User reviews

A British army officer is forced to redeem himself after being branded a coward by his Army buddies and the woman he loves. Improbably, he decides to go off to the war in the Sudan to rescue his fallen comrades. That is the gist of this story--but it makes a powerful, absorbing British film in excellent early Technicolor.

June Duprez is the scornful woman, pretty as a picture in the only feminine role. Uncharismatic British actor John Clements is only adequate as the man who receives the "four feathers" and must redeem himself--but Ralph Richardson has the most memorable scenes as the sun-struck soldier who loses his helmet under the blazing sun and is blinded. Many gripping scenes as the hero undertakes a long journey to the Sudan.

Handsome Alexander Korda production rightfully deserves its ranking as a screen classic of 1939, but I have to say it's not without its faults as far as the structure of the story goes.

First of all, too much time is spent on hundreds of extras in battle scenes that become repetitious after awhile and interrupt the flow of the story and what is happening with our hero. Furthermore, the actor chosen for the "stiff upper lip" role of Haversham is John Clements, and much of his performance is too stiff to come alive. A more appealing and charismatic actor from that era would have sufficed and made the story stronger. Thirdly, there's a hint of incredibility in the tale of a man who would go to such extremes to regain his honor and go on a mission in which he would be reunited with the very men who scorned him. A bit much in the realm of credibility, but it does make a good story.

Summing up: Good adventure tale in which C. Aubrey Smith has one of his most memorable character roles as a stuffy "Colonel Blimp" type of career soldier recounting his favorite war tales.

I have seen both the 1936 and 2005 versions of this film. Of the 2, the 1939 version is far preferable as it is a film about bravery, cowardice, duty, and devotion rather that a psycho-politico voyage about retribution, consequences, and punishment. The 1939 film is nonapologetic and does not need to be, as it is an exploration of one man's duty to friends and not a political statement.

I believe that the main reason this film is not given more credit is that it happened to be made in the watershed year of 1939, a year of legendary films, filmmakers, and stars. (Think "Gone with the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz", among others.) The action scenes are as good as you can get. The technical direction is well done and the cinematography excellent. While the camaraderie is, at times, a little forced, it is probably fairly accurate.

The travails of the protagonist are straightforward and unimpeded by the burdens of political overtones or ethereal punishments for current retrospections on political transgressions and apologetic political correctness. I'll forego the 5.1 surround sound for the far better entertainment factor of the real "Four Featers" made in 1939

In 1885 the rebellious army of cruel Dervishes enslaved and killed many thousands of defenceless natives in Sudan . Then laid siege to Kartooum , the scanty garrison's heroic commanded General Gordon appealed for help from England , but no help reached him . The film deals about Harry Faversham (John Clemens), a British officer young man . He resigns from military army and being rejected , he is branded as a coward , receiving four feathers as symbols of cowardice by his engaged fiancée (Jane Duprez) and his three comrades friends . Determined to save his honour , he heads towards Suakin on the red sea (Sudan) . His purports are the helping his friends from uprising ¨Madih¨ who had defeated to General Gordon (deeds narrated in ¨Karthoun¨ by Basil Dearden with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier) . He's determined to prove his courage and retrieve the lost honors . Meanwhile , the Kitchener army heads for Ondurman to fight against the Dervishes and Fuzzy Whuzzi rebels .

This is the best version of A.E.W Mason novel and contains a plethora of adventures , heroism, a love story and breathtaking battles. John Clemens as brave hero is memorable and Jane Duprez as gorgeous heroine is charming . Ralph Richardson as the blind comrade is awesome . Touch of humor is supplied by C. Aubrey Smith as the resourceful veteran military . Special mention to cinematography in a colorful and glimmer Technicolor at charge of George Perinal . Spectacular musical score by the classic musician Miklos Rozsa . The film has been magnificently realized by Korda brothers , Zoltan (direction) , production design (Vincent) and production (Alexander Korda). Other versions of Mason novel are ¨Storm over the sand¨ (1955) by Terence Young with Laurence Harvey, Anthony Steel and Mary Ure ; 1977 Television remake with Beau Bridges , Robert Powell and Jane Seymour and last adaptation (2000) by S. Kapoor with Heath Ledger , Wes Bentley and Kate Hudson . The motion picture will appeal to adventure genre fans and classic cinema enthusiasts .

A young English army officer resigns his commission just as war in Africa breaks out. His 3 best friends, officers all, and his fiancée each give him a white feather - the sign of the coward. Shunned & ostracized, he undertakes a mission to clear his honour & prove his courage.

