Storm Over the Nile (1955) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Workmanlike remake of The Four Feathers
lorenellroy19 December 2006
This is a remake of the classic 1930' s movie The Four Feathers ,with directorial chores being split between Terence Young ( soon to be a James Bond helmsman) and Zoltan Korda ,whose brother Alexander produced the earlier version The movie is faithful both to the earlier picture and the source novel by A E W Mason .It tells how Harry Faversham is unjustly accused of cowardice when resigning his commission in the British army on the eve of the war in the Sudan against the Mahdi (For a fuller cinema treatment of the conflict see the Heston -Olivier picture "Khartoum ") 3 of his friends and his fiancée hand him white feathers ,emblematic of cowardice .Faversham disappears from London society and travels to Africa and disguises himself as a native ,in which role he comes to the aid of one of his accusers

Their is a slightly cheapskate air about the production whose battle scenes are largely taken from footage shot for the earlier movie .The acting is pretty wooden -espaecially from Anthony as Faversham and Laurence Harvey as his chief accuser .The peppy cameo from James Robertson Justice as a crusty old general adds needed vigour to the acting department as does a pre Hammer movies Christopher Lee as a native tribesman The movie is not downright bad but it lacks the brio and pace that would have lifted it a notch or two higher and overall is competent but slightly plodding
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Deja Vu
Theo Robertson3 August 2005
One Sunday afternoon in 1982 BBC 1 broadcast STORM OVER THE NILE . Nothing remarkable in itself with this scheduling but later that evening the ITV channel broadcast THE FOUR FEATHERS remake from the late 1970s ! Two different versions of the same story broadcast a few hours within each other on the two network channels ! Amazing , and not something that was unnoticed since myself and several school colleagues remarked upon this the next day . We were all in unanimous agreement that STORM OVER THE NILE was the much superior movie . Strangely over the years every time Terence Young's version is broadcast the TV guides don't have kind words for the 1955 film version of AEW Mason's story and after seeing the original 1939 version of THE FOUR FEATHERS I understand why - It's a rip off !

In the past I have criticised movies like CRITICAL MASS and RANGERS that use extensive film footage from other movies like TERMINATOR 2 and NAVY SEALS . With STORM we see the exact same thing . The truly great battle scenes weren't directed by Young they were directed by Zoltan Korda almost 20 years earlier . To be fair I don't think the producers are claiming that this is an entirely original movie hence the credit for both Korda and Young in the directors slot but I did see the 1939 version a week earlier on channel 4 and this spoils the enjoyment of STORM since the script is identical as are most of the action scenes . If you've never seen the original you'll like this movie but if you remember the unforgettable 1939 version by the Korda brothers you'll be left with a cynical feeling watching this
26 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Redundant adaptation of A.E.W. Mason novel about an officer accused of cowardice by his comrades and redeeming himself
ma-cortes21 January 2010
Sweeping new adaptation plenty of idealism ,heroism , friendship , redemption and overwhelming battles. It's a great classical movie of the British imperialism adventure , a genuine ripping yarn picking up several stunning images and with some stirring action taken from the quite better 1939 version . This fifth rendition about known story by A. E. W. Mason concerns a British young officer named Harry Faversham (Anthony Steel). Resigning from Army , he's rejected by his father-in-law (James Robertson Justice) and his engaged fiancée (Mary Ure), branded a coward and sent four white feathers by his friends (Ronald Lewis, Laurence Harvey, Ian Carmichael) . Determined to save his honor he heads to Sudan campaign against Derviches who previously (thirteen years before) had murdered General Gordon in Karthoum. There arrives the expedition of help commanded by General Wolsey and Kitchener for stifle the rebellious Sudan's tribes ruled by 'the Madhdi' , the ¨expected one¨ (events developed in ¨Khartoum¨ film -1966- with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier , directed by Basil Dearden) . The Madhi along with Arab tribes had besieged Khartoum (1884) and vanquished General Gordon . Faversham disguised himself as a native will save his friends from certain death and he will retrieve the lost honors .

