Rogue's March (1953) User Reviews

Interesting plot and good Lawford performance

[reve-2 · 7/10 · 29 April 2000]

This unusual film stars a young and dapper Peter Lawford. As I started to watch the film I doubted that I would like it because I have never been a big Lawford fan. But, to my pleasant surprise, the combination of an interesting story line and an exceptional performance by Lawford made it a most enjoyable experience for me. The plot has Lawford, a British officer, framed as a traitor who has sold military secrets to the Russians who are backing insurgents in India. He is ceremoniously publicly humiliated and drummed out of the service. After that he is scheduled to go on trial in a civil court but he escapes and gets back into the service by using a fake name. He spends the remainder of the film trying to get back his good name and see that justice is done. There are excellent battlefield scenes in this film. I think that you will enjoy this "sleeper" of a movie.

An old friend

[esmondj · 6/10 · 16 April 2015]

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.

An Unsung Classic Tale of The Great Game

[oldcontemptible · 7/10 · 11 September 2005]

I saw Rogue's March this weekend, and it is indeed an unsung classic tale of The Great Game. Peter Lawford stars as a young Captain of the Royal Midland Fusiliers whose life and career are turned upside down as he is framed for treason. He makes his way to the Northwest Frontier to ultimately set things right. Some have branded this movie as a "poor man's Four Feathers, and I could understand someone calling this movie a British Branded. But there's more to this movie than that. While this film lacks much of the complexity of The Four Feathers, it redeems itself with its intrigue and action. The manner in which the Russians set our protagonist up is pretty interesting, and the battle scenes are superb. For someone like me, who thinks there are too few movies with pith helmets in the prop department, this was a treat.

Interesting idea but mediocre results

[vandino1 · 6 November 2006]

This film does have an interesting set-up but never takes full advantage of it. There's nothing clever about the beginning, wherein British Fusilier Captain Lawford is court martialed for being a Russian spy and imprisoned, but things get intriguing when he escapes and joins the military again, inspired by the idea that it would be the last place the authorities would be expected to look for him. Now an enlisted man, he has to hide his abilities and keep a low profile, but circumstances put his masquerade in jeopardy. If written properly, this could be an effective and suspenseful story, but not so here. The film goes off into a simplistic hero-redeemed thread that seems more concerned with using MGM's access to the real Khyber Pass in Afghanistan than with the complications of Lawford's plight. A pity. But for fans of British Colonial War movies this one does have a fairly well-done and believable action climax. How the producer coaxed MGM into shooting on location in Afghanistan is the only interesting question regarding this movie. Or maybe one more: how did Lawford's character escape from military prison? We never see this and it's never explained. Just another potentially suspenseful scene not taken advantaged of by the filmmakers.

Lawford? He's handsome, tanned and sports a fine moustache, but he was never leading man material and proves it again here. He's too reticent an actor; there's little energy or passion visible from him. The role is that of a man wrongly and ruinously convicted who must submerge himself in a lower (military) station, then rise up and redeem himself when occasion demands it. A role requiring a mix of outrage and tightly-coiled intensity. Not the role for a dapper "cocktails anyone?" kind of smooth lounge loafer. Lawford is directed to treat all this as if slightly disturbed from missing a dinner engagement.

Richard Greene, in the second lead, is far better suited to Lawford's role, but alas, he gets The Other Hero role: the one that doesn't get the girl and gets saved by the Big Hero (Lawford). Janice Rule and Leo G. Carroll pop up here and there, and Sean McClory as Lawford's likable enlisted buddy is more enjoyable than anybody else, but disappears before the film even gets to its big action climax. And John Abbott is one of the top-billed actors, yet he disappears early on. Then again, not much should really be expected considering the film is scored by studio hack Alberto Colombo, written by the mediocre Leon Gordon (this being his last movie) and helmed by an inconsequential English television director named Allan Davis.

easygoing spy film

[RanchoTuVu · 7/10 · 1 September 2011]

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.

