Rating: 
Summary: Visual feast, but no depth to plot or to characters
Review: If you are looking for a movie with sumptuous landscapes and costumes, exotic locales and characters, and a highly romanticized story, this fits perfectly. If you are looking for a movie with real meat to the story, this does not do so well. Both Ben Cross and Amy Irving who play the protagonists do not appear to advantage in this film. [For a better performance from Cross, try CHARIOTS OF FIRE, for that from Irving, try CROSSING DELANCEY].This kind of movie also paints a distorted view of British India in this time period, romanticized but bearing as much resemblance either to 19th century India or modern India (and South Asia) as would ALADDIN (Disney version) to the Middle East ca 800 or today. Part of the problem is that the film has cut so much of the beginning of the novel (actually, pretty much the first third ) away. That leaves the viewer in limbo when Ashton Pelham-Martyn appears as a British officer with an Indian background. What kind of background? That is much better described (and far more believable) in the novel than in the film. Of course, it is hard to compare novels and film adaptations. On the other hand, we do want the story within a film to make sense. Given the complexities of the plot, what is left out gives us little understanding of why Anjuli's position is so bad, or for that matter, why Ashton's "Indian" background leaves him highly suspect among his fellow officers. [Not to mention the fact that an important little sub-plot is almost totally excised]. If you have read the novel before watching the film, the story will make more sense. On the other hand, if you are just looking for eye candy, this film version is fine as it stands. For the record, if you want to read about 19th century Raj customs and stuff, read Kipling's KIM or anything else by him or watch THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. Paul Scott's THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN (TV series and book) and E.M Foster's A PASSAGE TO INDIA (film by David Lean and book) offer a much-better more nuanced and better-researched look at the last decades of the Raj (1920s to 1940s). For stories set before 1857, I am not really sure there is anything that has been well-translated to the film medium.
Rating:
Summary: Visual feast, but no depth to plot or to characters
Review: If you are looking for a movie with sumptuous landscapes and costumes, exotic locales and characters, and a highly romanticized story, this fits perfectly. If you are looking for a movie with real meat to the story, this does not do so well. Both Ben Cross and Amy Irving who play the protagonists do not appear to advantage in this film. [For a better performance from Cross, try CHARIOTS OF FIRE, for that from Irving, try CROSSING DELANCEY]. This kind of movie also paints a distorted view of British India in this time period, romanticized but bearing as much resemblance either to 19th century India or modern India (and South Asia) as would ALADDIN (Disney version) to the Middle East ca 800 or today. Part of the problem is that the film has cut so much of the beginning of the novel (actually, pretty much the first third ) away. That leaves the viewer in limbo when Ashton Pelham-Martyn appears as a British officer with an Indian background. What kind of background? That is much better described (and far more believable) in the novel than in the film. Of course, it is hard to compare novels and film adaptations. On the other hand, we do want the story within a film to make sense. Given the complexities of the plot, what is left out gives us little understanding of why Anjuli's position is so bad, or for that matter, why Ashton's "Indian" background leaves him highly suspect among his fellow officers. [Not to mention the fact that an important little sub-plot is almost totally excised]. If you have read the novel before watching the film, the story will make more sense. On the other hand, if you are just looking for eye candy, this film version is fine as it stands. For the record, if you want to read about 19th century Raj customs and stuff, read Kipling's KIM or anything else by him or watch THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. Paul Scott's THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN (TV series and book) and E.M Foster's A PASSAGE TO INDIA (film by David Lean and book) offer a much-better more nuanced and better-researched look at the last decades of the Raj (1920s to 1940s). For stories set before 1857, I am not really sure there is anything that has been well-translated to the film medium.
Rating: 
Summary: A captivating love story
Review: Set in the times of the British Raj, this is a wonderful love story. The exotic places and events will certainly captivate the viewer. The actors like Ben Cross, Omar Shariff are simply great so is Amy Irving in her role as Eurosian girl.
Rating:
Summary: The Far Pavilions
Review: The acting is superb, India is the beautiful backdrop for this miniseries and the cinematography is glorious.
A Must See! DGW
Rating: 
Summary: Far Pavilions
Review: The original Television Show, The Far Pavilions, was spectacular. It had everything for a true historical love story. Unfortunatly, this set has had too much cut from the original, there is a definate lack of understanding about Ash and Anjuli before Ash arrives back to India. Additional cuts to fit it into the four volume set detracted from the show. I will still look for the original show. These videos are lacking too much for the original viewer
Rating:
Summary: excellent, magnificent
Review: The scenery is magnificent feel like you are there in the story itself and wishing that the movie will not end. Ben Cross and Amy Irving made you feel young and in love again the old fashion way. It was such a good story that I saw several times. And also read the book.
Rating:
Summary: Bad video transfer
Review: The video transfer on this was bad. Scenes in broad daylight were so badly damaged you couldn't see them on the screen. There were no extras on the DVD. This is a classic example of a studio trying to pull in $$$ on a cheap re-issue.
Rating: 
Summary: The Far Pavilions
Review: This movie is fantastic. I saw it a few years ago and I fell in love with the story. My name actually was chosen after my parents saw it while my mom was pregnant. Watch it, and you will love it too.
Rating: 
Summary: It butchers a classic!
Review: This movie was hardly based on the wonderful book written by M.M. Kaye. It completely butchered it! It was a horrible movie, with a bad cast who acted even worse! Save yourself 180 mins. of torture, and do not but this movie!
Rating:
Summary: Nicely done
Review: This was a movie I first saw on TV as a child. It captivated me at the time and still does. It is one of the reasons I remain interested academically in this region of the world today. It does a nice job in introducing to Western viewers why there is resentment from former colonized countries like India (and others that are "problem" regions today). My only complaint about the movie is Amy Irving's makeup. Her character, Anjuli, is half-Indian and half-Russian. The actress is exotic looking in real life. There was no need to plaster her face with all of that makeup. She would have been convincing in the role without it. Very well acted and beautifully filmed. One of the best miniseries of all time.
| 