This is a spectacular adventure detailing the epic feats of a brave hero, containing noisy action, idealism , romance , unlimited courage , breathtaking battles and impressive landscapes . It's a typically polished British and packs real enthusiasm of the imperialist arrogance along with standard heroic issues . Anthony Steel as stubborn officer is fine , Laurence Harvey as his best friend is convincingly played and Mary Ure as his girlfriend is enjoyable . Special mention for James Roberson Justice as swagger general Burroughs . Solid performances all around and excellent plethora of secondaries as Christopher Lee , Ferdy Mayne , Michael Hordern , Geoffrey Keen , among them . Sensational battle scenes staged by means of thousands of extras , though partially taken from former film directed by Zoltan Korda . Evocative cinematography in superb Technicolor camera-work , showing the late 1800's and sunny African landscapes by two cameramen : Edward Scaife and Osmond Borradaille for exterior photography in Sudan and interior filmed in Shepperton studios . Rousing and impressive musical score by Benjamin Frankel . The motion picture was professionally directed by Zoltan Korda and Terence Young with imagination and fair-play enough .

Other adaptations about this famous story are the following ones : the old and silent renditions filmed in 1915 , 1921 , and 1929 directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack and Merian C. Cooper with Richard Arlen, Fay Wray and Clive Brook ; the classic rendition by Zoltan Korda (1939) with John Clemens , Ralph Richardson and Jane Duprez ; and for TV (1978) by Don Sharp with Beau Bridges , Jane Seymour , Robert Powell and eventually , a modern rendition with Heath Ledger , Kate Hudson , Wes Bentley , and Michael Sheen .
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why did the Korda's bother?
scoopernicus@yahoo.com3 October 2002
A tepid remake of their spectacular 1939 version, one wonders what the Korda's where thinking. Indeed much of the location footage is recycled directly from the 1939 film including the whole final battle, aside from some closeups of the 1955 actors. Mildly entertaining, but the 1939 version is better, much much better.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
In the Land of the Fuzzie-Wuzzies
JoeytheBrit10 April 2010
Being something of a pacifist, Harry Faversham (Anthony Steele) has the misfortune to be born into a staunchly military family with all the expectations of an overbearing father (Michael Hordern) weighing down on his shoulders. Harry toes the line to please his dad, but when the old boy pops his clogs, he swiftly resigns his commission. As a consequence, he receives a white feather (the symbol of cowardice) from each of his best friends (Laurence Harvey, Ronald Lewis, and an out-of-place Ian Carmichael) on the eve of their departure to war in the Sudan. Harry awards himself a symbolic feather on behalf of his fiancée (Mary Ure) whose disappointment is clear. Harry determines to make his former friends take back their feathers, which is the signal for much derring-do to begin (hurrah!).

The tale of the four feathers is the epitome of the schoolboy adventure yarn with heroic soldiers blinded in battle, heroic soldiers captured by the fuzzie-wuzzies (not nice, I can tell you!), heroic cowards braving forehead-branding and boot polish to go deep under cover in darkest Africa, and pompous old boors endlessly recounting their role in the battle of Balaclava back in the Crimean. It should really be boredom-proof, but the sad truth is that this version comes perilously close to inducing that state at times. The film is practically a word-for-word remake of the 1939 version – and even makes scandalously wholesale use of the earlier version's battle scenes – which means it probably came across as a bit staid back in 1955, but looks positively creaky today.