Routine Rehash of "The Four Feathers"

[zardoz-13 · 6/10 · 24 March 2018]

The last film on Peter Lawford's contract at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, director Allan Davis' "Rogue's March" amounts to a lightweight rehash of Zoltan Korda's classic "The Four Feathers" (1939) with John Clements. Despite an end credits thanks to India for allowing MGM to lense scenes in the Khyber Pass, most of this black & white epic was shot at the studio and at Vasquez Rocks in Southern California. Only the grain on the film betrays the fact that footage from the Errol Flynn adventure film "Kim" (1950) was used. A stellar cast, including Richard Greene, Janice Rule, Leo G. Carroll, Michael Pate, Sean McClory, Hayden Rorke, John Lupton, and Sidney Lawford, surround Peter Lawford. Mind you, it is routine from fade in to fadeout, but this 84-minute escapade depicts the court-martial of Captain Dion Lenbridge (Peter Lawford of "Sergeants 3") just as the Royal Midlands Fusiliers has been ordered to leave for action on the Afghan-Indian border. The military convict Lenbridge of selling secrets to the Russians, strip him of his rank, boot him out of the army, and prepare to try him in civil court. Lenbridge gives his minders the slip and re-enlists in another regiment. All of this comes at a particularly distressful time because Lenbridge had proposed marriage to Jane Wensley (Janice Rule of "Alvarez Kelly"). Although it qualifies as a potboiler, "Rogue's March" is a tolerably entertaining endeavor with a crisp Peter Lawford performance. Too bad it wasn't shot in color to take advantage of all those beautiful British uniforms.

ordinary war time piece

[ksf-2 · 6/10 · 16 March 2018]

Sure, it's a little dated... it's already a period piece. Peter Lawford is "Captain Lenbridge", framed by a spy. He had just proposed to his girl, but all that is put on hold, and off to jail he goes. He re-enlists under a different name, and tries to make good. Lots of military action, planning and plotting. This one is very okay. Nothing too special. According to the card at the very end, this actually was filmed at the Khyber Pass, although it seems like going to an awful lot of trouble for a pretty ordinary scene. This one was made about halfway through Lawford's career. Directed by british Allan Davis. Looks like this was the first film he had directed. It's good, but not great. Shown now and then on Turner Classic.

Rogue's March

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 9 November 2023]

This has shades of the "Four Feathers' story to it as "Lenbridge" (Peter Lawford) is drummed out of his regiment after being accused of stealing top secret documents. It's made all the worse by the fact that it's his colonel father (Leo G. Carroll) who has to oversee this disgrace. He is also to face charges of high treason, but absconds and sets off for India where he hopes to clear his name and restore the family honour. The story itself is quite a solid British Raj adventure, but director Allan Davis really does turn it into a bit of a drudge. There's a bit of action towards the conclusion but otherwise it treads the line between adventure film and romance just a little to clumsily - and slowly - for my liking. Regarding that latter part of the plot, we must rely on the underwhelming Janice Rule ("Jane") who really rather simpers her way through the scenes as the story begins to falter. I like this kind of boy's own style of story - so probably give it a little more credit than it deserves, but neither Richard Greene nor the wonderfully expressive Skelton Knaggs can make this sow's ear into a silk purse. It's a perfectly watchable tale of espionage and subterfuge, but equally forgettable too.

Passable adventure

[JohnSeal · 4/10 · 14 September 2005]

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.

