In World War I, British-officer Michael Andrews is captured by a band of Kurdish raiders on the Eastern Front, and is rescued by a man calling himself John Stevenson, although he refuses to... See full summary »
In World War I, British-officer Michael Andrews is captured by a band of Kurdish raiders on the Eastern Front, and is rescued by a man calling himself John Stevenson, although he refuses to tell his name to Andrews. The two men form a strange friendship, and help save an entire Kurdish village from a massacre and also avert a surprise attack on the British army-unit stationed there. Andrews suffers a wounded leg and is sent to the British military-hospital in Cairo. He falls in love with a nurse, Rosemary Haydon, and she with him, but she is married although she has not seen nor heard from her husband in over three years. It is at this point that the man who saved Andrews' life turns up to claim his wife, who is Rosemary. The latter bids adieu to Andrews who does not know that the man he considers his best friend is also the husband of the woman he loves. But, by pure coincidence and chance, both Andrews and Rosemary's husband come face-to-face again in a remote garrison that is under... Written by
Les Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
One of over 700 Paramount Productions, filmed between 1929 and 1949, which were sold to MCA/Universal in 1958 for television distribution, and have been owned and controlled by Universal ever since. See more »
An underrated little film about the efforts of the British Army to protect the British Empire in Kurdistan, THE LAST OUTPOST depicts the friendship that is formed between two soldiers (Cary Grant and Claude Rains) as they help native refugees to safety. Their bond soon comes under the ultimate test as they vie for the love of the same woman (Gertrude Michael). This film is extremely predictable, but Grant and Rains develop a unique and genuine on-screen chemistry that infuses much of the picture with a invaluable sense urgency and interest. The film is marred somewhat by the sloppy incorporation of woefully inconsistent stock footage (which looks to be of a completely different stock and shot at a different speed) into various moments, which is often distracting, but fortunately does not undermine the picture as a whole.
9 of 11 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?