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

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.