Anthony Steel isn't a particularly convincing hero: at thirty-five he's playing a twenty-five year old who somehow looks forty-five, but the problem is more in the lack of sympathy Steel creates for his character. His Harry Faversham is the sort that sits in the corner and speaks when he's spoken too, and is therefore a little too bland to be a dashing hero, despite his acts of heroism. And exactly what sort of reaction did he expect to receive when he resigned his commission? Doesn't trotting off to the desert to regain his honour in the eyes of his friends and fiancée simply negate the strength of character required to resign in the first place? A young Laurence Harvey fares better as Faversham's upper-crust chum who suffers sun blindness when hiding from the fuzzies, and would arguably have been better suited to the leading man role. Ronald Lewis has practically nothing to do, while Ian Carmichael, on the cusp of his comedy career, comes off as a plummy-voiced twit.

The film isn't awful by any standards, but it really could have benefited from fifteen minutes being pruned from its running time, and a little more fire in young Faversham's belly.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Four Feathers Clone
bkoganbing4 October 2011
If you're going to clone something in Hollywood, clone something good which is what Storm Over The Nile is. It is yet another remake of the famous novel The Four Feathers. The same treatment was afforded Dawn Patrol by Warner Brothers back in the Thirties when the first version with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. was cloned into the second with Errol Flynn.

The script from the classic British production from 1939 was used as well as all the battle sequences. That was a wise thing because in 1939 the British controlled the Sudan and were able to film their action sequences on the very spot where these things occurred back in the late 19th century. Not to mention that it certainly saved big time on the budget.

Anthony Steel plays our protagonist Harry Fevasham who questions his own courage when he's about to be shipped into action in the Sudan. Steel is from a military family and there are reasons of tradition and obligations that force him into that life. His brother officers brand him a coward and send him a white feather as the symbol of same.

Some time later Steel goes to the Sudan and lives as an Arab tribesman and in that role performs some truly heroic feats. Best as always is his saving Laurence Harvey who is one of his accusers who is now blind as a result of prolonged exposure to the desert sun. Harvey's role was done in 1939 by Ralph Richardson.

James Robertson Justice is also in the cast playing a really good John Bull type character. He's the father of Mary Ure who was supposed to marry Steel before his resignation and the feathers. JRJ always adds a lot to any film he's ever in.

The Four Feathers with its story about a man questioning his courage and finding out truly if he has the right stuff is in the British culture very much akin to The Red Badge Of Courage. That has only had one film adaption whereas The Four Feathers has had many. Beau Bridges did one in the Seventies and the late Heath Ledger starred as Harry Fevasham in the latest screen version.

