Kim

John Rhys-Davies has demonstrated his range of characters in a variety of settings and mediums.It is my understanding that he has essayed major Shakespearean roles on the stage and he has played both heroic and villainous parts in films,radio performances,and television mini-series and series.His performances are always filled with zest,insight,creativity,and fun.Even his villains are admirable,at least in the scope of their efforts.After all,we like our villains manly,now,don't we? he has such an enjoyable time portraying the Babu,that it wasn't until I watched this for the 3rd or 4th time around,that I realized the inside joke.The Babu,witty,humorous,sharp,shrewd,and insightful,is a splendid parody of Robert Morley.Bravo!

I love this version as much as I do the 1950 version. I have this version on VHS, but would like to have it on DVD, when it becomes reasonably priced ♥ I love a lot of the movies made from Rudyard Kipling's books

This is enjoyable in every way. Ravi Sheth is tremendous as Kim, the street urchin-turned spy. All departures from Kipling's book are changes for the better--for instance, here, Kim is conflicted by the Irish side of his heritage and angrily resists the British forcing him into school. In Kipling's novel, Kim couldn't wait to rub his "sahib" status into the faces of his friends on the street.

Kim's transformation from homeless beggar to Secret Service agent is very well depicted, and so is his devotion to the gentle lama who is quite helpless on the mean streets of India.

The only significant flaws are in the casting of very non-Indian actors as the Lama, Mahbub Ali, and Babu. John Rhys-Davis is decent as Babu, but unfortunately, it's Peter O'Toole who is by far the worst fault of the film. His makeup is awful and his exaggerated doddering mannerisms are absurd, and anyone who's had any acquaintance with Tibetan Buddhism knows his costume is atrociously inauthentic as well. In addition, some of the scene changes are also difficult to follow. Yet overall, the movie works, and works very well.

This story is human, amusing, exciting, and heartwarming. The "friend of all the world" will delight you.

Kim is an okay film, but has too many weaknesses. At least they actually filmed it in India...

The worst aspect is Peter O'Toole who looked terrible, acted terribly, whose spirituality was expressed through empty platitudes and lack of any kind of foresight. He seems more like a lost old man than a holy man. And the fake bald rubber head cap was just ugly. Sheesh.

I'd skip it and watch something else, like Ghandi. With Bollywood turning out so many films it is amazing that this film could be so bad.

For those who get bored halfway through can have fun watching the Indian extras trying and failing to avoid looking into the lens.

• and the scenery is stunning, but otherwise, such a film as this makes me understand why Salinger wanted "Catcher in the Rye" to remain unfilmed. Ravi Sheth is passable as Kim when he can refrain from dismal attempts at being "cute" (I know: the director is probably to blame),and at times, he's downright good. Rhys-Davies and Brown are excellent in a way that honors the novel, but Peter O'Toole is an abomination. Let alone that his bald pate is the worst make-up job I have seen outside a circus, but the Lama is supposed to be wise in a childish way and O'Toole misses the mark by a light year, stumbling away in a drunken stupor and reading his lines like a BBC news reader from the 30s. I trust that by now O'Toole has been reborn as a cobra due to his criminal treatment of Kipling's Old Lama. In this case, I'll not blame the director. With a track record like his own, Peter O'Toole should be able to make something better out of even the poorest direction. To think that HE played Lawrence of Arabia! How are the mighty fallen! However, I did not mind in the least the added love story of the young British trooper and his Indian wife - in fact, it showed that the men behind the film knew their Kipling. I take it the interracial tragedy is collected from stories such as "Lispeth", "Beyond the Pale" and "Without Benefit of Clergy".

But why, oh why didn't David Lean think of filming "Kim" when he actually improved on Forster's chatty "Passage to India", a far lesser literary work?