Rating: 
Summary: Appreciate this film for what it is supposed to be!
Review: I am very surprised at the number of negative comments about this film. My wife and I both loved it. We found the action scenes and cinematography to both be exceptional. I agree with the criticism that the retreat of the British troops to "form a square" seemed a bit out of kilter in that they seemed almost hopelessly surrounded but somehow escaped. To us, however, this was a small blemish on very believeable action sequences and a very entertaining story. I have seen the 1939 version several times and enjoyed it, but this was much better to me. Those who seem to have a problem with this movie seem to have standards few historical action films would meet. Perhaps they just don't enjoy the genre. I happen to enjoy films such as the Daniel Day-Lewis version of The Last of the Mohicans, The Patriot, etc. If you enjoy those type films, you will almost certainly enjoy this one. If you don't, you won't. This film is not totally true to the book. So what? It's a darn good movie! Just relax, be transported back to the heyday of the British Empire and enjoy a good historical action film with a love story and beautiful action scenes and suspense.
Rating: 
Summary: Four Feathers is fantastic
Review: I loved this movie. It wasn't well known, but sometimes those are the best movies and for me it was. I can't wait until I can buy it! I recommend it for the men to see it for the great story that is behind it. And for the women for the great Heath Ledger that you see.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: I thought that this movie was so well written and performed. I loved the plot and thought that it was such an inspiring film. I can't wait for its release!
Rating: 
Summary: Nasty Hollywood PC guff
Review: This film has only token resemblence to the original book. Anyone looking for a Lawrence of Arabia/Zulu type historical epic will be, as I was, sadly disappointed. The story is full of nonsensical plot devices, like the nubian guru-type that plays the same irritating quasi-spiritual, guardian angel role as Morgan Freeman's Azeem character did in 'Robin-Prince of Thieves'. He follows the main protagonist, Harry Faversham (Ledger), around the desert, repeatedly saving his life and for no obvious reason at all. Also Faversham actually is an out-and-out coward in this version and you don't like him or any of the other characters at all. The dialogue is uninteresting and ridiculous in the extreme, especially anything the love interest (Hudson) says, and I got to the point about two thirds in to this movie where I really didn't care what happened to any of the characters and prayed for it all to be over soon. The other irritation is the allegedly spectacular battle seen, the British are surrounded, form a square formation, and then order the retreat. Where did they retreat to? They were surrounded and hugely outnumbered!! I can only assume the makers wanted to use a square for dramatic effect, but had to get a couple of the main charcters safely out of this situation, hence the convenient retreat. Enough said, avoid this unless you've seen everything else on Blockbuster's shelves.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not WW 1
Review: The Four Feathers is based on pre-WWI British imperialist adventures into the Sudan, not during the First World War as some misinformed people have stated. I also believe that the criticism of this movie is mis-stated, I'm not a fan of Heath Ledger, but criticizing this modern Hollywood genre (action-romance date movie) would be like going to see him in A Knight's Tale and expecting to see one of the better versions of Hamlet. Get real. On the whole I enjoyed this movie and I thought the cinematography was exquisite. If you a want a serious well-acted movie, I highly suggest catching the 1939 version on AMC (like I was fortunate enough to do last year). Hopefully the release of this movie will result in the 1939 version coming out on DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, But Flawed....
Review: The Four Feathers presents an interesting concept (A coward trying to redeem himself in the eyes of his comrades and loved ones), but doesn't quite manage to deliver the intended effect.
Heath Ledger plays the aforementioned coward, who resigns his post in the British Army on the eve of his Regiment shipping out to The Sudan to quell a native uprising. Of course, his buddies brand him a coward, delivering three feathers to him (The feathers are a symbol of cowardice); The fourth feather is from his fiancee (Played by Kate Hudson). Gee, thanks Honey! After learning the hard way that nobody loves a coward, he sets off to The Sudan to try to redeem himself to his former comrades, causing more harm than good, in my opinion. (And why try to impress a woman who dumped him so brutally? Screw her!) The cast is good, especially Wes Bentley (As the only friend who stuck by Ledger), and Djimon Hounsou (As an African warrior who helps Ledger survive in the desert), but the movie is too long, and doesn't linger on the most interesting part: The epic Desert battle. Director Shekhar Kapur does an excellent job with the battle, though, including a few amazing overhead shots that were just stunning. James Horner contributes a rousing score that works to excellent effect, also. Overall, not a bad film, but I just didn't buy into the whole "Coward turns hero" ending.
