Rating: 
Summary: Good as it gets
Review: This movie was... I can not even explain it. The passion, the excitement, it was unbelievable. The actors weren't that bad either!! Go see this movie!!
Rating:
Summary: Want to know the good side, the bad side and the ugly side?
Review: It's as if Ledger is reviving his "Patriot" role only on the British side. The cast is great-everyone acted well. The thing is it needed a 'touch-up' job before it tries to clean-up at the Box-office. In the middle I had a whole new idea for new scenes and a totally different ending. Ok- so it's a war. It's not the gory Ryan flick and it isn't the romantic Pearl Harbor. Still I appreciated it. But you'd feel like keeping a 'Reader's response journal' so you can question the film as well as give it more ideas. That's what the reviews are for. It's nothing new though. It's not a totally different side of a British war. It's not something unexpected and surprising. Fine it's suspenseful but also ironic- the kind of irony you'd guess. Everyone wouldn't agree with me but I knew just what was going to happen (and I'm no historian). It is the story of a British leader (played by Heath Ledger) who states his resignation just before a key World War 1 conflict, a performance that is known by 4 feathers emblematic of his fear.
I've been telling you a mixture of both the good and the bad sides. Now it's the good side alone. So the cast was great, the sound and the scenery were quite good, and it concentrated on its theme. There isn't really an ugly side. I enjoyed it but a lot of people wouldn't really like it. But now the bad side! It's as if Alanis Morissette was singing "Ironic II". But as I mentioned before it's the kind of irony that's too obvious. It's not new at all. In brief... Ledger is too British,
The war scenes are so real,
Part of the cast is so childish,
The movie is sort of surreal.
It ain't Kapur's Elizabeth,
It's a war epic,
It's as documentary-ish you can get,
And it turned out to concentrate on its topic!
Rating: 
Summary: Great Actions and Images, but There's Something Wrong
Review: Shekhar Kapur's follow-up to "Elizabeth" has already gathered so much expectation. The result is not bad, but still disappointing partly because of its comparison with Zoltan Korda's classic version. The newer one sufferes from modern politically correct climate of film-making, giving the whole film quite unnecessary aspects. Still, the actions are good, and its sweeping story with romance is not to be missed. The story is based on AEW Mason's 1902 book, but as you expect, changes are made. Heath Ledger's character Harry resigns his commission just before his army is sent to the Sudan, and his friends sent him three feathers as a symbol of cowardice. To make things more humiliating, his finacee Ethne also gives another, refusing him in the face. So to disprove the four feathers, Harry goes to Africa alone, where the native warriors rise up against the British army there. The main plot is left intact, but here and there you see some modernized parts that attempt to side-step any pro-British empire nuance. So, Harry should doubt his own mission because he doesn't care Her Majesty's land in Africa. This is meddling business, for though director Kapur might resent some patriotic tones of the previous films, the original book is free from any jingolistic tone, so all he had to do was to stick to that source, and then to give us the good story about courage, friendship and romance. I simply don't know why he has to apologize for the empire's deed now when what we need is not that apologia which only slows down the film. Another mistake is the casting of the main characters. It is impossible for me to imagine Kate Hudson as middle-class Victorian lady no matter how she is taught by dialogue coach. The same goes to Wes Bentley who got famous in his portrayal of youth in "American Beauty." Having said that, the film's actions and photography are astonishing. The grand scale of the Sahara is beautifully realized, and the battle scenes are as rousing as that of "The Gladiator." And Heath Ledger even shows one great stunt, jumping upon the rushing horse, which is simple breath-taking. I hope insurance company doens't see that. The film is not a total failure, and always good to look at. But somehow in the middle of the film we imagine something better, something wonderful is hiding and crying to be rought to the forefront. And that is exactly the older version of the film.
Rating:
Summary: Not the best, but certainly the glossiest...
Review: Let me start out with this: If you are looking for a movie with Victorian British action, a la Zulu, but with a more modern touch, this is your movie. However, this movie is not in the class of, say, Zulu, Gunga Din or The Man who Would be King. I suggest all three of those movies over this one. I have not seen the older version of the book, but I am told it was better as well. There are a couple reasons why this movie is outmatched. First of all, while it uses the basis of the book, it does not go to far in to it. The book is more a social piece than an action movie, and while I do recomend the book, it is not for you action fans. This movie has some incredible action scenes in it, most notably the square formation bit, which you can see heavily centered on in the trailer. It's not to great on the plot side. It simply doesn't take enough time to go through what's going on, and I have a feeling if you haven't read the book, you'll be slightly confused. Third or fourthly (I've lost count) this movie is not to spectacuarly acted. Wes Bently, Heath Ledger, and Kate Hudson all do their jobs adequatly, but the one to truly stand out is Djimon Hounsou, but his character, Abou Fatma, isn't even in the book, and this African Mistic bit that he has in The Four Feathers gets redundant.
Once again: If you are looking for a movie with Victorian British action, a la Zulu, but with a more modern touch, this is your movie. However, this movie is not in the class of, say, Zulu, Gunga Din or The Man who Would be King. I suggest all three of those movies over this one.
Rating: 
Summary: A Cinema Insult
Review: l would give 4 white feathers to the following who were involved with this remake: 1 to the Editor for a lack of coherence and choppy scenes; 1 to the writer for incompetent plotting; 1 to the director for losing control over the basic plot; and the 4th to the studio for releasing this bombastic bomb, an insult to the book and for releasing a movie vastly inferior to the wondrous, compact 1939 version.
As usual for movies of this ilk, the production values were superb, but the poor writing and worse editing ruined its viewing.lt virtually became nonsensical at the end.