But only the 1939 and 1955 can boast actual on scene location shooting. And unless the Sudan changes radically were not likely to see another.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Two feathers would have been enough
soccermanz14 November 2006
I had the advantage of watching Zoltan Korda's 1939 'The Four Feathers' on one afternoon and this his 'Storm over the Nile' on the next and since there have been at least 5 versions filmed cannot understand why it was not issued as 'The Four Feathers' or more appropriately 'The Two Feathers' as those given to Lieutenants Thomas Willoughby and Peter Burroughs were largely irrelevant to the plot although getting Harry Faversham flogged in the original and just incarcerated in the second ? One could believe John Clements considered himself a Coward but not Anthony Steele. I would cross the street and a few deserts for Mary Ure but not June Duprez- she deserved the far from noble Ralph Richardson but not Laurence Harvey who started off the sequel. Laurence Harvey started off with a reddish brown rat on his forehead which might well have saved him from Retinal damage when his lost his Hat. Indeed it is hard to select a single Actor or Actress who was better in the original and usually considered superior version but that is after we have watched both. As a stand alone Storm over the Nile is both more watchable and allowed Zoltan Korda to clean up several nonsenses from his original. Such as how and why John Durrance became sun blind. Ralph Richardson leading his troops keeping that he was blind a secret. The hovering vultures and other reasons why LH tries more convincingly to shoot himself. How Harry Faversham passed over the so important File and the Mahdi's guards searching them for it. All in all certainly not deserving the criticism - who shouldn't any Director use the same footage twice or shoot an overlong schedule and then divide it into two ? Nobody has to pay to watch any Film or spend the time glued to the telly.
4 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A creaky Pukka Wallah film makes us feel as though we can beat ISIS
jakob1313 February 2016
In our times of seemingly endless war against ISIS and the collapse of the left over scars of European colonialism, and the big game of influence among foreign and regional powers, here's a tonic to brace up sagging spirits and wash away the feeling of gloom and doom and impotence to do anything against Islamic terrorism. 'Storm over the Nile' is a film for you then. A credible remake of 'Four Feathers', it has all the dash and stiff upper lip of those who won wars on the playing fields of Eton, perhaps. We are in the Anglo Egyptian time of the Mahdi the secret imam who has claimed the mantle of the prophet in the Sudan. Already his forces fired up by the tenets of militant Islam had beheaded 'Chinese' Gordon, the British general sent in not by the UK but by Egypt to blunt the Mahdi's thrust and destroy his hold in an age of expanding European land grab in Africa. But he didn't count on Lord Kitchner and the British army and here with Harry Fathersham, receipt of a white feather for cowardice. The film is shot in brilliant color with long and close shots. The costumes are lavish in military and upper class garb. You will see a parade of British stars mostly long forgotten but in the UK and the Commonwealth: Anthony Steele, Maria Ure, Laurence Harvey, James Robertson Justice, Ian Carmichael and Christopher Lee. The atmospherics are there, too. Will you tremble with excitement as the black flag of fundamentalism is lowered and the Union Jack raised/ In any case, it less than two hours of mindless and feel good entertainment.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Harry rowed the boat ashore.
ulicknormanowen26 November 2020
Pleasant remake of a well -known story dealing with cowardice and bravery ; the wide screen and the glittering colors make up for a certain lack of tempo ,particularly in its first part ; Korda who directed "the four feathers" in 1939 is joined by Terence Young who would hit the big time with his Bond movies and his excellent thriller "wait until dark" ;the battle scenes in the desert are effective ;but the best in both versions remains Harry (Anthony Steel) leading a gone blind John (Lawrence Harvey ) through the desert under the blistering sun and then on a felucca on the Nile ;the would be coward's metamorphosis ,from a dressed up to the nines gentleman to a ragged dumb Bedouin is as impressive as in the first version .