Rating:
Summary: Detached and thoughtful
Review: A detached and thoughtful (even obsessive) study of courage. The first fifteen minutes of the film are shaky and murky, perhaps reflecting the hero's state of mind. There is a dramatic change of pace when his unit ships out to the Sudan. The scenery, the costumes, the action sequences are spectacular. War on horseback is depicted with all its visual excitement, as well as its horror and suffering, without omitting the story's many ironies. The unsentimental treatment of love, honor, and patriotism may leave viewers unsatisfied, but it is a worthwhile film for adults and adolescents.
Rating:
Summary: period drama with contemporary tone
Review: Though designed to be a sweeping romantic period piece, "The Four Feathers" actually has a great deal of relevance to today's world. At a time in which tensions between the Muslim East and the Christian West are again on the rise, it is fascinating to learn that things have not changed much since 1884, the year in which this film's story is set. This is actually the sixth filming of A.E.W. Mason's novel about a young man's search for courage in the Sudanese Desert. Harry Faversham appears to have everything going for him: a promising military career, a beautiful fiancé and a close friendship with three fellow officers in the British Raj. Yet, when his unit is sent word that they will soon be fighting against the Muslim forces in the Sudan, Harry undergoes a crisis of courage, resigns his post, and finds himself ostracized by the men and the woman he has come to love most. As a symbol of his cowardice, Harry receives four feathers, three from his buddies and one from his fiancé. Crushed by the humiliation, Harry determines to rectify the situation by heading to the Sudan on his own, disguising himself as an Arab and making his way to his regiment to fight and die alongside his companions. "The Four Feathers" provides just about everything one could ask for from a film of this type: glorious vistas, epic battle scenes, heightened passions, unrequited romance, heroic self-sacrifice and personal redemption. The film doesn't try to oversimplify either the characters or the sociopolitical background of the time. Indeed, the writers, Michael Schiffer and Hossein Amini, are to be commended for making the film neither excessively xenophobic nor excessively politically correct in tone. Though the story is viewed through the eyes of the British, they are not portrayed as unalloyed heroes. There is a great deal of self-doubt expressed about the propriety of the English involvement in a conflict so far from home, in the entire imperialistic mentality in fact. On the other hand, the Muslims often come across like the savage redskins in those old westerns, hostile, alien and frightening. The filmmakers walk a fine line between parochialism and multiculturalism - and do so quite effectively most of the time. One scene in particular underlines the film's surprising contemporary significance. The British forces have invaded a Muslim village after several of their own men have been shot. They track down the shooter to a crowded street where he is told to surrender his weapon. When he doesn't, Jack, one of the British officers, is forced to shoot him before his fellow villagers, whereupon the latter pick up stones and start pelting the English forces. If the Westerners in the scene were not wearing red uniforms and carrying rifles instead of machine guns, one would almost swear that this event were taking place in today's world rather than 118 years ago. It is to the filmmakers' credit that they are able to draw these parallels to our contemporary world in such a bold and forthright way. Technically, the film is very accomplished. Though director Shekhar Kapur ("Elizabeth") has staged many impressive action sequences, the best parts of the film are those that concentrate on the intimate drama occurring within the lives of the film's main characters. For once we have a love triangle that is actually moving and convincing, and the final scenes of relinquishment and self-sacrifice are particularly well executed and touching. As an added bonus, cinematographer Robert Richardson captures with equal skill both the majestic beauty of an arid, windswept desert and the melancholic elegance of the sodden English countryside. The performances are excellent throughout, but a few deserve special recognition: Heath Ledger as Harry; Wes Bentley as his pal and romantic rival, Jack; Kate Hudson as Ethne, his devoted fiancé; and Djimon Hounsou as Abou Fatma, a man who feels God has assigned him the task of protecting Harry through all his many travails in this unfamiliar world. "The Four Feathers" provides epic adventure on a scale rarely seen in movies these days. Don't miss it.
Rating: 
Summary: Silly swashbuckler which is supposed to be a drama
Review: Based on a 1902 novel by A.E.W. Mason, this is the sixth version of this epic swashbuckler to be brought to the screen. It's set in British Empire in the late 19th century and is so full of clichés that I sometimes wondered if this was supposed to be a comedy instead of a drama. It's never exactly explained why there is a war going on in the Sudan, but the exotic setting, as well as the ballroom scenes in Great Britain call for of huge cast of extras as backdrop for the story of a young officer, played by Heath Ledger, who resigns from his military commission right before shipping off to war. It might be because of his love for his fiancé, played by Kate Hudson, but he certainly looks like a coward to his friends. At this time in history, white feathers were supposed to mean "cowardice" and it was a grave insult to be presented with one. In this officer's case, however, he is presented with four - one from each of his three best friends, and another one from the woman he loves. Now he has to prove himself. He somehow manages to go to the Sudan as a civilian, disguise himself as an Arab, save each of his friend's lives, and come home a hero. Of course, he doesn't do it alone. He makes a pal out of Djimon Housou, of Amistad fame, a strong black Muslim English-speaking native who saves the white man's life as he is dying on the desert. The lieutenant then grows a beard and wraps his head in a turban, but even though he doesn't speak a word of Arabic, somehow manages to fit in. Give me a break! The best part of the film is the battle sequences in which the director, Shekhar Kapur, uses the best modern technology. The British troops are easy targets in their bright red uniforms and the audience sees great camera angles as well as many gruesome wounds. There's also a prison scene with inhumane conditions. The story moves fast and held my attention. But so what? As this film was just released, its easy to think of what's going on in the world today and even though there is a bit of revisionism in that one Muslim character is a good guy, the stereotype of savage Arabs rings loud and clear. The British take for granted that they have to wage a war for the "glory of the empire". And all the characters seem out of touch with reality. Frankly, my modern sensibilities were offended. There's no way I can recommend this silly film.
Rating:
Summary: A Hopeless Mess
Review: I give this one star for the hell the cast and crew must have gone through to film it, and another for a few good overhead shots (which never matched what was happening on the ground) and some charisma from Wes Bentley. But otherwise.... Heath Ledger adds absolutely no charisma to what is already a thankless role: a man who tries to redeem his earlier cowardice by blundering about in the desert, not bothering to learn the language or any local customs, in the vague hope of helping his friends. His idea of helping a friend in a horrible desert prison is to get himself thrown into the same place, so they can be beaten and starved together. (Though of course, not so starved that he can't be improbably lively in a fist fight.) Of course, he also has a mysterious and heavily muscled native benefactor who exists merely to get the hero out of scrapes he has gotten himself into, and who speaks perfect English, making up for the hero apparently staying in the Sudan for months (years? there is no time frame, though apparently it's enough time for the mail to get through with ridiculous regularity) without learning a word of any native dialect. The British officers, of course, are sterotypical idiots. The dusty overhead shots of the British square being overwhelmed are wonderful, except that there is almost no dust on the ground when the angle switches. And anyone who has seen "Lawrence of Arabia" (or been in a real desert for five minutes) would know this isn't a place where you could blunder around not knowing where the water holes are, without a map or a compass, and expect to last more than half a day, even without hostile natives. Where "Lawrence" turned the desert into a place of wonder, "Four Feathers" makes it a dusty bore. And speaking of bores... Kate Hudson did nothing for her career by playing this charmless role, as what color and life she had in "Almost Famous" is entirely absent. The only one who comes out reasonably well is Wes Bentley, who at least projects some intelligence and sense of stalwart manhood. Save your money for the big-screen "Lawrence" release, or what I understand is the much superior 1939 version.
|
