Storm Over the Nile

1956 "Turmoil in the great Egyptian desert !"
6.2| 1h47m| NR| en
Details

In 1885, while his regiment is sent to the Sudan to battle the rebellious Dervish tribes, British Lieutenant Harry Faversham resigns his officer's commission in order to remain with his fiancée Mary Burroughs in England. His friends and fellow officers John Durrance, Peter Burroughs and Tom Willoughby brand him a coward and present him with the white feathers of cowardice. His fiancée, Mary, adds a fourth feather and breaks off their engagement. However, former Lieutenant Faversham decides to regain his honor by fighting in the Sudan incognito.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!
AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.
Leofwine_draca Zoltan Korda's remake of his own FOUR FEATHERS from 1939 drafts in a new director in the form of Terence Young and an all-star cast of British acting faces of the 1950s for a story which is hugely derivative and indeed exactly the same as the earlier tale. Further similarities between the two films are exacerbated by the liberal use of footage stolen from THE FOUR FEATHERS, which is of course the far superior (and bigger budget) film of the two, leaving this somewhat superfluous.Still, the cast alone salvages this story and makes it worth a watch. The tale is wide-reaching and fast-paced, and thoroughly interesting in its depiction of a long-vanished British Empire and the sway it once held over the known world. I found Anthony Steel a bit staid in the lead role, but the supporting players are very good. Laurence Harvey has the most characterisation and is thus the most interesting, but Ian Carmichael and Ronald Lewis make their mark too. James Robertson Justice is a scene-stealer and the likes of Geoffrey Keen and Michael Hordern add quality while Christopher Lee, Roger Delgado, and Ferdy Mayne don boot polish to play the natives.
tieman64 This is a review of "Storm over the Nile" (1955), "Khartoum" (1966) and "The Four Feathers" (2002), three films based on British actions during the Mahdist War (1881-1899).The 19th century saw colonial powers scrambling across Africa. As the British Empire expanded from Southern Africa to the Mediterranean, the Ottomans expanded from Turkey to Northern Africa and the French from West Africa to the Red Sea. All three would converge upon Egypt, which would continually shift hands between the three Empires.Britain eventually emerged victorious, becoming defacto ruler of Egypt in 1882. Egypt would henceforth become a base for further British expansion southward into Sudan. The Sudanese would attempt to fend off these advances. They'd rally behind Muhammad Ahmad, an Islamic messianic or "Mahdist" figure. Muhammad Ahmad was denounced by Sudanese elites, but embraced as a revolutionary leader by marginalised Nilotic tribes.Experts at using divide-and-rule tactics, the British divided Sudan into loosely demarcated northern and southern zones. The north became Muslim and Arab dominated and was integrated with the economic networks along the Nile. The south, steeped in poverty, was treated as an "African zone". A cocktail of Muslim, Christian and tribal groups, the south Sudanese were indoctrinated into thinking themselves culturally/biologically distinct and inferior. Promising independence and even salvation (he claimed to be paving the way for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ), Muhammad Ahmad set out to overturn this. Like the countless Christian messianic figures who sprung up as a result of Roman occupation, and a precursor to contemporary Islamic militants, he was the inevitable product of naked Imperialism.The city of Khartoum straddled northern and southern Sudan. To the North, the British suppressed the slave trade, heavily invested in social, educational and health services, and essentially nurtured a "liberalised" form of Islam. As colonialism recruitment policies favoured educated Arabs, a new socio-economic class was created so as to offer a bulwark against Mahdism and secular nationalism. An ideological bulwark, however, is no match for guns.In 1884, after a three month siege, Khartoum fell to the Mahdists, who stormed the city and executed British governor-general Charles Gordon. The Empire reacted swiftly. British forces under Herbert Kitchener rolled in and slaughtered tens of thousands of Sudanese. By 1898, most Mahdists were crushed. Sudan henceforth became subject to joint Anglo-Egyptian governance.Unsurprisingly, the British set out to exacerbate regional, religious and racial divisions amongst the Sudanese. In 1922, in what became known as the "Southern Policy", the Empire declared that southern Sudan would be considered a "Closed District". Islamic proselytisers were banned, Arabic languages and clothing were discouraged, and Christian missionaries were brought in to convert southerners. Meanwhile, southern Arab merchants were relocated to the north and interactions between the peoples of the north and the south were forbidden. Such segregationist policies were designed to keep the south economically backward and foster divisiveness.Today, little has changed in Sudan. Artificially carved out of a myriad of peoples, with more than 400 ethnic and linguistic groups lumped together within its borders, the country remains ravaged by the divide-and-rule tactics of modern neo-Imperialists. Milking the nation's oil fields and precious metals, the United States, and recently China, have today become expert at funding and arming militias and bloody regimes in both the north and south.Zoltan Korda would produce and co-direct "Storm Over the Nile" in 1955, a film based on "The Four Feathers", a 1902 novel by Alfred Mason. The plot? Refusing to sail with his regiment to the Sudan, Harry Faversham (Anthony Steel), the cowardly scion of a military family, overcomes his disgrace by travelling to Africa. Here he helps his regiment defeat Sudanese forces. As with many Imperialist adventures, the film glorifies queen and country, assumes the rightness of British rule, romanticises colonialism and posits loyalty and responsibility to the ruling classes as the highest ideal. Though stiff and dull in places, the film boasts several impressive action sequences, filmed in expansive Cinemascope.The 1950s/60s saw the release of numerous films which attempted to rejuvenate British nationalism and which were determined to white-wash the realities of colonialism ("Zulu", "North West Frontier", "Khartoum", "55 Days at Peking", "The Black Tent" etc). Supercharged by the civil rights and independence movements of the 1950s-60s, such perspectives were slowly contested ("Gandhi", "Guns at Batasi", "Burn!", "The Man Who Would Be King", "Passage to India" etc), eventually giving rise to the latest adaptation of "The Four Feathers", a 2002 film which was so politically correct as to be ridiculous.Directed by Shekhar Kapur, "The Four Feathers" (2002) tells virtually the same story as "Storm over the Nile". Here actor Heath Ledger plays Harry Faversham, who is no longer a "coward" but a man of conscience who has "ethical objections to colonialism". Harry travels to Sudan, where he befriends and fights alongside Africans and where he teaches us to question nationalism, exceptionalism and pride. Dull and conventionally shot, the film's attempts at "rectifying" its source material are mostly hokey. In some ways it is even more racist than Korda's film, Africans reduced to props, whole cultures reduced to ridiculous musical choices and second-hand "exotic" signifiers.Released in 1966, and directed by Basil Dearden, "Khartoum" stars Charlton Heston as Charles Gordon, a British General sent to Sudan to battle Muhammad Ahmad (Lawrence Olivier). Gordon valiantly defends a fortress in Kartoum, but is eventually overrun.By having its heroes outnumbered, like cowboys surrounded by hordes of manic Indians, "Khartoum" manoeuvres its audience into siding with colonialists. Elsewhere it uses Gordon's demise to criticise political leaders who refuse to rally behind valiant troops. Heston, who spent the decade battling hordes of on-screen "savages", is himself a caricature of British bravery, whilst Ahmad never rises above the level of black-faced bogeyman. Still, "Kartoum" has its merits. Impeccably shot, tense, filled with impressive battles and awesome landscapes, it remains the best of a certain brand of 1950s/60s, pro-Imperialist adventure.5/10 - Worth one viewing.
soccermanz 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.
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