Another good review that encourages me to see the film. The technicolour is vibrant and impressive even now; it must have been breathtaking to have seen such colours when you were accustomed to black and white films. The scope of the clips included in your review reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia, which makes me wonder if David Lean was inspired by the Korda brothers. I’m sure there was some camera trickery at work but regardless of that I always like seeing actual humans running around rather than CGI additions after filming was over. It adds depth or realism. All in all another great review and I look forward to seeing more in the coming year, I hope your new year’s resolution was “l must do more reviews” 😀
Hi and thanks. With your taste I am sure you will enjoy this version. Yes, real extras or real stunts are always more impressive and engaging than CGI though, of course, Korda had to use that camera trickery to make his British troops look like many times their number. One funny note, I see you used a British spelling for "technicolour" - though this time I noted the film credit used "Technicolor" as that was the actual proper name of the process - like "Kodak". I also used a new mic with hopefully better stereo sound most of the way, so that's an inducement to do more. Thanks again!
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Your new mic seemed to be working perfectly. In terms of real extras actually doing something it’s hard to go beyond Waterloo (the film not the railway station!). The cavalry charge is straight out of the oil painting “Scotland Forever!” The aerial shot of British regiments in square whilst the French cavalry crashes around them is superb. The film was partly financed by a Russian film studio and the extras are Russian soldiers, an almost infinite resource of extras. I wonder if you’ve seen the UK tv series Hollywood: A Celebration of the American Silent Film. There’s a playlist on UA-cam under that title. There are quite a few tricks of the trade revealed which make for interesting viewing.
@@royfernley3153 Hi. Of course the only movie that trumps Waterloo for scale of extras is also by Sergei Bondarchuk, the massive Soviet War and Peace with its mind-numbing sequences of the Battle of Borodino - and Austerlitz and the burning of Moscow, etc etc etc. I read that as a war veteran himself, Sergei was more interested in showing the horrible chaos of fighting instead of a pretty cinematic checkerboard, which worked well in War and Peace. However, I think this was an overall problem in Waterloo in which the entire movie is the battle. While it was fine for people like us who know a lot about Waterloo I can see how the film could be confusing - and thus less interesting - for the general public. Again, I'm a fan of the film but perhaps a few more sequences with maps or something could have laid out the day a bit better.
Great stuff! Really enjoyed watching this episode. I have fond memories of enjoying Four Feathers with you at your place Walt. Looking forward to the next instalment!!
Those huge scale location scenes also remind me of Lawrence of Arabia. I wonder if David Lean was influenced by this film. London Films made other excellent films as well as the ones you mentioned and are among some of my favourite films. Very good review BTW.
Great point. In a case like this it's a strong and well-known story that can be shaped to the agenda of the filmmakers - as any adaptation will. The Korda's 1939 film was very different in outlook than the 2002 Heath Ledger.
Also remade in 1955 but called Storm Over The Nile starring Anthony Steele. They re used the battle scenes from this version which is so obvious as you can see the difference in the film stock. So the film has been made four times, these two versions then 1978 and 2000 abd still tis is the best one by miles. Great review mate, keep them coming and very much appreciated.
Much appreciated - I actually started to watch Storm over the Nile on TV, but then decided it wan't worth it - (except, maybe, out of a reviewer's curiousity).
Love your new Icon. I saw this gem back in the long, long ago. The before time. I saw it on Black & White TV that only had 2 channels on the dial. I thought it was a great movie then and still do more than 60 years later. I never saw the Colour version but I don't feel cheated. I then saw the several remakes both television and cinematic and found all of them lacking. That's what happens when you compare hamburger to Filet Mignon. One of these days I would like to see the colorized version. It's on my bucket list.
Hi Thor. In all honesty I have not seen the other versions all the way through as they don't measure up. To be clear, the 1939 version wasn't "colourized", it was filmed in Technicolor. That said, I always watchJourney to the Center of the Earth (James Mason version) in b&w as I did when I was a kid as the setting and monsters look less real in colour.
