SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

weezeralfalfa 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.

JoeytheBrit 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.

ianlouisiana 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.

Theo Robertson 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