Possesses great appeal for adventures film buffs ,mainly if they do not know the black and white version (which is also the remake of a silent movie).
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
War as a kickabout on the Upper Sixpenny before prep.
ianlouisiana16 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Harry Faversham,the Public School Man's Public School Man,together with his whinnying cronies,is the future of his regiment.Handsome,dashing,heavy with hair oil and gleaming of teeth he seems destined to die futilely in battle in the corner of some foreign field that will remain forever England or at least until it's returned to its rightful owners a few years down the line when his remains will be ploughed up and thrown to one side. But HF is not a happy soldier,he only signed on to please his father,and once engaged to the daughter of a retired General he resigns his commission.At the very least he is guilty of not very good timing as his regiment is leaving at dawn for Africa and the assumption of his contemporaries and superiors is that he lacks intestinal fortitude. Anxious to prove his courage(I'm a bit hazy on this point.If he was that anxious to prove his courage it would have been easier to stay in the army)he makes his way to the Sudan (walked,hitch - hiked?I think we should be told)he proceeds to save the lives of his former chums who are undoubtedly the worst officers ever to put on a uniform. They may have ruled the roost at Eton or wherever,but they should have never been let out of their tent on their own. Cue an appalling performance by Mr L Harvey who wanders off into the desert on his own presumably to top up his tan and promptly ends up blinded by the sun.Did you miss that bit at Sandhurst Larry? Just as he is about to blow his brains out(I seriously doubt if he's that good a shot) HF pops up and wrestles the gun from his fingers. Disguised as a Dervish with speaking difficulties (don't ask - it would take too long)he eventually rescues all his old pals from fates worse than death and is reunited with his estranged fiancée.Floreat Etona. My grandfather as a boy read a book called "With Kitchener in The Sudan" which was full of nonsense like this.It inspired him and thousands like him to volunteer for the colours in 1914.He was lucky and worked as a medic on a troopship,but an awful lot of aspiring Harry Favershams were slaughtered wholesale,choked by gas,drowned in the mud or simply blown to bits on bloody battlefields. I can only assume this film was meant to be taken seriously even though by 1955 the Empire it celebrates was long dead.The term "Fuzzy - Wuzzy" was beginning to be frowned upon and only the Guards and Cavalry regiments had many officers like messrs Harvey and Steele. I don't profess to know what purpose was served by the making of "Storm on the Nile".At home the Angry Young Men were stirring,former colonies were ridding themselves of those they saw as their oppressors,the Cold War was under way.Bad times were just around the corner.Perhaps it was a plea for the return of war as a game for Gentlemen. Mr L. Harvey in a rather bizarre scene gets to read a speech by Caliban in braille and proves - if further proof apart from his "Romeo"was needed - that he was one of the biggest hams ever to grace the British Cinema.Mr A.Steele's limitations are cruelly exposed in even such a one - dimensional part as Faversham.The lovely Miss M.Ure is wasted as his fiancée.Only Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Mr.J.Robertson Justice - is worth watching as her father,although his beard greys at rather an alarming rate. You can see the birth pangs of "Zulu" in "Storm on the Nile".If you can truly and honestly say you thought "Zulu" was a great film rather than a film about a great military action then you may find "Storm on the Nile" acceptable.If not,next time it comes on TV pop out to your favourite Indian restaurant and think about how the world has changed whilst drinking your Cobra" and waiting for your takeaway.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The four feathers
greenheart11 September 2005
A lot of critics gave this movie a really hard time. I never read critical reviews until I've seen a film and I must confess that I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Maybe it did use footage from a previous shoot and there were certainly flaws. But all in all, this was a good schoolboy yarn. I liked the lengthy build up to the scenes in Sudan, it really helped set the scene and made you care about the characters. The plot lingered long enough to give the viewer a feel of the longevity of the piece. The plot was well moved along and there was suitable emotion shown. James Robertson Justice so often just barks out his lines and in this movie he....Well, just barked out his lines! A real shame. A small blemish on an otherwise enjoyable movie.
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Don't both if you've seen The Four Feathers
Leofwine_draca30 November 2016
Zoltan Korda's remake of his own FOUR FEATHERS from 1939 drafts in a new director in the form of Terence Young and an all-star cast of British acting faces of the 1950s for a story which is hugely derivative and indeed exactly the same as the earlier tale. Further similarities between the two films are exacerbated by the liberal use of footage stolen from THE FOUR FEATHERS, which is of course the far superior (and bigger budget) film of the two, leaving this somewhat superfluous.

Still, the cast alone salvages this story and makes it worth a watch. The tale is wide-reaching and fast-paced, and thoroughly interesting in its depiction of a long-vanished British Empire and the sway it once held over the known world. I found Anthony Steel a bit staid in the lead role, but the supporting players are very good. Laurence Harvey has the most characterisation and is thus the most interesting, but Ian Carmichael and Ronald Lewis make their mark too. James Robertson Justice is a scene-stealer and the likes of Geoffrey Keen and Michael Hordern add quality while Christopher Lee, Roger Delgado, and Ferdy Mayne don boot polish to play the natives.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
White Man's Burden
tieman6410 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is a review of "Storm over the Nile" (1955), "Khartoum" (1966) and "The Four Feathers" (2002), three films based on British actions during the Mahdist War (1881-1899).

The 19th century saw colonial powers scrambling across Africa. As the British Empire expanded from Southern Africa to the Mediterranean, the Ottomans expanded from Turkey to Northern Africa and the French from West Africa to the Red Sea. All three would converge upon Egypt, which would continually shift hands between the three Empires.