I was surprised that the book was set around the period of the Mahdi in the mid 1880s. Moving to 1898 allowed the Kordas to feature the spectacle of Omdurman.
Haven’t seen this version yet, but will probably take a look. The only version I ever saw all of was the 1978 Beau Bridges release, though I tend to remember a young Robert Powell in it more (before he evidently had to pay his mortgage off playing as DC Briggs next to Jasper Carrott). There’s an irony that Simon Ward, also co-starring in the ‘78 release should be in yet another Sudanese adventure having been Churchill as well...
Hi. I never saw the Beau Bridges version (though I was aware of it) as knowing the 1939, the later remake looked like it was bound to disappoint. I totally agree about the strange Simon Ward irony (a bit like Edward Woodward being in two Boer War movies). Please write if you can see the 1939 - it is currently freely available on youtube right now.
When I first saw this many years back (I'm 75), the opening scenes struck me perhaps as dated re the late 30s... But the moment the film moved to the desert...and the Nile...it reminded me more of quality films made in the early 60s. The last remake (post 2000) that I saw could not hold a candle to the 1939 version. One protagonist seriously missing from front and center in the last film...was the Nile itself... YP
Another thing I noticed in the Ledger version. The British troops cheer when they see the cavalry coming in red uniforms. However, cavalry usually wore blue, which would have been suspicious.
To clarify, I think he makes himself believe he is honest about staying and looking after his estate - but the feathers make him confront the truth and that he must confront it. As he says, "I was a coward and I wasn't happy." Look forward to your take. Remember, you can see the flick on youtube free!
Thank you, sir. If you have a decent screen connected to your computer you can watch the whole film free at youtube at this time. ua-cam.com/video/mApKrfQwCfY/v-deo.html
the opening music for my videos is a selection called The Duel from bensound.com - I know of the Shooting Party and may have seen it many years ago - that said, I don't have many memories of it.
@Vlad65WFPReviews can you recommend any other films about the British Empire? Young Winston and the Zulu movies are pretty good, the fairly recent Qyeen Of The Desert was enjoyable, and Lawrence Of Arabia of Arabia of course.
@@DarrenMarsh-kx8hd Well, North West Frontier (aka Flame over India) is quite rousing - and the Korda brothers The Drum has a big book of adventure feel about it. Khartoum belongs on this list and Hollywood's Lives of a Bengal Lancer (and Gunga Din) and The Man Who Would Be King
@Vlad65WFPReviews I'm one of the rare ones that doesn't appreciate The Man Who Wouls Be King, Khartoum I forgot, but thank you for the other recommendations. Ghandi should get a favourable mention too.
Great choice and you are correct those versions that followed were very inferior. Can I make a recommendation for another film whilst here please, how about A town like Alice, its an intelligent war film without any gung ho, or battles. It deals very much with the human issues, there is love, tragedy and even a little humour too. Great acting by Virginia Mc Kenna and Peter Finch and it has a very nice romantic but understated end scene. Great story from the book by Neville Shute. Thanks
I disagree with the statement that the novel is an adventure. I feel it's more of a character piece, having much more to do with the interpersonal relationships than the adventure.
I don't agree with you. I don't think there is "best" version of any story. This movie is obviously your favorite adaptation. That's one thing. But to pass it off as "the best"? No, I don't buy it.
You are certainly entitled to that opinion. I'm presenting based on "if you only could watch one version, which should you watch." Also Criterion selected the title for release which generally speaks well for a film.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews So what if Criterion had selected the title for release? That doesn't mean I should regard it as the best version of Mason's novel. I just don't think it is. I do believe it's a good movie.
Obviously there are different types of patriotism or love of country (native born or immigrant), and I spoke gratefully as someone whose parents escaped the ruins of Eastern Europe after WW II and gave the family a far better life. Thanks for watching and your comment.