This is a wonderful British adventure film, equally on a par with anything Hollywood was to produce in that golden year of 1939. Shot in color, with spare-no-expense filming in the Sudan, THE FOUR FEATHERS is a paean to the glory days of Victoria's Empire & the men who fought to build it.

Sir John Clements is excellent as the young hero. Although virtually unknown to American audiences his entire career, Sir John was a very fine actor with a warmly distinctive voice which he uses here to advantage. Sir Ralph Richardson appears, terrific as always, as one of the friends; so does John Laurie, very good as the troublesome Khalifa. Sir C. Aubrey Smith, magnificent as a curmudgeonly old general, provides the final hurdle Sir John must jump to regain his reputation.

No, this isn't how we regard military service or Empire anymore, and I hope it's not how we regard other peoples and races, but there are things about this picture that still getcha.

The film celebrates friendship and mutual obligation. It celebrates courage and determination. It celebrates a beautiful young couple and the love that conquers all, and celebrates the fact that the movies never let the funny-looking guy get the girl. It celebrates C. Aubrey Smith's eyebrows, and that's reason enough to watch any film.

The real heroes are Ralph Richardson, for acting at least 100% in every scene, never coasting or losing concentration for a minute, and the euphoniously named Osmond Borrodaile, whose second unit cinematography in faraway locations with monstrous cameras under difficult conditions enlivened many a movie.

Sensitive British officer John Clements (as Harry Faversham) shows his distaste for war, and is branded a coward by soldiering pals Ralph Richardson (as John Durrance), Jack Allen (as Thomas Willoughby), and Donald Gray (as Peter Burroughs). They symbolize Mr. Clements is "chicken" by sending him three feathers; and, embarrassed fiancée June Duprez (as Ethne Burroughs) provides another. But, instead of letting them drag him down, "The Four Feathers" inspire Clements to prove his mettle.

This version of "The Four Feathers" finds its main strengths in excellent color photography and well-staged action scenes, filmed on location. Producer Alexander Korda and director brother Zoltan work nicely with cinematographers Georges Perinal and (in the Sudan) Osmond Borradaile. The heroic "Harry" received a pop theme song entitled "The Fantasy World of Harry Faversham" from The Cowsills in 1968 (hear it on "Captain Sad and His Ship of Fools"), and a 2002 feature re-make starred Heath Ledger.

******* The Four Feathers (4/18/39) Alexander Korda : Zoltan Korda ~ John Clements, Ralph Richardson, C. Aubrey Smith, June Duprez

One of my all-time favourite films of the 30s, perhaps even ever. For me, this is my personal favourite of all the Korda brothers films, and it is a true gem of a film that shouldn't be missed.

There is very little to fault The Four Feathers. It has truly evocative location work, sweeping cinematography and rich bold colours that still look amazing. The script is tight, the story is epic and always compelling and the film is perfectly paced with some great action. Miklos Rosza's score is just outstanding, easily up there as one of his best, while Zoltan Korda directs beautifully, and the acting of John Clements, Ralph Richardson and C.Aubrey Smith is excellent.

Overall, this film is a must see for so many reasons especially for its wonderful visuals and score. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I cannot recall when I first saw this movie, certainly more than 30 years ago, but it is one that I've never forgotten and watch again whenever I can. Of the actors, only Ralph Richardson and C. Aubrey Smith are familiar. However, the ensemble play of the lesser known actors is certainly outstanding. I can still remember the determination of young Faversham desperately trying to regain his honor and his girl. After all these years I don't remember the finer details, but the film as a whole, as well as the book on which it is based are classics, and I'm certain Miklos Rozsa's lush strains added much to the overall effect. It's a film well worth seeing for those who enjoy derring-do and historical drama. I've never seen any of the other versions to see if I enjoyed them even half as much.

This rousing historical adventure is the kind of film they just don't make anymore – more's the pity. Set during the glory days of the British Empire, it sees a young soldier accused of cowardice and setting off on an epic journey across war-torn Africa as he attempts to make amends for his supposed failings. Along the way it deals with themes of heroism, courage and cowardice, all set during a time that feels sadly very long ago.

