tputter

Fellow reviewers: Please feel free to challenge my brief review, as I confess I watched only the first ten minutes. I always grant a measure of plausibility to any given movie, but this one immediately insulted my intelligence.

The story begins with our Norwegian hero emerging from bitterly icy waters, cold enough to bring on hypothermia within minutes. While surviving this incredible ordeal, he soon has his foot shot by the enemy. Incredibly, he manages to hop away, leaving a blood trail so obvious, that I KNEW he would be captured in the next scene. Instead, we find a dozen bewildered German soldiers stopped, staring down at the hero's blood stains, as if our hero was somewhere buried underneath the snow. The next scene switches to our hero, hoping away over an open frozen tundra, devoid of ANY place to take cover for miles in any direction. But, MIRACUOUSLY, he not only manages to get away, but survive the dual dilemma of hypothermia and loss of blood.

If I had been the German commanding officer, I'd have court martialed the entire squadron for negligence of duty ... and assumed that our hero was Superman, immune to both hypothermia and bleeding.

While "A Passage to India" does not have near the action and adventure of David Lean's other legendary classics, such as "Bridge on the River Kwai," "Lawrence of Arabia," and "Dr. Zhivago," this film offers, instead, a more thought-provoking theme. Never fear, there is still the signature breathtaking scenery and beautiful panoramic imagery Lean is so famous for, but designed for a more subtle story purpose.

The film is based on E.M. Forester's novel of the same title, set during during the British occupation of much of India (the "Raj") during the 1920's. Forester's story emphasis is on the political and cultural conflict between the western British and the eastern Indians - with a touch of mysticism thrown in. In contrast, for his film, David Lean reverses this emphasis: Here, the political and cultural conflict serves as the background for the primary theme of Indian mysticism.

In carrying out his movie mission, Lean placed primary importance on the two English female visitors: Mrs. Moore (played by Peggy Ashcroft) and Miss Quested (played by Judy Davis). To Lean's credit, both Ashcroft and Davis earned an Academy Award and Academy Nomination respectively for their roles.

The most poignant line in the film - not found in the novel - is when Mrs. Moore says to Miss Quested: "India forces one to come face-to-face with oneself." This is really the summary of the film story.

For Miss Quested, this self-discovery is her awakening to her own repressed sexuality. To this end, Lean introduces a scene not found in the novel: Miss Quested take a solo bicycle ride in a remote area, permeated with ancient Indian statues of an erotic nature.

Meanwhile, for Mrs. Moore, her prophetic statement leads her to come face-to-face with her own impending death. She finds herself mesmerized by the mysterious imagery attached to both the water below her feet and the moon above her head.

The one paramount imagery of self-discovery that both ladies share is the mysterious and frightening echo inside the Marabar Caves. It is this unexplained phenomena that perhaps grips the viewing audience the most.

The only criticism I have of the film is the miscasting of Alec Guiness as the Hindu professor, Godbole. So wonderfully cast in Lean's previously-mentioned movie classics, Guinness, sadly, seems uncomfortably out of place.

Nevertheless, I give the film nine stars and highly recommend it.

In this film, Charlton Heston was two years away from stardom in "The Ten commandments" and five years away from stardom in"Ben-Hur." Therefore, in this film, Eleanor Parker had top billing. Parker was so gorgeous and sensual in this film, unequal by any other female film star.

The first part of the movie brilliantly focuses on the romantic, sexual tension between the lead roles. The second part of the movie follows with emphasis on the adventurous, frightening aspect of the movie, but artistically ties in the romantic aspect as well.

Just a tremendous film, timeless in it's romantic tension and anticipated fear.

The story had such good potential, but the talents of the leading actors were simply wasted. Future Academy Award winners, Gary Cooper, Ray Milland, Robert Preston, and Susan Hayward, unfortunately, were given scripts that were totally amateurish and wooden.

By strange irony, however, Brian Donley is brilliant as the sadistic sergeant Markov. Blessed by a powerful script, Donley gives one of the finest best supporting roles in Hollywood history. Whenever I watch this movie, I often just fast forward to the scenes featuring Sgt. Markov ... so deliciously evil with his cocked eye and imposing demeanor.

Where do I begin with such a deplorable movie? Let's start with cinematography. The vast majority of the scenes are filmed in a frustrating haze of darkness; the excessive use of close-ups is nauseating; and, worst of all, the camera is constantly jerking throughout the film, which left me with a splitting headache when I left the theater.

When compared with the classic 1959 version, the 2016 story is as humorously silly as it is shamefully insulting. Here's just a few examples: In the chariot race, our hero falls out of his chariot; manages, somehow, to hold on to the reins; is dragged for an entire lap around the arena; finds the incredible strength to pull himself up back into the chariot; and, most astounding, not a scratch is on him. Oh, by the way, Ben-Hur's chariot breaks up at the end, permitting him to have a climatic finish, literally rolling across the finish line.

Then, there is Ben-Hur's mother and sister, who are miraculously cured of leprosy, but they do not have a clue as to whom they owe this miracle. They are totally unsympathetic characters - as, in fact, all of them are.

The adoption of Ben-Hur by Roman Counsel Quintus Arius, which is crucial for setting the dramatic scene of Ben-Hur's return to Jerusalem from the galleys, is totally missing. Instead, in this latest version, Ben-Hur is reduced to a fugitive slave, running from the Judean authorities like a scared rabbit.

In the 1959 version, the evil Macella dies in the chariot race, but with his last breath informs a bewildered Ben-Hur - in a triumphant tone - that his mother and sister are lepers and that "the race goes on." Ben-Hur, naturally, is crushed by the news. In the 2016 version, in stark contrast, Macella lives (minus a leg); the two tearfully forgive each other; and, at very the end, they ride off on horses into the sunset like some Grade B western.

Please. PLEASE! Watch the critically-acclaimed 1959 version and you will enjoy perhaps the greatest Hollywood film of all time. However, if you choose, like me, to go see this latest version out of curiosity, remember that you have been warned.