This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

After a week of nearly trudging through this dry wartime drama about the attack on the British naval ship, the Amethyst, I have come to realize that what occurred on this ship – in real life – was probably more entertaining than this. Sure, the ship was grounded, shot upon first, and escaped heroically in the dark, but were 113 minutes without any true character development necessary? The question is posed, not just because of random modern day war stories (character driven, historically inaccurate action films), but because this film itself seemed aggressively made, though poorly created. The premise was convincing. The history was in place. The unknown was defined, yet it seemed to drag from one frame to the next. The intensity of the scenes was too thin, causing an apathetic feeling to befall this group of heroic sailors (from an audience perspective). It wasn't until our third act, when finally something happened, that we were caught back into what these men had to endure. "Yangtze Incident" is a copious war film, demonstrating real ships in action and an unknown "Dr. Who" for the time, but perhaps it was the direction of one Michael Anderson, or my lack of knowledge about this moment in history, but it just felt bland. There was no real thrill or danger in this film, and it distracted from the soul of the situation.What did work in "Yangtze Incident"? For me seeing those ships in acting, watching a slice of another country's involvement in WWII, and the cleverness of the officers to use their minds instead of guns to solve the situations at hand that created a decent film experience. It was when we slipped away from these great points that we lost focus with the film. "Yangtze Incident" wasn't bad, it just wasn't constructed well. When the Amethyst is first attacked, we spend nearly twenty minutes with stock footage with random inserts of the crew reacting to the obvious staged shots. Without warning, the ship is stopped and continued to be fired upon – Anderson, the director, may have been trying to give the audience the same feeling as the crew (the unanswered question as to why this cleared ship was fired upon) – but there wasn't anything connecting the incident to real life. From the opening shots, one knows that this is a film – a recreation of sorts, and the British Hollywood isn't afraid to keep it glossed over. It lacks that reality, or grittiness, that these heroes surely faced while abandoned in the middle of this river. The black and white cinematography does its best for the scenes, but the transfer watched was pathetic. The night scenes were too dark and I finally emerged just as happy to see the sunset as the crew was. Stronger lighting would have helped see that final moment of tension and fear.Both Richard Todd and William Hartnell do as well as possible with the light characters given. Todd keeps a sense of superiority to himself, while Hartnell continues to be the hard-working deckhand with a heart of gold. The scene in which he tries to make the girl smile is both heartwarming and the only chance we get to see the true nature of these men. My final issue with this film is the lack of focus on the heroes. These men did go through quite a bit to bring their boat to safety, and to see many of them regarded as secondary – it just felt shameful. I wanted to know these people, their lives, their histories, their mannerisms – but nothing but cardboard was decided.As historians, this is a film that needs to be watched. As a fan of classic foreign cinema, this was a difficult battle to win (no pun intended). "Yangtze Incident" felt slow, it felt shallow, and it was exciting – boring – and darkly exciting again. There was substance there, but it was unused throughout by both the director and the cinematographer. The horrible acting by Akim Tamiroff as a Chinese colonel was embarrassing. I cannot suggest this film to anyone. It was worth the singular viewing, but aside from that – it brought nothing new than history to the table. This was a film full of potential, lacking vision and dedication.Grade: ** out of *****

For the past 50 years the film Yangtze Incident, has demeaned the real and yet unrecognised heroes of the first major incident of conflict from the ending of the second world war. Also regardless of the titles that have been appended to this particular film, the real and original title that was intended for the production; i.e.,(The Sitting Duck)would have been more appropriate were the truth known.Shortly I hope to correct the overall situation on the website; http://www.thehmsconsort.co.uk Sincerely,William Leitch.

I was privileged to meet Lt Cdr Kerans at the "Schoolboys Exhibition" at Olympia in 1950.He was at a stand got up as part of HMS Amethyst and was patiently signing autographs for a large number of small boys like myself wearing school caps and blazers.The air was full of phrases like "I say,how wizard!" and all of us vowed to join the navy at the earliest opportunity.In a world as far away morally,socially and spiritually from today as the Regency,Lt Cdr Kerans was a figure to be held in awe.As he smiled and spoke a few words to me I knew,even at that early age,that I was in the presence of an inspirational man. Just a year earlier his ship - engaged in an entirely lawful peacetime mission -had come under heavy bombardment from Communist Chinese forces on the River Yangste.The courage and leadership he displayed during this incident earned him respect and praise throughout the West. In a Britain that had not yet learned to hate its own history and traditions there was a huge interest in the Amethyst and a movie was an obvious possibility;the only surprise was that it took six more years before it was made.Fortunately the wait was worthwhile. Mr Richard Todd was cast as Kerans,a role he slipped into as well as he had that of Guy Gibson.He was a man whose service in the Parachute Regt. had taught him a lot about the military mind,about making decisions that can cost lives,and it shows.His is a career that is not much remembered nowadays - which is an injustice. The Yangtse Incident itself is largely forgotten.China,they say,will be the new America.In our haste to ingratiate ourselves we forget events as recent as Tiananmen Square let alone an unprovoked attack on a British naval vessel nearly sixty years ago.When we watch the movie,history takes on flesh and blood,no longer hidden away on yellowing newspages.When the last of 1950's eager schoolboys passes on to the big tuckshop in the sky there will only be this movie to remind people of the bravery of Lt Cdr Kerans and his crew at a time when it might be politic to airbrush them from history.

Brtiain during the 1950's (when it had an thriving film industry) produced a plethora of fine war films, usually in black and white which gave a documentary feel about them and added to the realism and usually used only British actors (When made in colour and Cinemascope and usually with an imported US star they felt more contrived- The Bridge on the River Kwai excepted) Many have gone on to become classics like Ice Cold in Alex, The Dam Busters, The Cruel Sea and Reach For The Sky.Yangtze Incident, the true story of the attack on HMS Amethyst by the Communist forces in China in 1949 is also one of the better ones and a bit unjustly forgotten about. It reunited Richard Todd with his Dam Busters helmer Michael Anderson and was produced by Herbert Wilcox (husband of Anna Neagle) shortly before he went bankrupt. The upper lips of the cast has never been stiffer but the heroics are natural and never overdone and the action scenes are tremendously exciting and all the better for using real and actual ships (The Battle of the River Plate for this reason is such a disappointment because the ships used bore little or no resemblance to the actual ones (exept one the INS Delhi is the actual HMS Achillies), especially the American heavy cruiser portraying the part of the Graf Spee}The acting of the cast is uniformly (sic!) excellent with Richard Todd giving once again a low key but nevertheless authoritative performance( he Jack Hawkins and Kenneth More seem to have the monopoly on this type of role)All in all a good film the king they don't make any more and a pleasant and relaxing way to while a way a couple of hours on a cold wet miserable Sunday afternoon.