Rating:
Summary: I mean after all it is a movie abut a coward .....
Review: I first saw this movie when it came out and all I remembered was that it was OK but there was something about it that really bothered me.
Well just saw the DVD and yup the movie still bothered me. It was very very hard to believe that our hero, who comes from a military family and is engaged to a military girl, decides to up and quit when his unit was ordered to the Sudan to fight the Mahdi 'Muslim' rebels. The resignation, presentation of the four feathers of cowardice and his departure to the Sudan happens in such a flash in the movie that it really leaves the viewer wondering 'whaaaaa..... '
OK not to stretch the review for an old so -so film I actually liked the black slave that adopts our hero and saves the cowards life over and over ... this guy was fabulous and is the only reason I gave the movie two stars ....
Our coward .. well he just returned to the UK and AGAIN forgot and deserted the people that helped him the most ...
It certainly is a bad movie about a weak character !
Rating:
Summary: Very Pleasant Surprise!
Review: The theatrical reviews for this film were so-so and I wasn't expecting a whole lot from the DVD. I was very surpised by how good this film is. Although some the the British accents wander a bit, all the actors are quite good. James Horner's music gets the mood just right and the cinematography is exceptional. The director and screenwriter have managed to take a novel dealing with colonialism and the British Empire and transfer it to contemporary times without insulting the audience or the subject matter. The ending, in which Wes Bentley speaks at a memorial service, is eloquent and sums up the story's message without hitting us over the head. Well worth the money.
Rating:
Summary: I don't understand the negative reviews
Review: Much of the criticism of this movie is unfounded. It's certainly not too long (it's just over 2 hours long, which is about standard for a historical drama). The acting is fine; although, the British accents of Ledger and Hudson were not that great (but, at least, they weren't annoyingly fake). The editing is fine; if you can't follow the film, then you must not be too smart. Most other criticisms, like Ebert complaining that it was too anglo-centric, are false as well.
The one criticism I have is that we are supposed to sympathize with Harry (Ledger's character) when he receives the white feathers for his cowardice. Afterall, he was a coward for abandoning his fellow officers and friends on the eve of going to war, and he knew the consequences. However, the struggles that he encounters on his mission to redeem his honor will certainly illicit sympathy, so that you will too forgive him for his cowardice.
All in all, this was a good film. If you enjoy historical dramas like Elizabeth and Amadeus, then I think you should purchase this DVD. The story is often compelling and the cinematography is often brilliant. Improvements could have certainly been made, but that would have required a longer movie, and apparently people can't handle more than two hours (which is very sad).
Rating:
Summary: Overlong and rambling
Review: Although watching a British regiment form a square and repel Sudanese marauders from all sides is reminicent of the brilliant and underrated Zulu (1964) and a thing to behold, one battle sequence cannot overcome two more hours of poor characterization and a rambling plot.
Harry Faversham is a standard young British Officer, serving with his friends and engaged to the beautiful Ethne. However, when the regiment receives word that it is to be sent to the Sudan to battle rebels, he abruptly resigns his commisson and is branded as a coward by his friends and fiance, who send him four white feathers as a sign of cowardice.
Eventually Harry goes down to the Sudan to avenge these feathers or something, and the movie rapidly goes downhill. Aside from the aforementioned battle scene, there's very little here. Towards the end of the movie things get very reminiscent of Midnight Express, which isn't necceasrily a bad thing except for the fact that Turkish prison sequences seem rather out of place in a 19th Century War movie.
Djimon Hounsou, who you may remember as Maximus's ally in Gladiator, has a role as a guardian angel for Harry. No real reason is given as to why this guy goes out of his way to save Harry's life so many times, run through the desert for him, etc. I suppose it goes back to that colonial veiwpoint that black people merely serve to fulfill the wishes and needs of their white subjugators. Pathetic. 4/10
Rating:
Summary: A Fabulous Opening Perspective if Still an Imperfect Film
Review: For starters, full disclosure: I feel that Shekhar Kapur is one of the great living film directors, with a star that is still rising. After watching Bandit Queen, for a moment I was almost led to believe that Richard Attenborough's Gandhi was trivial. Elizabeth, despite great liberties taken with history, is the most riveting tale of the great Queen ever put to film.
Regarding this story, it is based on the novel of the same name by A. E. W. Mason written in 1902. It has been done some five times before on film, most famously in 1939. The 1929 version, a sound-tracked silent film starring Fay Wray from King Kong, exists somewhere but unfortunately has not yet been released on VHS or DVD.
The strength of Kapur's version is really the early scenes of British haute culture. No one, except perhaps the Irish, knows the British as well as the East Indians do, and it truly shows thru the prism of Kapur's Dravidian camera as it focuses on the brutal nature of British "civilization". The British are portrayed in a light of sympathy somewhere between what we would expect to feel for Roman centurions and the Nazi elite.
The problem with this is precisely that Kapur does it so well, leaving you almost without sympathy for anyone involved, including Harry (Heath Ledger). And it's hard to sit thru a film where you don't like anyone in it. Not helping matters is the acting of the young Hollywood cast, which, although routinely adequate, is never exceptional. Djimon Hounsou provides the standout performance here, and Ledger starts to grow on you once he loosens up in Africa. But by this time the story has already begun to suffer from a slight case of Hollywood hokum. There are some challenging situations and themes presented, but somehow it just doesn't feel satisfying. And the ending was too long and too happy.
My recommendation: Definitely worth checking out. It's entertaining enough and covers some important topics which currently face us today. You might also look up the '39 British version and the '29 Hollywood version (if you can find it!). Surely Shekhar Kapur has greater films yet to come, even David Lean made a less than perfect film now and then.
|
