Rating: 
Summary: Four feathers, four stars
Review: I couldn't very well give this movie three stars because then it wouldn't merit such a catchy headline. Regardless, The Four Feathers took me by surprise. It was much more than I bargained for. An initial story of valor and friendship. Distinct, interesting characters (though often times not fully developed). Gripping battles, among other wrenching human struggles. And a romance that doesn't cloud out the attention of the movie. Sometimes I got lost as to what, exactly, was going on -- or why it was happening. But when all was said and done, I did enjoy The Four Feathers. Though nothing truly epic, its concept is intriguing, and its flow is smooth and riveting. If you don't expect great things from it, you just might like it.
Rating:
Summary: for the man on your right.
Review: The movie, imho, is an extended study of the mechanism of small group warfare that was summed up at the end as: we fight not for
Queen and Country but for the man on our right. The same thing was determined in VietNam as American soldiers fought for their buddies not for any big ideals, but for the man on their right.I have not read the book, nor seen the earlier versions, nor do the reviews here, nor does the movie motivate me to seek them out and do so. The movie is sufficent thought-fodder for this topic, for me. The central character is not a coward as the reviews here imply but a self-examining person who sees the fear within himself , primarily the fear of letting down his comrades, and deserting his girlfriend. He misinterprets this as cowardice in the face of battle yet follows them into battle, not as a soldier but as an enforced laborer pulling canons up the sand. The brillant character of the huge, very black, very thoughtful Moslem 'messenger-angel' is the person who guides the main character through a series of trials to get to the point where he recognizes and conquerors the demons he is struggling with. In the end he redeems himself on all points and becomes very much like the 'messenger-angel' character in his perceptive. A nice few hours of action, thoughtfulness, historical drama, well recommended. richard williams
Rating: 
Summary: one of the worst movies i've seen in a long time!
Review: i have to say that this was one of the worst movies i think i have ever seen! why on earth were two americans cast in leading roles where they were required to don false british accents when there are PLENTY of talented brits who could have done a much better and much more believable job? the premise was stupid; the actors were undeniably nice to look at but were so heavy handed with their parts that it was impossible to take them seriously. i will say that it was an absolutely beautiful film to watch (muted) in parts, but overall it was awful. the score was also way too intrusive and got in the way with the little decent acting that could be found. i cannot tell you how tired i am of seeing "the noble savage" showing "the unenlightened westerner" the path to personal redemption as well. really a terrible, heavily cliched film.
Rating:
Summary: Grand epic is a pleasant surprise
Review: Having no expectations when watching Shekhar Kapur's "Four Feathers," I found this earnest film to be a genuine surprise. Costume epics of this type have not been en vogue since the "Lawrence of Arabia" days of David Lean. That's too bad, because during the far-too-brief 130-minute running time, I was captivated, enthralled and eventually frustrated. This majestic story, based on the 1902 A.E.W. Mason novel, deserves at least a three-hour running time. My guess is that much of the footage was left on the cutting room floor so that our ever inpatient youth wouldn't squirm too much. The pace of this film is jumpy, and the story difficult to follow at times. The transition from England to the Sudan happens far too quickly, with the early character-establishing scenes feeling rushed. Heath Ledger is excellent in the lead role of a 19th century British soldier who resigns on the eve of war. His fiancee (Kate Hudson) and three of his best friends give him four white feathers, a symbolic gesture of cowardice, and he's even disowned by his father. Needless-to-say, Heath is having a very bad day. Rather than accept his fate, he travels to the Sudan on the heels of his soldier friends to prove his mettle, posing at different times as a slave, a spy and a native. Djimon Hounsou eventually enters the film as a philosophical native who befriends Ledger, serving as his Sudan guardian angel. I have always appreciated Hounsou's unique presence in films ("Gladiator"), and he continues his string of excellent character work with "Four Feathers." Of course, there's a great battle, and Heath finds himself on the opposite side of the British Army. Amdist the smoke, fire and bullets, he's eventually trying to save his friends while furiously fighting off the Sudan natives. Throw into this potent mix his interesting relationship with his best friend, wonderfully played by Wes Bentley, who's in love with his fiancee. The stuff of misty romance and glorious British sensibility, "Four Feathers" plays like a sweeping novel. For the most part, the intricate storylines play out with great satisfaction. But the jump to the Sudan happens far too quickly, and we are left asking why Mr. Ledger resigned from the British army in the first place. It's telling that as a viewer, when this film ended, I wanted more. The performances are uniformly superb, the period detail exceptional and the attitude earnest. But this deserving tale needed to be fleshed out. A 19th-century epic cannot be told with 21st-century pace. "Four Feathers" deserves at least three hours. As is, the journey is more than worthwhile.
Rating: 
Summary: Wannabe epic.