I have seen this version a couple of time on a UK channel called Talking Pictures TV,. It is an enjoyable movie except it suffers from a problem that a lot of films back then suffer from, black/brown face.Even though I understand it was a common practice back then It makes me reel very unsettled seeing it.
Yes, that was a common practice for roles that were speaking parts. You may want to consider that it comes from an long acting tradition that an actor could play any part - even it was from from another race. I mentioned the movie "Khartoum" in which Sir Laurence Olivier plays the Mahdi - remembering he was a mammoth star at the time - and producers wanted star power to sell their product. (You'll see several such castings in a classic like Lawrence of Arabia.) It is interesting that now the pendulum has swung the other way when you have actors of colour playing "white parts" such as historic English aristocrats.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews With all the will in the world were there many actors of colour available in 1939 to play those roles? Britain was a quite different country in those days with very few black or brown faces on the streets of the country never mind in the rarified acting profession.
It has become common practice to criticise the way things were done in times past and with some justification but I think that we are still able to admire a fine piece of work. It is the nature of history we need to acknowledge the mistakes and crimes of the past but not become obsessed by them as there is nothing we can do now, except learn form them.
@@tango6nf477 Everyone on this discussion thread makes such great points very intelligently and without rancor - well done! That doesn't always happen these days.
one of my favorites of all time - great flick that never gets old.
Another good review that encourages me to see the film. The technicolour is vibrant and impressive even now; it must have been breathtaking to have seen such colours when you were accustomed to black and white films. The scope of the clips included in your review reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia, which makes me wonder if David Lean was inspired by the Korda brothers. I’m sure there was some camera trickery at work but regardless of that I always like seeing actual humans running around rather than CGI additions after filming was over. It adds depth or realism.
All in all another great review and I look forward to seeing more in the coming year, I hope your new year’s resolution was “l must do more reviews” 😀
Hi and thanks. With your taste I am sure you will enjoy this version. Yes, real extras or real stunts are always more impressive and engaging than CGI though, of course, Korda had to use that camera trickery to make his British troops look like many times their number.
One funny note, I see you used a British spelling for "technicolour" - though this time I noted the film credit used "Technicolor" as that was the actual proper name of the process - like "Kodak".
I also used a new mic with hopefully better stereo sound most of the way, so that's an inducement to do more. Thanks again!
@@Vlad65WFPReviews Your new mic seemed to be working perfectly.
In terms of real extras actually doing something it’s hard to go beyond Waterloo (the film not the railway station!). The cavalry charge is straight out of the oil painting “Scotland Forever!” The aerial shot of British regiments in square whilst the French cavalry crashes around them is superb. The film was partly financed by a Russian film studio and the extras are Russian soldiers, an almost infinite resource of extras.
I wonder if you’ve seen the UK tv series Hollywood: A Celebration of the American Silent Film. There’s a playlist on UA-cam under that title. There are quite a few tricks of the trade revealed which make for interesting viewing.
@@royfernley3153 Hi. Of course the only movie that trumps Waterloo for scale of extras is also by Sergei Bondarchuk, the massive Soviet War and Peace with its mind-numbing sequences of the Battle of Borodino - and Austerlitz and the burning of Moscow, etc etc etc.
I read that as a war veteran himself, Sergei was more interested in showing the horrible chaos of fighting instead of a pretty cinematic checkerboard, which worked well in War and Peace. However, I think this was an overall problem in Waterloo in which the entire movie is the battle. While it was fine for people like us who know a lot about Waterloo I can see how the film could be confusing - and thus less interesting - for the general public.
Again, I'm a fan of the film but perhaps a few more sequences with maps or something could have laid out the day a bit better.
Great stuff! Really enjoyed watching this episode. I have fond memories of enjoying Four Feathers with you at your place Walt.
Looking forward to the next instalment!!
Thanks for your support. Much appreciated!
