Many movies have been remade, sometimes (as here) under different titles, and while some remakes (The Dawn Patrol, The Maltese Falcon, The Blob) are better than the first efforts, most are inferior.
The Four Feathers has been filmed under that title four times (1921, 1929, 1939, 2002), plus a TV movie in 1978. Storm Over the Nile was of course a remake in all but name. The 1939 version is by far the best-known, and generally considered the best. The 1929 semi-silent produced by David O. Selznick was also very well received. Filming a remake within a few years of an earlier version wasn't at all uncommon back in the heyday of the major studios, particularly before television allowed people to watch an older film long after its theatrical release.
I think the problem with Storm Over the Nile is not that it was a remake, but that it culled so much of its footage, as well as its script, from the 1939 film. Looked at solely in terms of originality, it is by far the poorest version. Korda would, I think, have done better simply to have remade it under its traditional title, and filmed all new footage. Borrowing so much from the 1939 movie makes the 1955 film look cheap.
Storm isn't a bad movie but it can't hold a candle to the 1939 film. The (often artificial) addition of CinemaScope doesn't make it "better". I don't at all agree that the cast, direction, cinematography, color, music or any other elements are in any way equal, let alone superior, to those in the '39 film. Thanks in large part to its heavy use of footage and dialogue from the earlier film, Storm Over the Nile has so little to offer of its own that it is indeed a pretty pointless remake. Add to this the weaker quality of those aspects that are its own (above), Storm is simply not in the same league.
Had The Four Feathers never existed and Storm been made on its own, it would have been an entertaining, if essentially routine, adventure movie. As it is, while enjoyable enough, it can't escape the vast superiority of the film that literally gave it birth.