The film is lavishly shot and well directed by the famous Zoltan Korda. Prior to watching, I knew absolutely nothing about the story as I hadn't read the novel or seen any of the other adaptations, but I was hooked throughout. Unknown actor John Clements is fine as the upstanding guy who undergoes an extreme physical transformation as the story progresses, but the acting honours really go to Ralph Richardson in an oddly touching turn as the army captain at the mercy of the desert son. Add in plenty of huge battle sequences, the lovely June Duprez and the rascally John Laurie and you have a perfect Sunday afternoon-type film.

It's ridiculous that movies like THE FULL MONTY and 28 DAYS LATER that have a British producer , director and screenwriter that were filmed entirely in Britain with an entirely British cast are not classed " British " simply because they were made by American studios . Somewhat ironic then that one of greatest British - And I mean truly British -films owes so much to the Korda brothers who came to this country from Hungary while the man responsible for the breath taking colour cinematography was from France

But I'm not going to be internationalist about THE FOUR FEATHERS because this is a movie that makes you proud to be British , something that is sadly no longer allowed to happen these days . Perhaps the most stirring thing I can say about this movie is the way it wipes the floor with the contemporary competition that was coming out of Hollywood at the time . While the American studio were making similar monochrome movies with Errol Flynn and David Niven as the leads Ralph Richardson's performance alone is a reason to watch this movie and even if it wasn't there's still the story itself featuring themes like courage , honour , romance and redemption . You want battle scenes ? There's several in this movie as well choreographed as any thing seen in cinema at this time but perhaps the most what sets this British movie apart from other movies that were being produced across the pond is that it's a bit more gritty and sadistic than what Hollywood was producing . In one scene a British officer is flogged like a dog and he screams in pain as the camera pans on to the Mufti's face , a face lit up in sadistic glee , then the scene cross fades into a crowded dungeon where the prisoners are kept , a dark hell hole where the audience can actually taste the pain , fear and misery from the unfortunate prisoners . Even in those days Hollywood would pull their punches while a film like THE FOUR FEATHERSwould not

Sadly THE FOUR FEATHERS was released in 1939 which meant it qualified for the legendary Oscar ceremony the following year when GONE WITH THE WIND swept the board . A great pity because this very British movie deserved a hat full of awards . Sadly too Britain no longer has a film industry of its own and is reliant upon American finance , but perhaps the saddest thing is even if we did have a film industry no one in the business would want to film such an exciting historical epic in case they were labeled reactionary or racist

I did enjoy this film, but it was not so much my "bag" as such films as "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp", a film that more satisfactorily portrayed the ambivalence and complexities of old "Britishness". "The Four Feathers" is made from a perspective foursquare behind the establishment - there is a little mockery of figures such as the old buffer General played by C. Aubrey Smith, but it is mockery in the gentlest manner.

The acting is largely good, but rarely brilliant. Ralph Richardson does a fine job at making his character compelling and physically memorable. Aubrey Smith is so assured in the musty old military relic role that it thoroughly convinces. John Clements is respectable if not at all remarkable as the important figure, Harry Faversham. The love interest, shown to be every bit as upholding of societal codes of honour, is played in predictable fashion by June Duprez. She is very much the typical British leading lady figure of the late thirties, as opposed to the more ebullient vivacity of a Margaret Lockwood, or the varying charms and depths of Powell and Pressburger leading ladies, like Katherine Byron of "Black Narcissus", Deborah Kerr in several and Moira Shearer in "The Red Shoes". Where in America, you had many actresses who could steal movies practically - Myrna Loy and Carole Lombard particularly come to mind - many British female parts are mere "classy love interests" as June Duprez proves to be. Certainly a beauty in a delicate, wan way, she is however a trifle too bland, with a mere hint of the haughty about her.

There is a seemingly genuine seam of jingoism embedded in the film; a nationalism that at least is portrayed with dignity, but a wider perspective is missed. The doubtful at best, morally spurious at worst aspects of the Sudan conflicts are wholly overlooked, and the film is marked by its era in its uncritical, perhaps naive confidence in the British Empire and all it stood for. But as a mercurial friend of mine is wont to say however, you should be wary in judging the past by today's standards. Yet however, I cannot fully embrace this film, as its society and character depictions are simply not that rich, balanced or entertaining.

