More entertaining than the book, but that's not saying very much.

(Blu-ray rewatch) A terminal case of the stiff-upper-lip disease.

"...the film, for all Lean's innate elegance, is strangely remote and unmoving."

At its core it is fundamentally flawed in its departure from the novel's thematics. However, it flows nicely and is highly watchable despite its unnecessary lengthiness.

David Lean's last film based on E.M. Forster's novel.

Mystical, metaphysical. Its lack of consistency and infrequent pandering prevent me from giving the film an 80-plus score. Has similar ideas as Black Narcissus/Hanging Rock, except with the Lean fullness (never an oxymoron), and subtly psychological photographic composition.

Rich and engrossing, but not without its flaws.

Good end of career for David Lean! The film hits especially the idea of the viewer does not know whether the protagonist was innocent or guilty.

A fairly honest adaptation of E.M Forster's novel although it fails to rejoice at the splendour of India in the same way as the book to me. Solid performances throughout so very nearly a great film but just falling short with a certain spark missing. Strong cinematography and enjoyable

Flawed, but still very beautiful to watch. Not one of Lean's best, but still a fitting end to a wonderful career. I'm always surprised how he transforms Guinness.

An artful adaptation of a great novel.

Good film.

I must have been incredibly stupid when I first watched this. I still don't exactly care for Victor Banerjee or his other Indian friend, oddly enough, the westerners are displayed more passionately in this eastern tale (though it certainly doesn't let the majority off lightly). The only Indian this doesn't apply to is freaking Alec Guinness. There's something wrong about that, but it's really a remarkable story; excellently adapted by a director still in full control of his abilities.

Lean's visual compositions are up to his usual magnificent standard and the film's atmosphere mixes the haunting tragedy of Picnic at Hanging Rock with the cultural exploration of Renoir's The River. It's not always perfect, being overlong, unevenly paced and with slightly underdeveloped characters, but the second half is especially strong and it explores some interesting themes in a visually rich setting.

Quite an interesting film about the problems (and a bit of the beauties) of the British colonial project in India. On the plus side, the west is invited to experience the rich beauty of this mysterious nation, communicated through the women's interest in the culture and the beautiful photography. However, the narrative makes the problems clear, primarily the seemingly unending racism by the Brits and the suspicion by many Indians. Acting is solid, esp. Peggy Ashcroft.

A flawed but very good film. Throughout its long running time it never fails to engage, on the strength of an interesting and compelling story, picturesque locations and beautiful period production, consistently great directing and flowing pace. The main problem is with some of the characters and actors. Davis is perfect, but Banerjee spoils Aziz' fragile believability by overacting, Guinness' tour de force belies a stereotypical character in Godbole, and other characters are just a bit flat.