In the mid-1700's the East India Company has power over commerce on the sub-continent, with the blessings of the British government. A clerk in the company, Robert Clive, is frustrated by ... See full summary »
Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.
If your account is linked with Facebook and you have turned on sharing, this will show up in your activity feed. If not, you can turn on sharing
here
.
In the mid-1700's the East India Company has power over commerce on the sub-continent, with the blessings of the British government. A clerk in the company, Robert Clive, is frustrated by his lack of advancement, and transfers to the military arm of the company, where he excels. Clive's leadership and gift for manipulation strengthen England's hold over India and lead to personal wealth, which is often threatened by the enemies he makes along the way. Written by
Ron Kerrigan <mvg@whidbey.com>
I love the period from the 1920s-1940s in film, however, there are a couple genres within this that I am less than fond of and try to avoid--such as musicals and costume dramas. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but in general these are among my least favorite old films. With musicals, often the story seems unimportant and the songs dominate and with costumers, too often the tales look great and have nice sets and clothes but seem emotionally sterile.
"Clive of India", clearly, is a very sterile and dry film. Despite starring the wonderful Ronald Colman (one of my favorites), the picture comes off as episodic and amazingly dull. This is a shame, as the real life Sir Clive was an amazing man and as an American I am glad he fought in India and not North America--otherwise, we might still be a British colony! He was talented and yet also very screwed up (his suicide comes to mind) and how all this managed to be so dull is beyond me. I think it's because so much energy is spent on the sets and making it all look good that little attention was given to the script--the characters just seemed wooden and lifeless.
Overall, you can watch it if you like, but I suggest you'd get more out of Wikipedia on this one!
3 of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
I love the period from the 1920s-1940s in film, however, there are a couple genres within this that I am less than fond of and try to avoid--such as musicals and costume dramas. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but in general these are among my least favorite old films. With musicals, often the story seems unimportant and the songs dominate and with costumers, too often the tales look great and have nice sets and clothes but seem emotionally sterile.
"Clive of India", clearly, is a very sterile and dry film. Despite starring the wonderful Ronald Colman (one of my favorites), the picture comes off as episodic and amazingly dull. This is a shame, as the real life Sir Clive was an amazing man and as an American I am glad he fought in India and not North America--otherwise, we might still be a British colony! He was talented and yet also very screwed up (his suicide comes to mind) and how all this managed to be so dull is beyond me. I think it's because so much energy is spent on the sets and making it all look good that little attention was given to the script--the characters just seemed wooden and lifeless.
Overall, you can watch it if you like, but I suggest you'd get more out of Wikipedia on this one!