clanciai 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.

jakob13 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.

greenheart 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.

[email protected] 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.