Review: Summary:
Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) is the son of a famous military officer and is a star cadet in an upscale military training school in England. He is surrounded by friends that adore him and is in love with a woman that everyone seems to think is beautiful, Ethne (Kate Hudson). But when it comes time to go to war, Harry ops out and disgraces both himself and his family. As a result, three of his closest friends and his now fiancée, Ethne, give him white feathers, symbolic of cowardice. The gesture gets to Harry and he ends up deciding to prove everyone wrong by going to the war zone anyway and doing his best to protect his friends. While there he meets an African native who becomes the best example of friendship in the entire movie, Abou Fatma (Djimon Hounsou), and is probably the coolest character. The movie kind of ends ambiguously and you are left wondering about a lot of things. My Comments:
Combining this movie with Changing Lanes for a night of entertainment, which my wife and I did, was a major mistake. Both of the movies just drag on and on. This one actually has one major scene that is pretty exciting (when the British regiment is tricked and ambushed), but the rest of the movie is very slow - especially the beginning. I can understand that the intent is to delve into the relationships of the characters and the mind of Harry, but there are still a lot of completely unnecessary scenes that don't advance the story at all. As for the acting, it wasn't too bad. My wife was convinced by it and I especially liked Djimon Hounsou and Wes Bentley (who played Jack Durrance). Heath Ledger wasn't too bad, but I think he actually had a pretty bad story to work with, which isn't really his fault. As for the story, it was very much piecemeal. It jumped from here to there and, though it wasn't hard to follow, it wasn't always clear why they were leaving some things out and including some things that seemed completely irrelevant. I think the story was just lacking a clear and linear plot, despite not having anachronistic scenes. Overall, except for the ambush scene and the scenes involving Djimon Hounsou, the movie was kind of boring. It doesn't move very fast and doesn't really suck you into the relationships and characters and get you to relate. This is definitely one you can skip.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible remake
Review: This is a terrible remake of the two previous movies. I would recommend either one over this waste of film. This movie followed the typical Hollywood formula of romance and violence rather than telling a story. Romance to attract the women and violence & a little sex for the men. The story line was lost in in the emphasis on romance & violence. Characters were not developed. The movie jumped around and left a lot to the watchers imagination. I walked away from the movie with a bad taste in my mouth and wondered why I had wasted my time watching it. Maybe I was hoping it would get better but it didn't!
Rating:
Summary: BAD, JUST FLAT OUT BAD
Review: WHEN I FIRST saw the previews for this, i was dying to see it, but i didnt get the chance to untill it came out on video. i rushed into the movie store, and hurried to find "the four feathers" starring Heath Ledger (The Patriot, A Knight's Tale).... this movie turned out to be the biggest waste of time ever. i blew off 2 hours and 10 minutes to watch something that calling "dirt" would be disgracing dirt itself. hollywood needs to learn that they cant put a war story and a love story in the same movie. it just doesnt work. they did it in Pearl Harbor, and ruined that too. I was hoping for some great action scenes to make up for the horrible story line, but again, i was dissapointed. i thought about stopping the movie with a half hour left, but i hoped that something would happen that would make me forget about everything that went wrong. NOPE. this movie was full of dissapointments. there were too many remakes, which killed the original. o no! a man was blinded because he rifle didnt fire correctly- that had to be the "bad" thing of the movie. although, hollywood did make an attempt to dig themselves out of the pit they were in- they showed dogs eating dead british soldiers. Hollywood fell into a bottomless pit.
Rating:
Summary: A Pacifist's War Movie
Review: The Four Feathers applies twenty-first century pacifity to 19th century chivalry - and the result is not pretty. Cowards become heroes. And those who serve their country admirably are made out to be fools. If you're looking for a movie that will get your adrenaline rushing, this feature is more like a swift kick in the groin. Any excitement is neutered by needless sentimentality. The pomp and circumstance of the British Empire is wasted. Even the glorious battle scenes attempt to demonstrate, not bravery, but stupidity. The means by which the coward achieves his redemption are fairy-tale like in their absurdity. And whereas he appears manly and rugged as a desert drifter, he looks positively preppy and effeminate in his layered sweaters back in England. Kate Hudson, the object of two men's affection, is useless window dressing. Her character's fate attempts to show that remaining faithful to a wimp is always the better choice. The second part of the movie, honestly, is much better than the first. The coward ends up in a prison which is more grotesque than your worst nightmare. Think The Midnight Express in the Sudan and you'll be close. The ending is absurd, and every scene in the movie is too long by half. I haven't endured a war movie this ludicrous since The Thin Red Line with Sean Penn. Be sure to pass this one by!
Rating:
Summary: Politically Incorrect
Review: This remake of a classic film is an abomination. Supposedly, the
thrust of the changes was to remove "racist elements." I have watched the original many times, and I don't see any racist elements, unless you consider the depiction of Africans kicking the ... out of the British Army to be racist. In the remake, a mysterious black bodybuilder guides Harry Faversham step by step through his odyssey. The Ralph Richardson character is reduced to a screaming idiot. Please, watch the original and throw this one in the roundfile.
Rating:
Summary: Well Done
Review: I thought this movie was very well done. I don't know the history behind the battle with the Sudan nor have I read the book nor have I seen the earier movie versions of this story. The cinematography is wonderful, and the acting is surpringly good from such young actors. I'm actually surprised this movie didn't receive any type of Oscar nomination. It definitely deserves more credit than it has received. This is by far Heath Ledger's finest role and a refreshing change from Kate Hudson's pixie-sweet girlie characters. Wes Bentley has become better with each movie I've seen him in. He has a quiet yet understated ability with acting in drama. I hope to see more of him in later films. I think it would be a mistake to think of this movie entirely in the context of western imperialism. It would also be a mistake to view this as a period-piece romance. Very little in the film is attributed to the "romantic" side of the relationship between Heath's and Kate's characters. The film above all is about one young man's struggle to overcome his demons and learns what loyalty, courage and honor truly means. In his attempt to redeem himself from cowardice, he is taken on a journey of sacrifice, self discovery and test of character. He has help along the way in the form of a native who proves to be an unlikely yet extremely loyal partner, thus challenging the paradigm of who is friend and foe when survival matters most. In the end, loyalty trumps all the other themes in this film. As Wes Bentley succinctly puts it at the end of the movie "fighting for the man on your left and for the man on your right" is what the battles were truly about -- never about upholding the ideals of imperialism, not about Queen and Country, neither for glory. This is a film worth watching, but do so without any pre-conceived notions based on reviews, summaries and eye-catching trailers. To grasp the deeper meaning of the film, be prepared to watch with an open mind and conscience.
| 
