Rating: 
Summary: The movie is okay, but the tailor should have been fired
Review: I'm the first to admit that I'm a bit of a stickler for accuracy in historical movies, and I admit that sometimes my sensibilities can be a bit touchy when filmmakers get details wrong. Now this version of The Four Feathers really annoyed me. It annoyed me because clearly the filmmakers went to a great deal of trouble getting details right in many areas, but then they messed up one detail that should have been spotted very early in production. As a result, the whole film suffers.My issue with this movie is that the soldiers are literally swimming in their tunics. Whoever fitted the main actors had no concept of the correct fit for uniforms in the 19th century. Today we expect a fit that's very loose, but back then, uniforms were expected to be very close-fitting. The whole movie is ruined for me because the tailors fitted the uniforms based on a late 20th century idea of correct fit rather than to that of the late 1800s. Collars are ridiculously loose - you could get a hand inbetween the collar and the neck of the movie uniform tunics, when in a real-life 19th century high-collar uniform you probably couldn't fit your little finger in. Similarly, the shoulder of the tunics have no relationship to the actors' shoulders - they are way too loose and consequently, after a few days campaigning, the tunic would have looked more like a cloth sack than a tunic. If these actors had turned out dressed like this on a 19th century parade ground, the hoots of laughter would have been heard for miles, and they would soon find themselves at their tailors requesting that the clothes be severely altered. One more thing about uniform accuracy. I noticed that a few reviewers mentioned that the British Army wouldn't have worn red tunics in the Sudan campaign. While it's true that the British did phase out the red tunic and adopted a khaki foreign service uniform after the Zulu War, the Sudan campaign was an exception - there were some British units in the Sudan still wearing red tunics. I can't remember the exact details of how this came about, but the movie is not necessarily inaccurate in its portrayal of British 'redcoats' in the Sudan. All in all, this movie seems to be a faithful adaptation of the book on which it's based, but (for me) the whole thing falls down because of horrible tailoring. What a shame! Fortunately most casual viewers won't pick up on this issue, but for those who have a greater interest in the period, the flaw is fatal.
Rating: 
Summary: Inspirational
Review: Wow, I was very impressed by the sheer emotion of the storyline and the attatchment I felt with the characters. It certainly left me in tears and looking to better my own moral character. I am a big fan of epic pictures that idealize virtues such as honor, integrity and nobility like The Gladiator and The Last Samurai. This film is of the same quality as those others, and embodies loyalty as it's crowning virtue. It inspires one to be a better person and is definitely worth putting on your list.
Rating:
Summary: Exhilarating, Astounding, & Brilliant
Review: This movie was truly a dynamic master work. The actors, and actresses made this movie come alive, I was literally in tears at the end of this wonderful film. This DVD is one for your collection. This movie will be loved by all both male and female, it's journey through war, love, cowardness, redemotion, peace, & friendship. With an all star cast this movie has it all.
Rating: 
Summary: Pathetic
Review: Four Feathers is one of the worst remakes of a classic film ever and I regret the time and money wasted viewing it. This version, by director Shekhar Kapur, not only lacks character, it virtually lacks a storyline for anyone not familiar with the history of the period,much of which is discreetly missed or misrepresented, anyway. The remake is even more pathetic given the availability of the technical advances in movie-making since the 1939 version, but possibly not advances in actors. As for the actors themselves, there wasn't much there and Kate Hudson was almost embarrassing to watch with her phony accent and complete inability to act. Contributing the movie's failure could also be Kapur's long-winded style of directing. I highly recommend the original, The Four Feathers (1939).
Rating: 
Summary: Long, boring, and generally aimless.