Britain eventually emerged victorious, becoming defacto ruler of Egypt in 1882. Egypt would henceforth become a base for further British expansion southward into Sudan. The Sudanese would attempt to fend off these advances. They'd rally behind Muhammad Ahmad, an Islamic messianic or "Mahdist" figure. Muhammad Ahmad was denounced by Sudanese elites, but embraced as a revolutionary leader by marginalised Nilotic tribes.

Experts at using divide-and-rule tactics, the British divided Sudan into loosely demarcated northern and southern zones. The north became Muslim and Arab dominated and was integrated with the economic networks along the Nile. The south, steeped in poverty, was treated as an "African zone". A cocktail of Muslim, Christian and tribal groups, the south Sudanese were indoctrinated into thinking themselves culturally/biologically distinct and inferior. Promising independence and even salvation (he claimed to be paving the way for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ), Muhammad Ahmad set out to overturn this. Like the countless Christian messianic figures who sprung up as a result of Roman occupation, and a precursor to contemporary Islamic militants, he was the inevitable product of naked Imperialism.

The city of Khartoum straddled northern and southern Sudan. To the North, the British suppressed the slave trade, heavily invested in social, educational and health services, and essentially nurtured a "liberalised" form of Islam. As colonialism recruitment policies favoured educated Arabs, a new socio-economic class was created so as to offer a bulwark against Mahdism and secular nationalism. An ideological bulwark, however, is no match for guns.

In 1884, after a three month siege, Khartoum fell to the Mahdists, who stormed the city and executed British governor-general Charles Gordon. The Empire reacted swiftly. British forces under Herbert Kitchener rolled in and slaughtered tens of thousands of Sudanese. By 1898, most Mahdists were crushed. Sudan henceforth became subject to joint Anglo-Egyptian governance.

Unsurprisingly, the British set out to exacerbate regional, religious and racial divisions amongst the Sudanese. In 1922, in what became known as the "Southern Policy", the Empire declared that southern Sudan would be considered a "Closed District". Islamic proselytisers were banned, Arabic languages and clothing were discouraged, and Christian missionaries were brought in to convert southerners. Meanwhile, southern Arab merchants were relocated to the north and interactions between the peoples of the north and the south were forbidden. Such segregationist policies were designed to keep the south economically backward and foster divisiveness.

Today, little has changed in Sudan. Artificially carved out of a myriad of peoples, with more than 400 ethnic and linguistic groups lumped together within its borders, the country remains ravaged by the divide-and-rule tactics of modern neo-Imperialists. Milking the nation's oil fields and precious metals, the United States, and recently China, have today become expert at funding and arming militias and bloody regimes in both the north and south.

Zoltan Korda would produce and co-direct "Storm Over the Nile" in 1955, a film based on "The Four Feathers", a 1902 novel by Alfred Mason. The plot? Refusing to sail with his regiment to the Sudan, Harry Faversham (Anthony Steel), the cowardly scion of a military family, overcomes his disgrace by travelling to Africa. Here he helps his regiment defeat Sudanese forces. As with many Imperialist adventures, the film glorifies queen and country, assumes the rightness of British rule, romanticises colonialism and posits loyalty and responsibility to the ruling classes as the highest ideal. Though stiff and dull in places, the film boasts several impressive action sequences, filmed in expansive Cinemascope.

The 1950s/60s saw the release of numerous films which attempted to rejuvenate British nationalism and which were determined to white-wash the realities of colonialism ("Zulu", "North West Frontier", "Khartoum", "55 Days at Peking", "The Black Tent" etc). Supercharged by the civil rights and independence movements of the 1950s-60s, such perspectives were slowly contested ("Gandhi", "Guns at Batasi", "Burn!", "The Man Who Would Be King", "Passage to India" etc), eventually giving rise to the latest adaptation of "The Four Feathers", a 2002 film which was so politically correct as to be ridiculous.