Lawford's charm can't save this one

[frankfob · 4/10 · 7 September 2013]

---SPOILER---

In this period picture set in the Indian "raj" in the mid-1800s, Peter Lawford is a British army officer framed for espionage by Russian spies and drummed out of the army. He escapes from the police on his way to prison and makes his way to India to gather evidence to clear himself, a task he figures to accomplish by enlisting in the army under a different name. A variation on the old "Four Feathers" story, this low-budgeter from MGM can't make up its mind whether it's a thriller (Lawford trying to clear his name and find the real spies) or an action picture (the British fighting rebellious Afghan tribesmen in the Khyber Pass) and doesn't really succeed at either--you know that Lawford's going to clear himself (he does) and that the British army will win the day (they do). There's some odd casting (Janice Rule is Lawford's British sweetheart but doesn't even try to hide her American accent, Australian actor Michael Pate plays a Cockney soldier with a laughably exaggerated Cockney accent, American actor Richard Hale--who often played Indian chiefs in westerns--plays a Russian spymaster in the same kind of chopped, singsong manner in which he played Indians), and the picture overall is stiff and mechanical; a burst of action at the end isn't particularly well done (although it was filmed on location at the Khyber Pass and uses hundreds of extras), and even Lawford's charm, good looks and way with a line can't really save it.

It's a bit better than most of the innumerable period "action" clunkers Sam Katzman was churning out at Columbia--several of them with the same setting as this picture--at around the same time, but that's about all that can be said for it.

Good stuff

[SanteeFats · 8/10 · 7 September 2013]

Made in 1953 when Hollywood ruled. This film has some aspects of the movie Four Feathers. There is the wronged soldier (Peter Lawford) dismissed from the service, sentenced to civilian custody where he some how escapes. What I thought was a nice twist was when Lawford enlists in another outfit. He ends up serving in India where his original unit is there and in trouble. He distinguishes himself and with the capture of a Russian scum sucking agent is cleared of the original charges and while it is not actually shown I assume returned to his former station in the military. I really liked the scenes with the mules carrying the mountain artillery and when the gun crews start setting it up. That is not shown very often especially in older movies where they are more interested in the main characters and the action scenes. I also really liked seeing Leo G. Carroll as the commander of the units involved, he usually got supporting roles of a lesser tier than in this film or as a comedic element in a movie.

The real Khyber Pass

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 14 March 2018]

Kudos to MGM for actually filming this story in actual locations that it happens. We see the real Khyber Pass here. Unfortunately it's attached to a story that is a combination of the Four Feathers and the Dreyfuss Affair.

Peter Lawford stars in Rogue's March as a brilliant staff officer in the war office looking for some real combat assignment in India with his father Leo G. Carroll, colonel of the old regiment. But he gets nicely set up in an espionage charge by the Russians and is cashiered from the army.

What Lawford does is re-enlist as a private under an alias and gets shipped to India to find out who set him up and to clear his name. Also to clear it with Janice Rule another child of a military family who was going to marry him.

In the Fifties Russians were certainly popular villains even before the Communists took over. They're actually getting to be again currently. Always scheming, always subverting. Of course what the British were doing in India themselves is a question not answered.

Richard Greene is in it as Lawford's rival for Rule. But he helps out his comrade in the best stiff upper lip tradition.

Well it's a chance to see the fabled Khyber Pass.

Really Interesting especially the battle scene and the weapons and material.

[swojtak · 8/10 · 15 March 2018]

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.

A Poor Man's Attempt at "Four Feathers"

[theowinthrop · 5 June 2004]

There is a minor genre connected to war films of "proving" or "redeeming" films: Where the hero is branded coward or traitor and has to try to show he's been wronged. The best examples of these are the original FOUR FEATHERS (1939) and THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA (1938)[about the Dreyfus Case]. ROUGUES MARCH (1953) is a poor cousin of the other films, as it chronicles Peter Lawford's attempts to show he was framed for treason in India. The best moment in the film is when the actual traitor (John Abbott) is drowned by his Russian agent associates. The climax is when Lawford, after he has gotten his proof and presents it to his commanding officer is informed by that officer that the British Army knew the charges were false to begin with. That gives you a pretty good idea of the value of this film. Oh, as the commanding officer is Leo G. Carroll, perhaps you can see his performance here as a preperation for his U.S. spymaster handling Cary Grant in NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959).