Les 4 plumes blanches

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

Although you wouldn't guess it from the title, Storm Over the Nile is a version of Four Feathers. This is the fourth film version I have seen, and it is quite good, with only one problem: Laurence Harvey is not the hero, and he is far too likeable. In the other versions, the leading actor is the likable one, so you are able to easily root for him to win back the affections of his fiancé and live happily ever after. In this one, though, Anthony Steel is the lead. He is not unlikable on his own, but Laurence Harvey's performance is very sensitive and sweet, and you can't help but like him better. You hope that he is the one who can win back affections of Mary Ure and live happily ever after. Even though the story clearly revolves around Anthony's quest for honor, Larry is the one you care about.

Besides that, it's a solid period drama. The music tries to evoke Miklos Rozsa's original themes, and Zoltan Korda's direction reminds us how well he directed the earlier 1939 version. If the casting were reversed, it probably would have been a very good movie. Love Larry in this? Check him out in The Alamo or Walk on the Wild Side.

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.

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.

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.