Robert Joyner
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Derrick Gibbons
An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.
Zandra
The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
JohnHowardReid
A Mark Robson (Red Lion) Production, filmed on location in Delhi, Bombay, Poona, Nasik. Copyright 31 December 1962 by Red Lion Productions. Released through 20th Century-Fox. New York opening at the Astor: 3 April 1963. U.S. release: April 1963. U.K. release: 24 March 1963. Sydney opening at the Century. 11,240 feet. 125 minutes.SYNOPSIS: At 8 a.m. on the morning of 30 January 1948, Naturam Godse (Horst Buchholz) and Narayam Apte (Don Borisenko) awaken in a retiring room of the second floor of the railway station in Delhi, India. The two are hoping to hide out until 5 p.m. when they plan to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi as he arrives at a prayer meeting in the garden back of the home of Indian industrialist G. D. Birla. They are awaiting the arrival of a conspirator, who does not know who they are or when they will do the deed.But the confederate does not show up. He is arrested by Gopal Das (José Ferrer), superintendent of police, who is sure an attempt will be made on Gandhi's life. But he is not certain of time or place or who intends to commit the murder. He is determined to save Gandhi whom he believes to be India's greatest man.COMMENT: You can malign most historical figures as much as you like. Of course the further removed they are in time, the better. A hundred years, for instance, and you're safe. You can be mischievously malicious, and most people won't give a damn. The cardinal exception of course is for religious icons. A lot of people are going to get mighty upset if you portray Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, the Christ, or Moses in anything but the most adulatory way. In fact, some folk aren't going to like it period.Mark Robson has broken both rules in "Nine Hours to Rama". His subject matter is too recent and has too much religious significance. The Indian government which co-operated in the making of the film, banned it. Not that our fellow colonists were missing out on a treat. For although it starts off most promisingly, "Nine Hours to Rama" is a stodgy affair, lumbered with flashbacks of its unsympathetic hero (glumly but nonetheless camera-hoggishly played by Horst Buchholz). These were better left on the cutting-room floor. (The only loss would be of Miss Valerie Gearon whose film roles would thus be reduced from this one to nil). The "present" story is highly suspenseful, even though we already know the terrifying outcome. We don't need to have the past of the ant- hero filled in. We hate him, we loath him, he bores us and disgusts us. Away with him! Give us more India, more Gandhi!
jclark9
I watched this film completely at random from my library of "old VHS" I thought it to be a very good production, but probably of marginal interest to today's public.After I realized what the movie really portrayed, I was fascinated to pursue some of the other comments, a piece of history that has been "missed." Really some of this is very relevant to what is happening today. I very much appreciate the sentiments pro or con in the above reviews.Good movie overall, I'll not comment on the production, but would make the following observations: Bucholz - great performance, but where did he go from here? (I did see the obit); Ferrer - very impressed with his handling of his role; Morley - miscast and not in characterLastly. this was an AngloHollywood production of an IndoPakistani historic event. A Bollywood reproduction might prove interesting!
flolebus
I remember seeing this movie broadcast on television as young boy and being fascinated by the beautiful and exotic photography. I didn't even know who Ghandi was at that young age but was intrigued enough to watch the entire movie without really planning to. At that age I was watching sports on television mostly. I don't know much about the assassin, his motives and what happened after Ghandi's death. I would like to see if the movie is as good as I seem to remember it being today. With the increasing violence between India and Pakistan and terrorism in general, I would like to revisit this movie if possible. I am rather surprised that this movie made United States television considering how provincial and narrow-minded Americans tend to be about the rest of the world etc...
hedgehog-10
A film which builds up to a climax is spoilt by some unconvincing performances, especially Harry Andrews' Indian Officer and Robert Morley. Despite this, the direction is reasonable and the film worth seeing as there seem so few films about this subject.