However, the film has its undoubted successes, the at times lavish early colour photography perhaps being the most evident. As well as the predicted effectiveness of the Sudanese vistas (a precursor of David Lean's measured expansiveness), I really was taken by the shots used for the engagement party scene early in the film, especially exterior shots from which the dancers are visible from within; a triumph of lighting contrasts and scale. While as I have remarked, the film isn't really an adequate study of the Sudan "escapade", or that much of a character drama, there are fine scenes. The act of bravery itself is wonderfully understated and astutely filmed. The eventual realizations about the silent "native" are well played. The myriad interjections of the General's "The Crimean War! Now war was war in those days...!" speech, with positions marked by parts of dinner, are very amusing, with the final variation apposite. It was marvelously amusing as, ten years on, at the engagement dinner, he begins the "anecdote" again and pretty quickly everyone leaves...! Perhaps there should have been more comedy in the film; its innate, stiff-upper-lip sobriety is perhaps unchecked and too reverently preserved on the whole, aside from these scenes, though even the last of these is tempered by Faversham's establishment one-upmanship over the old General.

Overall, an enjoyable if not always so affecting a film. A relic of a long-dimmed, wistful nationalism certainly; a solidly plotted gentleman's entertainment indupitably. By no means a great film, but one that has stood time's winged chariot as well as can be expected, by jove.

Rating:- *** 1/2/*****

Sumptuous and blockheaded, "The Four Feathers" practically cries out for the full-bore Hollywood treatment of its time, with Errol, Olivia, Basil, and Michael Curtiz. At least when they made historical hogs-wallop in the States, it came with a touch of class and a sense of humanity, not to mention an honest taste for British superiority leavened by New World egalitarianism.

Not that this British-made version plays it too straight, exactly. Harry Faversham (John Clements) isn't sold on the idea of selling his life down the Nile for the sake of king and country, not to mention a long, distinguished line of slaughtered ancestors. He doesn't see the sense of dying on some distant battlefield and would rather cuddle with fiancée Ethne Burroughs (June Duprez). But his decision to leave his regiment just before it sails to reclaim the Sudan is accepted neither by his comrades nor Ethne, nor ultimately by Harry, who sets out to redeem himself in the guise of a mute native.

Is it cowardice or courage to back away from a war you don't believe in? Is it heroism or folly to sneak back for the sake of a wounded ego? Is a woman's love more important than what you believe in? The problem of "Four Feathers" is not that it doesn't enlighten you as to what the filmmakers think of these questions (ambiguity can be a fine thing in a movie) so much as it doesn't seem to regard these questions as all that important when there are exotic scenes of the real-life Levant to shoot in glorious Technicolor. "Four Feathers" is a milestone of film-making, but not that interesting a film.

Clements seems lost in the central role, and not just in the second half when he is required to play a silent Arab with silly pantomime. He's very good at the stiff upper lip; even submitting his resignation to his superior with the utmost bearing and carriage. But he never lets you in the least bit to what is going on inside, likely because Clements himself doesn't know. After explaining his qualms about blind duty, he relents and tells a friend he is a coward, and that seems to seal it as far as the movie cares to say.

Duprez' cleavage offers the most impressive scenery in the film, but she doesn't otherwise inspire enough to overcome the fact she dumps Harry's love because of "a code which we must obey, even if we do not believe." Perhaps because it is so rooted in this code itself, the film unrealistically expects the viewer to turn a blind eye to her ensuing heartlessness. Ralph Richardson is the best-known actor in the production, here by turns effective and annoyingly stiff, while Harry's other two friends are faceless non-entities. These characters exist solely to serve their plot, and their thinness is a problem in every frame.

Fortunately, there's also C. Aubrey Smith, as Ethne's father and a stodgy old veteran who tells the same war stories over and over, using a dining table as his battlefield. Smith shines in every scene he's in, whether he's bragging about service his day, when "war was war;" shunning Harry; or tearing up as he waves his boy off at the pier. To the extent "The Four Feathers" retains any flavor today, it's because of C. Aubrey's clever way of subtly sending up the same traditions the rest of the movie accepts so blindly.

The other great thing about this movie is the cinematography. The sight of dhows sailing across the river is vividly real, however impossible it must have been to capture given the bulky nature of Technicolor technology. The camera is often an active player in the film, charging with the Dervish horde and searing upon you the oppressive heat of an endless desert as Harry in disguise leads Richardson's character through the desert.

I don't know what to feel about the action itself, though; however grandly shot a battle scene is, it's hard to get excited when you don't know what in blazes you're rooting for. "Four Feathers" is a pretty picture, but shallow as a snapshot all the same.

In my 71 years I still hold "The Four Feathers" as my all time favorite movie. The acting is outstanding and the photography is beautifully done. You'll never see anything like this again if you live to be 200. It's too bad that this was released in 1939 when so many block busters were released by Hollywood.

