be looked at in context as a fundamentally American story of the frontier wrapped up in a British fictional form. The Indian forces whoop and charge just like the Native Indians - as represented in Westerns of that time - and the Californian locations (standing in for India) remind us of more recent US history and the need for the settlers to protect their lands (the fact that they stole it off the Native Indians in the first place being conveniently forgotten). GUNGA DIN follows in a venerable tradition of films of similar subject-matter produced by most of the major Hollywood studios, including CLIVE OF India (MGM, 1935), LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER (Paramount, 1935), and WEE WILLIE WINKIE (20th Century-Fox 1937), also starring McLaglen.In historical terms GUNGA DIN can also be approached as a warning against the evils of Fascism and dictatorship as personified by the Thugs, who are prepared to fight dirty at all costs to secure their aim of ruling the whole of India. It is only due to Gunga Din's selfless act of devotion to the British in alerting the troops as to the Thugs' plans that the colonial army is actually saved.In structural terms, George Stevens's film contains everything - plenty of swash and buckle at the beginning and end, some moments of pure comedy involving Grant, McLaglen and the luckless Sergeant Higginbottom (Robert Coote), a brief love-interest sequence with Fairbanks and a youthful Joan Fontaine, not to mention an inspiring end where Rudyard Kipling (Reginald Sheffield) crawls out of the tent canvas to pen the famous poem that provides the inspiration for the entire work. In short, there is something for just about everyone here.

Gregory Horoski Truly a shame! This film not to be in the top 250 is criminal.Film history will record this as a glorious combination of epic proportion and love story. Even the love story includes traditional and siblings in arms.If I were to create a syllabus for film history class this picture would be included for certain.Though nearly eighty years old this premise is in a 2015 relevant form. Religious zealots killing for killing sake. Historical yet timely.Kipling was the most powerful poet I have ever read.As good as it gets. Enjoy

SnoopyStyle In the frontiers of colonial India, British troops are attacked and a British outpost at Tantrapur is lost. British troops led by sergeants MacChesney (Victor McLaglen), Cutter (Cary Grant), and Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) are sent to investigate. They encounter an abandoned town except some of the rebels stay to ambush the troops. Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) is the regimental water boy who wants to be a real soldier. Soon the men and their local troops are surrounded.It's an old fashion war movie akin to cowboys and indians movie. One guy can take out six with only fisticuffs. It's good ole blow-em-up action adventure. It's the kind of movie where Cary Grant can have a bit of fun in between some action scenes. It's rip roaring fun but a bit dated.

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.