Rating: 
Summary: Very disappointing
Review: Oh dear! I bought this on the back of Kapur's fabulous "Elizabeth" which, although it also presented a revisionist view of history, was well-acted, well-scripted and fun to watch. This is a "politically-correct" version of the story: the hero is not the white, Anglo-Saxon protestant Harry Faversham (as in the book) but the black Muslim who finds him in the desert (not in the book) who saves Harry on a monotonously regular basis. The film fails on all levels: the accents are dodgy (Heath Ledger and Wes Bentley fail to convince), there is no real explanation of Harry's initial cowardice, and real men don't blub (at least, not in the Victorian era): Harry blubs a lot. Kate Hudson looks pretty but is not a well-rounded character: it is difficult to see why all the young men fall for her, still less explicable is her complete volte-face in her view of war and Harry's "cowardice". One moment she gives him a white feather, the next she is into bouts of "why didn't I stand by him" self-flagellation. Harry's father also - suddenly and inexplicably - switches from military martinet to cuddly daddy. The film is bitty and unsatisfying: it is, however, beautifully shot. That alone, however, does not justify buying the DVD or even (to be brutally frank) two hours of your time - not even on a wet Sunday afternoon.
Rating: 
Summary: Confused Remark of Original
Review: It would seem that the themes of Four Feathers, cowardice, courage, honor, etc. can be re-examined by each film making generation. What else can explain so many versions of this oft-made story. The original A.E.W. Mason novel is a slow Victorian read, and no film has yet to do it true honor scene for scene. This current version, while impressive visually, is spoiled by the politically correct overtones of its producer. Should we be surprised that an East Indian director would become mired in his own confused feelings about the British empire. The result is history re-written to make this individual feel better about himself. The numerous historical inaccuracies of this film start right off with the Royal Cumbrians. No such regiment existed in the British army! This is not so bad because the older 1939 version also depicted a make-believe regiment - The Royal North Surreys. They do have a better sounding title though! If this were the only problem with the film it would be fine. But the producer proceeds to invent a fortress of Abu Klea which the British never had and thus was never taken. Then he further distorts matters by totally corrupting the major battle scene of the film - the battle of Abu Klea. This battle was fought in 1885 when the British were trying to relieve General Gordon at Khartoum. The British Camel Corps was involved, not an Anglo-Egyptian infantry force that is shown here. Again, we could survive these minor details. The major fallacy here is that it is shown as a British defeat. Which it was not. True, the Mahdists did break the defending British square briefly, and Kipling even wrote a poem to salute that event, but the film does not show that the square was reformed and all the Dervish that managed to break inside were either killed or driven out. The Mahdist cavalry charging with red jackets is also pure fiction. The British in fact defeated the Mahdist hordes, inflicting over a thousand casualties for less than a hundred lost themselves. The British were also no longer wearing red jackets by this time as well, but we have to see those red coats in order to vilify the evil British! The battle depicted here is well done, but factually wrong and a distortion of history. What do you expect from an Indian director who is trying to get revenge on the British empire! The sham of movies like this is that they seduce the viewer into thinking this is all factual content. Many films today have become not-so-subtle vehicles for revisionist history. Most movie directors are pundits for the politically correct crowd of Hollywood. Movies like this can be enjoyed for their often fine production value, but should be balanced by reading the actual histoy of the events they portray. To do otherwise is to fall victem to the propaganda they preach here. Balance this film with the original 1939 classic directed by the Korda brothers and the fine 1970 film Khartoum with Lawrence Olivier giving a chilling performance as the murderous Mahdi - a fanatic of Islam which would look very familar to us today.
Rating: 
Summary: An Inspiring Story of Survival and Friendship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: This movie gave me a whole new perspective on friendships and how they can pull you through even the worst times. Harry Faversham's loyalty to his friends is incredible! The last fight Harry has in the desert will leave you on the edge of your seat! The costumes, scenery and acting is MAGNIFICENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!If you love period movies, movies that engross and inspire you your sure to LOVE this movie!!!!!!!!
What are you waiting for? Get this movie or rent it today!!!!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: If you liked the "English Patient" you will like this....
Review: It was a lackluster start that takes you suddenly on an adventure you can't stop watching, a movie you can definetly get into. It isn't for everyone, but if you like to get involved and be part of the experience all you need is some popcorn and- bamm you got a great story. The script and acting are very good, with a good cast and cinemotography as well as some exotic locations. It has drama, romance and action in a nice package, it will definetly fullfill. I loved it.
Rating: 
Summary: I have mixed feelings about it.
Review: Do you remember "Greystoke"?, I personally think this new version of the "Four Feathers" has more influences from that film and not from "Lawrence of Arabia" at all...
If I had'nt been seeing regularly the 1939 version would have rated five stars instead of four. BUT (and it's a big BUT) when a remake of a remake of a remake does not IMPROVE the older versions...
And now for the "feelings", you could feel the heat in the 1939 version (as in Lean's LOA) and the desert was much more menacing instead of some sort of suburbian space not yet urbanized.