Those huge scale location scenes also remind me of Lawrence of Arabia. I wonder if David Lean was influenced by this film. London Films made other excellent films as well as the ones you mentioned and are among some of my favourite films. Very good review BTW.
thanks so much! I agree London films was wonderful (I recently looked at The Third Man) and it is terrible it shut down so long ago.
It amazes me how many times, over the course of generations, that some filmmakers keep going back to the well, as they say.
Great point. In a case like this it's a strong and well-known story that can be shaped to the agenda of the filmmakers - as any adaptation will. The Korda's 1939 film was very different in outlook than the 2002 Heath Ledger.
Great work again. Welcome back!
Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Appreciate your feedback.
Also remade in 1955 but called Storm Over The Nile starring Anthony Steele. They re used the battle scenes from this version which is so obvious as you can see the difference in the film stock. So the film has been made four times, these two versions then 1978 and 2000 abd still tis is the best one by miles. Great review mate, keep them coming and very much appreciated.
Much appreciated - I actually started to watch Storm over the Nile on TV, but then decided it wan't worth it - (except, maybe, out of a reviewer's curiousity).
Love your new Icon. I saw this gem back in the long, long ago. The before time. I saw it on Black & White TV that only had 2 channels on the dial. I thought it was a great movie then and still do more than 60 years later. I never saw the Colour version but I don't feel cheated. I then saw the several remakes both television and cinematic and found all of them lacking. That's what happens when you compare hamburger to Filet Mignon. One of these days I would like to see the colorized version. It's on my bucket list.
Hi Thor. In all honesty I have not seen the other versions all the way through as they don't measure up. To be clear, the 1939 version wasn't "colourized", it was filmed in Technicolor. That said, I always watchJourney to the Center of the Earth (James Mason version) in b&w as I did when I was a kid as the setting and monsters look less real in colour.
Very helpful and insightful, thanks!
You are very welcome. Always great when viewers appreciate the effort.
Very good summary. Interesting it is set later than the story. Well done!
I was surprised that the book was set around the period of the Mahdi in the mid 1880s. Moving to 1898 allowed the Kordas to feature the spectacle of Omdurman.
Haven’t seen this version yet, but will probably take a look.
The only version I ever saw all of was the 1978 Beau Bridges release, though I tend to remember a young Robert Powell in it more (before he evidently had to pay his mortgage off playing as DC Briggs next to Jasper Carrott). There’s an irony that Simon Ward, also co-starring in the ‘78 release should be in yet another Sudanese adventure having been Churchill as well...
Hi. I never saw the Beau Bridges version (though I was aware of it) as knowing the 1939, the later remake looked like it was bound to disappoint. I totally agree about the strange Simon Ward irony (a bit like Edward Woodward being in two Boer War movies).
Please write if you can see the 1939 - it is currently freely available on youtube right now.
When I first saw this many years back (I'm 75), the opening scenes struck me perhaps as dated re the late 30s... But the moment the film moved to the desert...and the Nile...it reminded me more of quality films made in the early 60s. The last remake (post 2000) that I saw could not hold a candle to the 1939 version. One protagonist seriously missing from front and center in the last film...was the Nile itself... YP
Another thing I noticed in the Ledger version. The British troops cheer when they see the cavalry coming in red uniforms. However, cavalry usually wore blue, which would have been suspicious.
very enjoyable reviews
Thanks so much.
Yeah, I did not read Faversham and his motives the way you have, Walt. That said, before I push back, I'm going to rewatch it first!
To clarify, I think he makes himself believe he is honest about staying and looking after his estate - but the feathers make him confront the truth and that he must confront it. As he says, "I was a coward and I wasn't happy." Look forward to your take. Remember, you can see the flick on youtube free!
would want to see it only if for just the color which looks amazing.. As Usual- great review Walt
Thank you, sir. If you have a decent screen connected to your computer you can watch the whole film free at youtube at this time. ua-cam.com/video/mApKrfQwCfY/v-deo.html
What's the opening music? - also, have you seen The Shooting Party? - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shooting_Party
the opening music for my videos is a selection called The Duel from bensound.com - I know of the Shooting Party and may have seen it many years ago - that said, I don't have many memories of it.
