Rating: 
Summary: Good treatment of the AEW Mason book
Review: This remake of the 1930s version of The Four Feathers remedies some of the deficiencies of the first film. Harry Faversham is a young officer tired of the military, having grown up in the army - his father is a general. He is engaged to a woman who is also of the army, but more inclined to accept it. This then is the basis of the story. Two people, similar backgrounds, different goals. He wants his children to grow up without the Army, she is impressed with a regimental wedding.
War breaks out again in the Sudan and Harry is put to the test - does he stay with the Army. However, before he can have his resignation accepted, a recall of officers occurrs and telegrams arrive at his engagement party demanding the return of Harry and his officer guests to the regiment. Harry burns the telegrams and is seen by one officer. When the officers discover what he has done, each of the three send him a white feather, a sign of cowardice. His fiancee, when she sees this is at first outraged that they would do this, but when Harry tells her what he did, she adds her feather to the other three - making a total of four feathers. The movie is the story of how Harry redeems his honor by giving the four feathers back to their senders, after an act of courage in each case. This movie has better role definition for some charecters that is missing in the '30s version. The general, played by Harry Andrews is exceptional. Jane Seymour as Ethney is also excellent as the woman who scorns a man for a percieved act of cowardice but doesn't see the inner turmoil he is suffering. The three officers do well. They give off the feeling of priviledge leaders common to the British Army of the time. Corners were cut by slicing footage from the 30s edition into the current film. It is grossly apparent and detracts from the current film. It is clumsy and takes away from the quality of the film. Beau Bridges as Harry seems an odd choice. Trying to be British, he doesn't come off as very convincing. His acting is good but I think he is rather miscast in this film. This is a fairly good film. The acting is adequate and the film score is quite good. If you've never seen the 30s version, this is a good start. If you have seen the earlier work, this will be a bit of a disappointment over all.
Rating:
Summary: Good treatment of the AEW Mason book
Review: This remake of the 1930s version of The Four Feathers remedies some of the deficiencies of the first film. Harry Faversham is a young officer tired of the military, having grown up in the army - his father is a general. He is engaged to a woman who is also of the army, but more inclined to accept it. This then is the basis of the story. Two people, similar backgrounds, different goals. He wants his children to grow up without the Army, she is impressed with a regimental wedding.
War breaks out again in the Sudan and Harry is put to the test - does he stay with the Army. However, before he can have his resignation accepted, a recall of officers occurrs and telegrams arrive at his engagement party demanding the return of Harry and his officer guests to the regiment. Harry burns the telegrams and is seen by one officer. When the officers discover what he has done, each of the three send him a white feather, a sign of cowardice. His fiancee, when she sees this is at first outraged that they would do this, but when Harry tells her what he did, she adds her feather to the other three - making a total of four feathers. The movie is the story of how Harry redeems his honor by giving the four feathers back to their senders, after an act of courage in each case. This movie has better role definition for some charecters that is missing in the '30s version. The general, played by Harry Andrews is exceptional. Jane Seymour as Ethney is also excellent as the woman who scorns a man for a percieved act of cowardice but doesn't see the inner turmoil he is suffering. The three officers do well. They give off the feeling of priviledge leaders common to the British Army of the time. Corners were cut by slicing footage from the 30s edition into the current film. It is grossly apparent and detracts from the current film. It is clumsy and takes away from the quality of the film. Beau Bridges as Harry seems an odd choice. Trying to be British, he doesn't come off as very convincing. His acting is good but I think he is rather miscast in this film. This is a fairly good film. The acting is adequate and the film score is quite good. If you've never seen the 30s version, this is a good start. If you have seen the earlier work, this will be a bit of a disappointment over all.
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent movie, not so excellent battle sequences
Review: This version of "The four feathers" is excellent, the story is much deeper than the newest version (starring Heath Ledger).
Other reviewers have told you what the story is about, so I won't go into that.
This movie has an excellent cast including the following: Beau Bridges, Jane Seymour, and Robert Powell.
All of the actors do an excellent job at making you believe that they are who they are.
The battle sequences leave more than a little to be desired, but they are excellent for the day.
The Love story is very believable and does not include any sexual scenes or unecessary nudity.
The man who plays the father is also very good, and I'm glad for all of the back story on why Beau Bridges character is the way he is.
Overall, the story is really very good, but it's battle sequences are a saddning part.
You can clearly see that a men are not stabbed in several sequences.
Well, that is a minor quibble.
Anyway, see the movie, it doesn't contain any sexuality (unlike the new version) and that should be a plus for most parents and adults.
| 