Few people read A.E.W.Mason anymore, but his historical novels were once very popular. The best known title, due to being the source of several movies, is THE FOUR FEATHERS.

Young Harry Faversham grew up in a household where his father, a general, tried to inculcate the idea of military duty and patriotism to him. Perhaps overkill would be a better description. We see his father having dinner with his military cronies, most notably General Burroughs (Sir C. Aubrey Smith), and hear the most fire-eating conversations about the military. Harry's father even tells about how one cowardly officer did the only decent thing he could - he blew his brains out.

Years pass. Faversham has gone into the military and has three close friends: Captain John Durrance (Ralph Richardson), Lt. Thomas Willoughby (Jack Allan), and Peter Burroughs (Donald Gray). He is engaged to Ethne Burroughs (June Duprez). Then, in 1896, his regiment is ordered to the Sudan to fight the Mahdists. This is the same war that began in KHARTOUM, and that even shows a scene when Gordon is speared by the Mahdists when his fort fell. Durrance, Willoughby, and Burroughs are looking forward to the great game of war, and of fighting as a unit together. Duprez is hopeful her beloved hero will return with a great military reputation. But Faversham does not want to go. He resigns his commission, saying he just does not feel like fighting. The real reason is that he is tired of this militaristic crap he's fed all his life. Since his father is now dead he doesn't have to put up with it anymore. Unfortunately, his three friends and his fiancé disagree. Each sends him a white feather - a silent comment saying that he is a coward. None want to hear his explanations.

He confides to his one gentle friend, Dr. Sutton (Frederick Culley). Sutton understands him, but points out that his bad timing makes any explanation look suspicious. So Harry decides on a plan. He goes back to Egypt, and gets himself dressed up as a native, who can't speak (a tribe was punished by having their tongues cut off, and their cheek branded - so they don't speak Arabic at all, and Harry might be able to get away with passing himself off as a native). Then he proceeds into the war zone as a spy.

In the meantime, his three chums have had nothing but misfortune. Willoughby and Burroughs are captured by the Mahdists in a battle, and are tormented daily in a cell at Omdurman (the capital of the Mahdists, now ruled by "The Khalifa" (John Laurie)). Worst perhaps is Durrance's tragedy. He managed to flee a massacre site by accident, but lost his pith helmet in the desert. The intense sun of the Sahara destroyed his optic nerves, and he is now blind. So of the four chums, two are imprisoned by the enemy and one is useless for the war effort.

Harry's efforts to save his friends and aid his country, ending in the battle at Omdurman in 1898, are the conclusion of this great movie. The acting is good, although stolen by Richardson as the blind Durrance, demonstrating his ability to read Braille in one scene, and learning belatedly that the person who saved his life in the desert was a man he maligned. Aubrey Smith added to his moments of creative acting on the screen in his famous description of the battle of Balaclava (he insists modern war is not as deadly as the Crimean, forty years before) using the dinner table and the food to show the Charge of the Light Brigade. It is pleasant to relate that at the end of the film Clements teaches the old fart that there are elements to the story he has hidden that Clements knows about that undercuts the heroics.

The Zoltan Korda version of THE FOUR FEATHERS is the best known of the filming of the novel. It was also in color, and blazing color at that. The film is best seen as a follow-up to KHARTOUM (possibly with THE LIGHT THAT FAILED in the middle), but be prepared for a degree of racism towards the Mahdists. In one scene, Laurie watches the torture of a British soldier, and the gleam in his eyes is a bit much. But then again, given the way Al Quaeda cheers on beheadings of "infidels" and the destruction of Americans in collapsing U.S. skyscrapers maybe that gleam is not so far from the truth?

I had a bit of a struggle with this film. Granted it is grand and luscious, with great battle scenes and events of great magnitude. At the beginning, the young Harry questions the constant drivel he hears from the mouths of a group of pompous old war lords. Yes, he is a bit cowardly, but when he hears about the carnage associated with battle and the way soldiers are treated if they doubt for a second their reason for being in battle, it is understandable. Of course, the movie never addresses that issue. It also never addresses the British need to conquer the known world. Why are they in the Sudan other than to pillage a culture that has survived peacefully for centuries. These people were defending themselves against imperialism, so, despite the portrayal of bravery, this glorifies the slaughter of all those "filthy Arabs." Is this so different from the Germans parceling up Europe. The Arabs are made to look like primitive tribesman (where were the bones in their noses). Oh, well, it's only a movie, but the whole premise with those four feathers charging cowardice and that snot girl and that old windbag and his pineapples just made it seem so arrogant and self-centered.