Directed by Shekhar Kapur, "The Four Feathers" (2002) tells virtually the same story as "Storm over the Nile". Here actor Heath Ledger plays Harry Faversham, who is no longer a "coward" but a man of conscience who has "ethical objections to colonialism". Harry travels to Sudan, where he befriends and fights alongside Africans and where he teaches us to question nationalism, exceptionalism and pride. Dull and conventionally shot, the film's attempts at "rectifying" its source material are mostly hokey. In some ways it is even more racist than Korda's film, Africans reduced to props, whole cultures reduced to ridiculous musical choices and second-hand "exotic" signifiers.

Released in 1966, and directed by Basil Dearden, "Khartoum" stars Charlton Heston as Charles Gordon, a British General sent to Sudan to battle Muhammad Ahmad (Lawrence Olivier). Gordon valiantly defends a fortress in Kartoum, but is eventually overrun.

By having its heroes outnumbered, like cowboys surrounded by hordes of manic Indians, "Khartoum" manoeuvres its audience into siding with colonialists. Elsewhere it uses Gordon's demise to criticise political leaders who refuse to rally behind valiant troops. Heston, who spent the decade battling hordes of on-screen "savages", is himself a caricature of British bravery, whilst Ahmad never rises above the level of black-faced bogeyman. Still, "Kartoum" has its merits. Impeccably shot, tense, filled with impressive battles and awesome landscapes, it remains the best of a certain brand of 1950s/60s, pro-Imperialist adventure.

5/10 - Worth one viewing.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Goof - Incorrect Flag
theenglishmaster1 May 2015
In addition to the re-use of old stock footage there was an error in the scenes after he returned his blind companion to the camp. They showed a troop flying a flag that was no longer used after 1867 and this event was set in 1898. The flag shown was a crescent with 1 star, this may have been either the Ottoman Egypt or the Egyptian Eyalet. The subsequent flag, Mohammed Ali, not the boxer, was 3 crescents each with 1 star and was used from 1881 until 1914, by the Khedivate, from 1914 until 1922 it was also used by the Sultanate of Egypt. After 1922 the green flag with 1 crescent and 1 star was used by the Kingdom of Egypt. There was no separate flag of Sudan until independence, from Egypt and Britain, in 1956.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Laurence Harvey version of 'The Four Feathers' is neither the worst nor the best but still excellent.
clanciai21 July 2017
It's impossible to make a bad film out of this story, and that is one of the reasons it has been filmed so many times. Since each version is good in its own way, it's also interesting to compare them with each other. The 1939 version is still the most spectacular and impressing but also the most superficial. The Beau Bridges version as Harry Fasversham is the weakest one, but for Robert Powell as Jack Durrance, who is always the most interesting character, and all depends on how he is acted. In this version Durrance is played by Laurence Harvey, who is always unmatchable. He is therefore the main attraction here, and he certainly makes the whole film interesting, no matter what advantages to it you find in the other versions. Here you also find a deeper pathos than in the other versions, and the scenery from the Nile transcends all the others.

The most interesting detail is the conscience issue. Harry Faversham turns a conscientious objector (20 years before the first world war) and gets labelled as a coward by his soldier friends. He feels they are right in their way and that he has to prove them wrong, whereupon he sets out on the most impossible thinkable enterprise, masking himself as a mute Arab slave to reach his friends in the Sudan to save their lives from certain death when necessary. But he can't save Durrance from his blindness.

His only friend at home, Dr. Sutton (Geoffrey Keen) plays an important role here and makes a memorable character. All the finest and most sensitive scenes are with him and Laurence Harvey. This version also gives the finest music of the four, by Benjamin Frankel. Also Christopher Lee has a small part, and James Robertson Justice adds to the flamboyance.