About the battle scenes so praised, I think the one's in the 1939 version are much better, usually the Brits blasted away the enemy at long range and the 1939 version shows a very small unit attacked at dawn in their zariba by a very large force of Madhist troops (the only way to close up...), commanded but a sunstroked officer wich would'nt have remained there for so long at all if not sick... The battle of Omdurman was a big massacre of brave Dervish troops who did'nt have a chance against Kitchener's troops (and this is very well recreated in the Korda film).
OK this kind of war does not have much potential for emotional scenes from the point of view of the director..., but really the Madhi's cavalry "badly disguised as British" as if in some 3rd rate western etc is too much fiction for an historical epic (for God's sake not a single officer looks though binoculars on the whole film!), read about Abu Klea and get some acurate information about it.
The film starts very well and slags at the middle/end parts, but is very well shot, photographed etc. The acting is good (and that's why for the whole the 4 stars).
I think the main problem is the script (and the thing called "continuity"), the novel itself is a very introspective conflict from the point of view of a boy / man
confronted with the decision to please the family tradition of soldiering when he has STRONG DOUBTS AND FEARS ABOUT NOT BEEN PAR TO THE TASK, Harry Faversham (Shame-fever...) is AFRAID OF BEING AFRAID and then dishonor himselh amd more important for him his Country, family, Regiment & friends, all that is not made clear at all in this version (cowardice more strongly pushed down your throat as the main motive and then making utterly unbelievable Harry's performance...).
For once I think the 1939 version carried this message better (and was also gratified with some humor, C. Aubrey Smith and brilliant Masses of local population posing as Madhists, Fuzzy-Wuzzy's etc. brilliantly filmed and photographed too!).
A MISSED OPORTUNITY BUT NOT SO BAD AS SOME REVIEWERS SAY.
Incidentally I will of course rate the 1939 version five stars.
Rating:
Summary: What else could you ask for in a movie?
Review: This is an excellent movie.It has everything you could ask for.Love,mystery,action,friendship,great shots of the desert,and self-discovery.Don't forget the gorgeous Kate Hudson too.This is one of the best movies in the past six months.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Movie based on True events!
Review: Watching the Four Feathers was an amazing experience, shining light upon the true events which occured during the British rule in The Sudan. It made me proud to to see how the British empire had spread throughout the world.(We even ruled you Americans once!) Long Live the Queen!
Long Live England!
Rating:
Summary: Great performances, but only a mediocre movie
Review: As everyone has mentioned, this movie is about a young man, branded a coward by those closest to him, who sets out on a near-suicidal mission to redeem himself in the eyes of his friends, family, and most importantly: himself. The acting in this film was superb, as were the landscapes of the desert. And the whole concept of the movie is great--one man's struggle with his own inner strength. The problem with this film, as I see it, is that it's too drawn out. Most of it drags, and the really interesting parts (like the battle sequences) are much too brief. Sometimes the story sweeps so fast you feel like you're being left in the dust, and other times it seems like the plot is stagnant. Had the script been a little better, this would have been an excellent movie--the concept is great, the acting is good, and even the directing was exceptional. This movie is worth seeing, for sure. It will be an entertaining couple of hours, but I don't know that this one will stand up to repeated viewings. Still, Four Feathers is worth a try.
Rating:
Summary: DON'T BUY THIS TURKEY
Review: Technically this is a very good movie, but it lacks any coherent and attractive story telling. If you listen to the audio commentary it's pretty obvious why; the director appears to be preoccupied with bashing the brits. Don't get me wrong. This is not a movie with a political msg. It's a movie with no msg at all.
Rating:
Summary: Several Thoughts on This Movie
Review: Okay, I admit I bought this movie for my husband, who enjoys this genre. But I did watch it and enjoy it with several reservations. 1. The characters are British. Heath Ledger is Australian; Kate Hudson & Wes Bentley are American. I admit to being fond of Wes Bentley since American Beauty but Kate Hudson was better suited to How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, in which she shone. I can't see Heath Ledger's appeal at all. But were there no young British actors to take the parts? Colin Farrell, for example (and, yes, I know he's Welsh). 2. The brilliant battle scenes left me wondering why the British were in the Sudan at all. There were so many unnecessary deaths to keep control over a desert land that the natives were fighting to win back. Perhaps these desert wars were the precursors of the present day troubles in the Middle East. And the British did not adapt well to desert fighting. One battle scene, however, reminded me of a similar scene in the movie Willow, as buried fighters rose up to ambush the oncoming British. 3. This is the third movie I've seen recently in which I believe that the heroine chose the wrong man at the end. Jack (Bentley) was true to his friend Harry and did not send him a feather. He went to the Sudan, did his duty, was blinded, and, at the end, did not get Ethne, whom he loved dearly. He was basically left with nothing but his honor. I call this the Prodigal Son's Brother effect, and I have always sympathized with the older brother, who deserved the fatted calf. In Sweet Home Alabama and Just Married, the heroine also chooses the wrong man. I found myself finishing this movie with the same bad taste in my mouth that I had with the two aforementioned movies. However, it is a good two hours entertainment, well done with the costumes, settings, etc. It deserves its four stars.
|
