Interesting story with wonderful cinematography.Set in India in the 1920s, this is a story of cultural intolerance, acceptance and reconciliation. Not the usual patronising films of the past set in India. Much more balanced, and, if anything, the English come out looking like the bad guys.Stunning scenery and great cinematography.Plot builds slowly. Once the key scene occurs the movie is set up for a great tale of justice, or injustice. However, despite the potential, these themes are just touched on and are concluded rather tamely. Ending feels a bit muddled and anti-climactic. So, good, but could have been a lot better, especially since the story takes so long to be told.

Different, strange and slow. Long road to the platеаu over which the karma is bringing you in Indian way and the destiny in European. It does not matter how hard you try the outcome is always getting there. Where you might ask? Close to yourself.This movie touches historical and political themes, even its naivety it represent the difficulty of human relationships provoked by youth and uncertain future. Shortly lived, the protagonists had parts of their past in them which navigate their behavior. Only when these parts are well milled by the mills of experience and building strong individuality they will find peace.The action is taking in beautiful places in oriental India that is opposed to well behaved England. It is questioned which view for what is right is right and can be called objectively such.By leaving aside that I literally tried to help a boat at the end of the movie to become faster and the frequent use of the rain as a symbol of the life little streams that we all live and that are coming with the rain and going to the endless ocean, the movie is nice because it shows which are the values that are left at the end and which behavior is making sense at any point.http://vihrenmitevmovies.blogspot.com/

I enjoyed the film but not the story. I have been to India many times for work and I am fascinated by its history. I realize this isn't a historical film but it did capture the time of the Brit Raj rather well. I also saw some of the typical Western Traveler that gets caught up in the social views and their feeling of pity for the Indian. No need they are a strong people. Anyhow it bugged me that they used Alec Guiness for Godbole. I kept thinking WTH is he doing. He added nothing and it could have been done much better by any of Bollywoods top tier. I just couldn't get over his being there. And the scene at the caves was painful the acting forced. I still have no idea what she was doing they paid no real attention to flesh out what went on with her. A missed opportunity. Anyhow, it is a good movie to see what life was like at the time but the story and directing was pretty bad. Not to mention Alec in his creepy scenes.

The trailers for this film were all about the intrigue of mystical India, elephants, temples, jungle, exotic scenery! And, to be fair, there actually was some of that in the first part of the movie. But it had little to nothing to do with the story they were trying to tell. It was simply a little wallpaper to perk up an otherwise dreary, little story.So the British colonists were snobbish, racist, elitist jerks? Well, maybe that was news in the 20's when the book was written, but I think most anyone with a pulse had figured that out by 1984.And the very title "Passage to India" evokes thoughts of exotic countryside and Indiana Jonesish adventure. Instead we get a few minutes of travelogue scenery and then two hours or more of tepid courtroom drama. It should have been made as a Perry Mason episode ("The Case of the Confused Englishwoman"?) and it would have been a lot more honest.Not impressed...