If you have watched these WFP videos and enjoyed them, please remember to SUBSCRIBE to get notifications of new videos and to support this content.
incredible
I've seen three versions of this now,[1979,2002,1939] and the 1939 version stands taller than the rest.
Interesting that 1939 is rightly considered the greatest year for classic movies.
@Vlad65WFPReviews can you recommend any other films about the British Empire?
Young Winston and the Zulu movies are pretty good, the fairly recent Qyeen Of The Desert was enjoyable, and Lawrence Of Arabia of Arabia of course.
@@DarrenMarsh-kx8hd Well, North West Frontier (aka Flame over India) is quite rousing - and the Korda brothers The Drum has a big book of adventure feel about it. Khartoum belongs on this list and Hollywood's Lives of a Bengal Lancer (and Gunga Din) and The Man Who Would Be King
@Vlad65WFPReviews I'm one of the rare ones that doesn't appreciate The Man Who Wouls Be King, Khartoum I forgot, but thank you for the other recommendations.
Ghandi should get a favourable mention too.
@@DarrenMarsh-kx8hd good point
Great choice and you are correct those versions that followed were very inferior.
Can I make a recommendation for another film whilst here please, how about A town like Alice, its an intelligent war film without any gung ho, or battles. It deals very much with the human issues, there is love, tragedy and even a little humour too. Great acting by Virginia Mc Kenna and Peter Finch and it has a very nice romantic but understated end scene. Great story from the book by Neville Shute. Thanks
Ah, Neville Shute, who also gave us On the Beach, if I recall. Thanks for the recommendation and I will add it to my list.
I disagree with the statement that the novel is an adventure. I feel it's more of a character piece, having much more to do with the interpersonal relationships than the adventure.
Point taken.
I don't agree with you. I don't think there is "best" version of any story. This movie is obviously your favorite adaptation. That's one thing. But to pass it off as "the best"? No, I don't buy it.
You are certainly entitled to that opinion. I'm presenting based on "if you only could watch one version, which should you watch." Also Criterion selected the title for release which generally speaks well for a film.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews So what if Criterion had selected the title for release? That doesn't mean I should regard it as the best version of Mason's novel. I just don't think it is. I do believe it's a good movie.
The immigrant comment was irrelevant to the movie, but the political temptation is understandable.
Obviously there are different types of patriotism or love of country (native born or immigrant), and I spoke gratefully as someone whose parents escaped the ruins of Eastern Europe after WW II and gave the family a far better life. Thanks for watching and your comment.
I have seen this version a couple of time on a UK channel called Talking Pictures TV,. It is an enjoyable movie except it suffers from a problem that a lot of films back then suffer from, black/brown face.Even though I understand it was a common practice back then It makes me reel very unsettled seeing it.
Yes, that was a common practice for roles that were speaking parts. You may want to consider that it comes from an long acting tradition that an actor could play any part - even it was from from another race. I mentioned the movie "Khartoum" in which Sir Laurence Olivier plays the Mahdi - remembering he was a mammoth star at the time - and producers wanted star power to sell their product. (You'll see several such castings in a classic like Lawrence of Arabia.) It is interesting that now the pendulum has swung the other way when you have actors of colour playing "white parts" such as historic English aristocrats.
@@Vlad65WFPReviews
With all the will in the world were there many actors of colour available in 1939 to play those roles? Britain was a quite different country in those days with very few black or brown faces on the streets of the country never mind in the rarified acting profession.
It has become common practice to criticise the way things were done in times past and with some justification but I think that we are still able to admire a fine piece of work. It is the nature of history we need to acknowledge the mistakes and crimes of the past but not become obsessed by them as there is nothing we can do now, except learn form them.
@@tango6nf477 Everyone on this discussion thread makes such great points very intelligently and without rancor - well done! That doesn't always happen these days.