It's a remake of the 1939 version but better, but the best version is the so far latest one: the Shekhar Kapur version of 2002 with Heath Ledger, and Wes Bentley as Jack Durrance.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"There's no place in England for a coward"
weezeralfalfa20 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A virtual copy of the 1939 film: "The Four Feathers", based on the 1902 novel of the same title. Both were directed by Zoltan Korda, who is also the producer of the new film, taking the place of his brother in the '39 film. The present film is 8 min. shorter than the original. Much stock footage from the original film was reused. Anthony Steel takes the place of John Clements, as the lead character: Harry Faversham. James Justice takes the place of charismatic C. Aubrey Smith, with the bushy eyebrows, as General Burrows. The other players are also different in the two films.

This is mainly the story of one man: Harry Faversham, torn between the desire to live a quiet comfortable life in England with his present fiancé, and his sense of duty to his recently deceased father and forebearers, and to Britain. His regiment is to be shipped to the Sudan, to reinforce General Kitchener's army, and hopefully redeem the slaughter of General Gordon, 10 years earlier. This was an imperialistic undertaking that Harry saw no sense in: a waste of good British men and materials over a rabble of peasants in a land with little obvious importance to the British Empire. Hence, he resigned his commission in the royal army: a great shock to his superiors and comrades. He received a small package containing 3 white feathers, each with a calling card attached, from 3 of his former comrades in the service, as a statement of their impression of him as a coward. Harry asked his fiancé for a white feather, but she refused, inducing Harry to pluck one from her fancy fan. The feathers made Harry change his mind as to his plans for the immediate future. He prepared to journey to Egypt and eventually the Sudan. Evidently, he felt more comfortable being a spy or some other solitary role in which he had more control over his destiny than being part of a marching army.

Harry disguised himself as a despised Sangali Arab, complete with a brand on his forehead, and pretending he couldn't talk, to disguise the fact that he knew no regional language. He attached himself to a large army of rebels, where his oddity was less apparent. This army was headed away from the Nile, into the desert, where some British soldiers had been spotted. This was Kitchener's strategy, to divert the main enemy army from the Nile, so that his boats could pass unmolested up the Nile. The huge Khalifa(rebel) army quickly overran the small British force, killing many and taking the remainder prisoners, including 2 of the 3 soldiers who had sent Harry white feathers. That is, all except for Harry and the now blind Durrance: the 3rd soldier who had sent him a white feather. They had avoided capture or death by pretending to be dead, among the many corpses. "Nobody left except a blind man and a dumb lunatic" remarked Durrance. Harry led him over the desert, reaching the Nile. They fashioned a small boat out of reeds and drifted down the Nile until reaching a British installation. From there, Durrance was sent back to England. Meanwhile, Harry was thought by the British to be a thief(he refusing to talk), and sent to a prison work gang. Strangely, he found the 2 friends there. I'm confused why Harry, a captive of the British, was sent to the same prison as his 2 friends: captives of the rebels?! Eventually, Harry concocted a mass prisoner escape plan, which was to coincide with Kitchener's attack on the prison and nearby city of Omdurman(How did he know when Kitchener was going to attack?).

Meanwhile, back in England, Harry's fiancé decided Harry was probably dead. Thus, she suggested that she wed the blind Durrance, having pity on him....Back in the prison, the British gunboat began shelling the prison walls as the prisoners overpowered the guards. They raised a spare British flag over the prison to stop the shelling.(Where did they obtain this flag? In someone's back pocket?) Soon, Kitchener would defeat the main rebel army nearby and take nearby Khartoum....Back in England, Durrance learned about these victories and Harry's role in one. As a result, he withdrew his engagement to Ethna, hoping she would resume her relationship with Harry, who eventually arrived. I noticed that Harry's forehead brand was gone. Plastic surgery?...Yes, Harry had returned a hero, but only with incredible luck that he should be located where and when he could help save his former comrades.

This film, as well as the original, were produced in gorgeous Technicolor. Viewable at YouTube.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed