Rating: 
Summary: THE FOURFEATHERS--VERY DISAPPOINTED
Review: This version is the weakest of the threeI have seen. I own the 1939 and 1978 versions. The acting is good, but the screenplay is a bust--too superficial in dealing with the basic theme of cowardice and redemption. Also,having HeathLedger walk among the rebel Sudanese poorly disguised detracts from his effectiveness.The best of the three versions is still the 1939(a great year for great movies!). The plot/screenplay are more true to the arrogant/colonial mood of the day and the acting by Sir Ralph Richardson, John Clements, and C. Aubrey Smith are as yet unmatched. Clements' disguise is more credible, and the battle scenes more realistic. The 1939 version has it hands down, and the directing/screenwriting of the 2002 version are misguided. This could have been a great remake, but is tepid, shallow and falls far short of the mark.
Rating: 
Summary: Great desert vistas fail to help an ailing epic
Review: Over the past ten years or so I have seen a number of my favorite classic novels translated into movies headlined by whichever star seems to be particularly hot at the time. In 1998 Leonardo DiCaprio appeared into a lumbering and top heavy version of "The Man in the Iron Mask" and earlier this year Alexandre Dumas' adventure novel "The Count of Monte Cristo" was brought to the screen with mived results.
So, it was with a weary heart that I handed over my hard earned cash and resolved myself to spending a couple of hours watching one of my favorite novels brought to the screen once more. The movie "The Four Feathers" has been given the big screen treatment several times previously, most recently in a 1978 TV movie starring Beau Bridges and in a pre-Dr. Quinn role the ever popular Jane Seymour.
The newest incarnation has current flavor of the month Heath ("Knights Tale") Ledger in the Beau Bridges role and Kate ("Almost Famous") Hudson as his faithful fiancée Ethne.
With a supporting cast that includes Wes ("American Beauty") Bentley and Djimon ("Amistad") Hounsou, the cast is guided by the steady hand of the acclaimed director of "Elizabeth" Shekhar Kapur.
The story behind "The Four Feathers" is a well known one of betrayal, honor, passion and ultimate redemption that to briefly summarize it seems almost an injustice.
Inspired by the classic novel by A.E.W. Mason the movie begins in 1875, ten year's before the fall of Khartoum. A young British officer, Harry Feversham, admired by his colleagues and devoted to his bride-to-be Ethne, Harry has a promising future in the military, but when the Sudanese rebels attack the colonial British fortress Harry becomes overwhelmed by self-doubt and uncertainty and resigns his commission.
Shocked by his actions, Harry's father disowns him and his friends, and fiancée, assuming the move is motivated by fear, each send him a white feather as a sign of cowardice.
Left isolated and alone in London, Harry learns that his friends have fallen under brutal attack. Instantly, the bond he has with his friends inspires him to overcome his uncertainty and race to their rescue.
The director, Kapur, states in the press packet for the movie that the movie has "at its core" the story of "boys going to war and becoming men." I think this is at the core of why this movie is not as effective as the earlier more literal versions of the epic tale.
Kapur dresses up the screen with incredible shots of the vastness of the African desert and places his main characters in a number of seemingly insurmountable situations, but the movie lacks the sense of the search for redemption that drove the previous movies.
Most telling of this is the omission of two key scenes from both the book and its subsequent adaptations. Firstly, the pivotal moment when Harry receives the feather from Ethne, and then excised completely is the whole subplot revolving around the betrayal felt by the delivery of a feather from Harry's best friend Jack. In its place Jack is seen in the conflicting role of initially standing beside his friend and then ultimately romancing Ethne in the latter part of the picture.
I'm not sure why co-screenwriters Michael Schiffer and Hossein Amini felt the need to make such a dramatic departure from the original text but it's disorientating and the tight structure that made the previous movies so interesting and fast paced is noticeably lacking here.
Worth of metion though is the awe inspiring photography by the noted Director of Photography Robert Richardson and the beautiful period costume design by Ruth Myers. Ledger, Bentley and Hudson also provide strong performances in the roles provided to them, but a seriously flawed script hampers their efforts to imbue any true sense of sympathy for their characters.
The movie therefore comes across as looking particularly great, but as is the case with many recent Hollywood versions of classic novels its mostly style over substance. That is a shame, because it's once again a great work of literature has been transformed into at best a mediocre movie.
Rating: 
Summary: The Dynamics of Heath Ledger
Review: This is a very entertaining film. Harry, played by Heath Ledger, quits the British military on the eve of being sent into battle in Sudan. As a retort, four of his former friends send white feathers that designate cowardice. He is shunned by his military career Father and rejected by his fiancee (Kate Hudson), he falls into despair. After hearing of some of his former comrades being killed in Sudan, he sets out alone on a journey to Sudan to join his friends and to prove that he can overcome this instinctive fear of war and death. We sympathize with Harry as his odeal to achieve salvation causes him to suffer more punishment and hardship than any of the former collegues. One by one, he stives to save the lives of his friends from peril eventhough the hardship on himself is far greater than any incidences that the others have suffered.In each case he earns the right to return the white feather to the former donor. The action scenes alone are woth seeing this movie, but the feeling we share along with Harry are what makes this movie an excellent film.
Rating:
Summary: Fuzzy-Wuzzy was an imperialist.
Review: The director (Shekhar Kapur) who brought us the shallow and overheated *Elizabeth* now brings us a shallow and oddly underheated version of *The Four Feathers*. The movie's well of emotion is as dry as the Sudanese desert in which it's set. The almost total lack of involvement comes from, I suspect, Kapur's basic distaste with regards to the source material. Once again, a smarty-pants filmmaker has undertaken to "improve" and "correct" a politically incorrect "classic" (well, this story isn't really a classic, but it's old -- close enough!). As one might expect, the focus gets shifted from the honor-obsessed colonials to the native Africans and Arabic peoples. One of these, Djimon Hounsou (Amistad himself), is particularly noble and resourceful . . . and is a new addition to a tale that never had much use for the natives. The only time Kapur seems engaged is when he has Heath Ledger groveling at the knees of an African jailer, calling him "Master", begging for food. Later, this jailer gets to beat the tar out of Ledger in a scene that's gleefully explicit in its violence. The director is so interested in turning the tables that he can't be bothered with what the story was originally about, which was the average imperialist mindset of your average imperialist nation. What took the 1939 Korda-directed film a whole hour to build up to is here summed up in a line (Ledger, frowning beautifically: "I nevvah WAHNTED to be in the Ahhmy!"). I don't know which is better. Actually, I don't really care: both versions are splendid bores, dahhling. In fairness, though, my interest perked up when Ledger, disguised as a native, finds himself being forced to attack his old comrades in the godforsaken desert. The scene also features a magnificent shot of the native army rushing towards each side of the inevitable "square formation" of the British cavalry. Suddenly, it's thrilling . . . and just as suddenly, it's over.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting
Review: This movie is not as bad as I was told it would be. It was certainly not as bad or as cheesy as Pearl Harbor. The romance was not as unbelievable as the Titanic. It was certainly not as boring and trite as "The English Patient". And it definetly is nowhere as atrocious as "The Patriot" But the movie is not mind blowing either. It is not Braveheart, Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan. And no the director does not recapture the same magic as he did in "Elizabeth". The film is about a young man by the name of Harry in 1880's England. He's an officer in the British army who gets drafted to serve in the Sudan. Realising what this entails Harry resigns his commission and leaves the army. (It turns out that Harry never wanted to be in the army in the first place. He was just there to please his father.) As a result three of Harry's friends -and his fiance Ethne each send him a white feather. Signifying cowardice. Harry gets a change of heart, sneaks off to the Sudan and ends up assiting his friends behind the scenes. What essentially this film is about is personal redemption, the ability to right personal wrongs and the ability to overcome internal fear and do the right thing. This would have been a very good movie if the script had been re-tooled and made tighter. There are several places where the movie drags on without a point. I found that the opening scene where the young officers are playing rugby very similar to the battle which is to take place later on. It was very interesting to see how the British army was structured and the patrician mien that sorrounded it. It gives great credence to the line used by Djimon Honsou who says "You British walk too proudly on the earth". Sometimes I was gritting my teeth in anger at watching the arrogance and posturing of some of the British soldiers. But then I saw it was all a set up for something down the road. It is quite interesting to watch what the British empire was like then as compared to now.From rulers of the world to...? We have definetly come a long way. I also liked the main battle scene it was very well done and a fine display of military tactics. The costumes and cinematography as well. I saw this film primarily because of Heath Ledger. I think that he is an actor with great potential (like his fellow countrymen Mel Gibson and Russell Crowe). He does a passable job in this movie and his performance in this film is far better than The Patriot or a Knights Tale. But is not the film where where he will leave his mark. Better luck next time. Everyone else is also okay. Wes Bentley was fine, I haven't seen him in anything else but I do know he is an American and played the English gentlmen very well. However I expected a bit more from Kate Hudson than just the pinning girlfriend. Djimon Honsou while lovely to look at essentially plays the noble savage. However for once it is nice to see Africans not totally treated like a bunch of sambos. This film is for people who enjoy costume dramas, the hey day of the British empire and military movies. If you insist on seeing it make sure that it is on a very big screen it will help you enjoy it much more.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad but can't beat Richardson (chick flick)
Review: I have never cared for Heath Ledger as an actor. He failed to impress me in THE PATRIOT and something about him just doesn't hit me right. He however with the help on an excellent supporting cast makes passable work of THE FOUR FEATHERS. Unlike previous versions of the film the battles are not the star here. This is a shame in one respect as Kapur dos a spectauclar job with the battle scene. I think he would have done a grand job with a more fighting. This movie gives dimension to the characters both friend and foe, from the Vicar, to the jailer, (who has very few lines but is impressive)on down. These characters make the movie breathe. About the only character without depth is Kate Hudson, considering the screen time she gets I would have expected more. The war against the Madi itself is quite interesting and would be worth a full movie itself, ... To its credit it doesn't propose sainthood for either side, but shows war as a gritty dirty business. The picture gives no hint of the final result of the war. The battle of Omdurman (Where a young Churchill took part in the British Army's last calvery charge.)or the fall of the Madi, only the story matters. Although the characters are interesting we don't see enough of Tim Pigott-Smith as Ledger's father. He has screen presence and it is underused in the movie. On the other hand Djimon Hounsou performance was commanding. We are left hanging with him. A sequel telling the rest of the story of the war from his eyes would be worth the price of admission.
The transfers from some important points near the end was sloppy, I felt that we were missing an important scene or 2. Still worth the money, but make sure you rent the Ralph Richardson version afterward, (Even the Beau Bridges version has some merit) Then you will have the whole story.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad...until the ending!
Review: 6th version of "Four Feathers" (the first was in 1915) stars Heath Ledger as a British soldier who decides he wants to resign his commission right after he and the troops are ordered to go to the Sudan desert for battle. The cinematography and battle scenes are exciting. However, there are many problems with this film and the ending pretty much screws it (don't worry I won't reveal it, but I intend to complain about it in a nonrevealing fashion!). First, none of the stars are British and this is a movie concerning British people. Some actors have the capability of pulling this off, but not the two American leads (Kate Hudson, Wes Bentley) and definitely not Ledger, who is really Australian. It reminds me of that story about how Sean Connery had to be coached in his mannerisms, voice, etc., before he could play James Bond because initially he was just too "rough" or whatever. It helps to realize that films are sold most times on the basis of the stars in them and everything else next. I mean how many times have you recommended a movie to someone and the first thing they ask is "Who's in it?", as if that will make the film worthwhile.) I'll move on because there are bigger weaknesses that hurt this film more than having non-British actors portray the lead British characters somewhat ineffectively. There are many "whys" in the story. There is not enough time spent on the relationship between Ledger and Hudson so I never really understood the attraction, especially on the part of Ledger's character because Hudson's Ethne has no depth and once she participates in shunning him, its like who cares? drop her. I'm sorry but if you call your soon to be spouse a coward and deeply wound and turn your back on them when they needed one person to support them, you don't love that person. Then there is Ledger's best friend Jack (Bentley), who of course is jealous of Ledger and Hudson's relationship but not enough to do any harm to them or prevent them from being together. Yes, Jack wants Ethne too, but why? I never figured it out. He even wants to be with her more after she gives Harry a feather. What? Jack's his best friend, right? (With friends like these...) The other main character is Abou, played by Djimon Hounsou, who, I'm sorry, but can play this role in his sleep by now (see Amistad, Gladiator, etc.). He is drawn to help Harry (Ledger) and puts himself in danger several times to save his life, but why? Even Harry wonders that until Abou explains "because God put you in my way." I guess after going through all the extreme danger and torture to save Harry, Abou's path was clear and Harry was taken "out of his way" because Abou just walks off casually with one of those facing away waves. Huh? Seriously, we're supposed to believe that such a significant bond between two men who have faced death together several times ends as if all Abou did was help Harry change a tire? The biggest problem I have with "Four Feathers" is the ending. I won't tell what happens, but I will tell you that saying it had a tacked on happy ending would be putting it very lightly. This ending was so out of place it didnt belong in the same film! It's as if the filmmakers (who I think thought the audience wasnt paying attention through some of the film) wanted the viewer to walk away with this mindless smile on their face. It is amazing the impact the ending of a movie, that last shot, can make on your opinion and experience of the entire film. This film was also well over two hours and there needs to be a "payoff" for that commitment and there wasn't. Honestly, I would let all the other problems go if the ending would have been realistic and respectful of everything that happened before. Hopefully the DVD will have two different endings: the good one that actually makes logical and emotional human sense and this one!
Rating:
Summary: Good, good
Review: I liked the movie alot. I thought it was a nice remake of the older ones.
Rating:
Summary: OUTSTANDING! Uh, does anyone remember what HONOR means?
Review: Okay, I'm not gonna give away the ending, but know this, the four feathers are the trophies of cowardice given to the finest soldier in the regiment. He's given them because he quits the regiment when he hears that they're being sent to the Sudan. Each feather is from a single person, and each feather carries with it a story throughout the entire movie-not unlike the feather motif found in Forrest Gump. I found this to be an extemely good movie. I was not dissatisfied in anyway, and my only thought after seeing it was "WOW! I hope I can write a story like that someday!" In the end, this story isn't so much about courage as it is the common honor associated with real acts of selfless courage. It's something we don't recognize in everyday life anymore, but it is still there, and the one soldier's speech at the end of the movie summed it up for me very well! GO SEE THIS MOVIE!
Rating:
Summary: A Winner
Review: I thought this was a really good show, we will probably hear some more about it when Oscar time comes around. Very good acting by Heath Ledger and Wes Bentley, good story line. The only place this movie fails is that it keeps going and going, it wouldn't appeal to younger kids, but there really isn't any place they could have edited. A great score by James Horner. The music is so beautiful, it's graceful when it needs to be, and intense during the battle scenes. Over all one of the best movies of 2002.
|