I've been around for awhile and have seen lots of movies, and I think the 1939 version of The Four Feathers is one of the best action movies ever! The photography, interior shots especially, often looks like oil painting. Sir Ralph Richardson, with his "good old Weatherby" line is unforgettable. A great motion picture rendition of a great story.

Perhaps the greatest adventure film ever made. Score it 10 by me as an unforgettable experience. I have now seen it seven times at least. The cinematography of the Nile and Egypt are breath taking.

Watch it for film history purposes. The Technicolor is amazing and rarely looked as good even in the decades that followed. The story is slightly engaging, somehow. The greatest strength is the renowned yet not well known enough Georges Perinal's (Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, Fallen Idol, The Blood of a Poet, and many of Rene Clair's gems from the '30s) work as DP gives the film its lush texture. Let's say the film has its moments. But when examined closely it is a stuffy British war saga, dashed in romance and romanticism. The latter playing like pre-WWII propaganda. It is certainly coherent and competently directed in every since, being under the keen, regimented eye of Hungarian transplant, Zoltan Korda (and his brother, not formally credited). Outside of a few moments of great writing, a handful of wonderful shots, the stuffiness is unbearable and ultimately suffocating. Yet, still recommended viewing for the cinephile that wants to delve deeper into the medium's past.

This one makes one long for the days when the sun never set on the British Empire! It is ironic that the "coward" who leaves his regiment must prove himself the most courageous person of all. We watch the film aware that the unquestioning obedience to authority that is likely to find us dead on a foreign battlefield is the norm here. Conscientious objection only gets you a white feather -- emblem of a chicken! How Vietnam changed our perceptions! What I noticed particularly about this one was the powerfully depicted battle of Omdurman. The film demonstrates the defensive efficacy of massed rifle fire, a lesson that our Civil War also imparted, but one not grasped by the generals who send boys to war until the machine guns of the Western Front in WW I mowed down thousands of British troops with a few sweeps of the field. The scope of the battle scenes in "Four Feathers" rivals the battle scenes in Keyton's "The General," Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky," and John Huston's "Red Badge of Courage." They capture everything but the smell.

In 1885, an army of Dervishes lay siege to Khartoum with a small garrison commanded by Gerneral Gordon. No help reached him and they are slaughtered. Harry Faversham (John Clements) is pressured to join by traditions and his father. Ten years later, the Royal North Surrey Regiment is called to join the army of Sir Herbert Kitchener to the reconquest of the Sudan. Everybody is excited except for Faversham. He resigns on the eve of their departure after the death of his father. His three friends Durrance (Ralph Richardson), Burroughs (Donald Gray), and Willoughby (Jack Allen) each give him a feather as a sign of his cowardice. His fiancée Ethne Burroughs (June Duprez) can't support him and he plucks a feather from her fan. He decides to disguise himself as a hated mute Sangali to follow the Khalifa's army. As the British force stumble and lose, Faversham saves each of his former friends.

It's an old fashion epic from the Korda brothers. The action is big with giant masses of men. It does take awhile to get there. The acting is pretty stiff which actually fits these people of traditions and stiff upper lip. Nevertheless, the acting is old fashion with a backdrop of romanticism. The big action is where this movie excels.

I can't argue with the lush cinematography of the film or the score, but the story is morally repugnant to me, a big old dose of imperialist, racist, pro-war propaganda that doesn't for a moment call into question the deeper issues. It was 1939 and I suppose a hefty guilt-provoking war propaganda film was what the nation felt it needed, but it's not my cup of tea at all. To me, a man who wakes up and realizes he's not really that into going to some foreign country to kill dark-skinned people in order to steal their resources isn't a bad man, he's a man waking up to true morality, not the false morality of nationalism. If a woman dumps him for it, he's well shut of her. Proving to lesser moral beings that one is "not a coward" after such a brave decision should be nowhere on the list, so to me, the emotional climax of this story comes first, and everything else is a descent back into evil. Had it been played that way, fine, it could have been another All Quiet. But it's typical pro- war jingoistic movie silliness, which I've seen more than enough of in a lifetime.

Also, the lead actor is awfully flat (though compared to some of the scene chewing acting in English films of the 30's, I suppose I shouldn't complain.)