Review: Period pieces and desert adventures have long always appealed to me. Watching intrepid explorers brave the vast, dry, and arid landscape is an exhilarating experience. So I think it says a lot that The Four Feathers did little for me, save for much yawning and a sudden desire to take a long nap. I'd actually been looking forward to seeing this film for several months so, bar none, this was probably the biggest disappointment of 2002, for me, at least. Ledger stars as Harry Faversham, a British soldier in his majesty's army in the 19th century. Jack (Wes Bentley) is his best friend, a brave soldier who envies Harry because of his lovely fiancee, Ethne (Kate Hudson). All seems well for the happy couple, until war is declared in the Sudan against the zealous Mahdi. Harry, after a long night of deep thought, elects to resign his commission and unsurprisingly, is deemed a complete coward by his own friends, who send him four feathers as a symbol of his disgrace (the fourth is sent by Ethne, Jack chooses not to believe he's a coward). Distraught over the feathers, Harry decides to tag along and help his comrades in any way he can. Naturally, he's a bit in over his head and has to be saved time and again by a desert warrior named About Fatma (Djimon Honsou), who has taken it upon himself to protect Faversham, for reasons that are never made explicitly clear. Does Harry get a chance to prove his mettle in combat? Do I even have to ask? The fundamental premise at work sounds great, but a quick glance informs us of a barrage of head-spinning plot holes. We're never really told what to think of Harry, except that he might not be the brightest guy in England. Put it this way, he actually spends an entire night chewing over his decision to resign and not for a moment did he actually seem to consider the fact that resigning right after war has been declared might, oh, deem him a coward. Should he really have been surprised by those feathers he was sent? Then there's his decision to sneak into the Sudan. In one of the movie's more jarring edits, we're never shown how he got there; he's just there in one scene. In a period piece adventure, it's my firm belief as much detail as possible should be given. Anyway, his plan makes no sense; he decides he'll try and help, but what exactly can he do that a heavily-armed and well-trained army couldn't do without him? When all is said and done, I'm not even sure what point the film's trying to make, that personal honor and reputation is more important than holding firm to your beliefs (not that the movie ever established Harry as a pacifist, otherwise I doubt he'd ever have joined the army, even with his father as an officer)? Ambiguity is evident in the Kate Hudson character, and not in an intriguing manner, either. Are we supposed to assume that she cares more about her "image" than Harry? Then when she displays regret over sending the feather, are we supposed to gather that she's truly changed or just in need of a suitor? On the other end of the spectrum, there's Jack, whose dedication to both Harry and Ethne is actually rather touching. And thus leads to the love triangle, which I could have done without. Actually, I'll give a spoiler warning here because I mean to reveal the ending. Ethne obviously will return to Harry, leaving poor Jack blinded and only with his honor to comfort him. If you ask me, she chose the wrong guy. The action/adventure aspects of the movie are pulled off just as poorly. What should have been a rip-roaring epic is instead very badly edited, scenes cutting from one to another without a sense of timing or pacing, almost as if though whole chunks were lifted from the film entirely. The film's big battle sequence is a clunker, with a few well-staged and well-shot moments (loved Ledger's leap onto the horse), but is mostly unexciting and frustratingly dull. The director fails to capture the odds the army was up against, gives us little of the much needed hand-to-hand combat and overdoses on the slow motion. The Four Feathers was directed by Shekhar Kapur, who has shown talent with Elizabeth, but you'd think the man who crafted this had no discernable skills. True, the movie boasts the occasional bit of lovely cinematography, but come on, we know that's due more to the stunning locations than the camerawork. There are a few bright spots, Honsou and Bentley deliver fine performances, but I think I have the right to expect better from an eighty-million dollar production of a classic story.
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 bad, but there are better
Review: This is the story of a young British officer who is branded a coward and sets out into the Sudanese desert to prove otherwise. He struggles to redeem himself to each of his friends who called him disloyal and full of fear, and along the way finds his true self. Touching, but a bit cliched. If you want to see a top-notch film with a similar storyline set during the British Imperial occupation of the savage desert, go watch "Lawrence of Arabia" instead. This film isn't bad, but it certainly leaves much to be wanted.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning photography worth the fifth star
Review: In a lyrical and circuitous route we are carried through the story of one Englishman (Heath Ledger)and his penance for what is judged cowardice in his time. The director has brought an Eastern philosophical sway to the music, the cinematography and the development of the story. The acting is superb. At the heart of the movie is Abou Fatma (Djimon Hounsou), the African whose character, courage and maturity give this movie its anchor. Without the counter-point of his code of honor, perhaps we would not see the more mystical side of the Englishman's quest to redeem himself. All told, "The Four Feathers" deserved more than it got from some major reviewers.
Rating: 
Summary: WOW!!!!
Review: this movie is really cool!!!! It has great acting, plus the story, and the action!!! The last battle was really cool and intense!!!! You should see this movie!1
Rating:
Summary: Where is the 3-hour release?
Review: The Four Feathers is a really good film which had a highly competent production cast and crew which flopped nevertheless. Production was rushed whereas post-production virtually slowed to a snail's crawl due to the events of Sept 11 somehow interfering with the anti-colonialist stance of the movie, as well as producers falling out over the long initial duration of the film, forcing director Shekhar Kapur to cut a third off the planned 3 hour release (which Kapur revealed that Miramax boss Harvey Weinstein actually approved). Well, this is nothing less than a monstrosity. Many people reported that the film looked rushed, that the editing was choppy - and it really was. Imagine what the extra hour would have added to this film. I charge that Miramax release a 3-hour Director's Cut version, because the theatrical version didn't do justice to the movie at all. At the present state the movie is already very good - a unique, sweeping score, breathtaking yet poetic cinematography, dramatic acting, not-so-direct plotline (one that is more soulful and spiritual than something that you can pitch in two sentences), as well as the prospect of seeing a well-made period film, a genre that is rarely revived these days. However the editing really suffered due to the many political pressures forced down upon it ... it is time that the real movie gets to see the light of day.
|
