Rating: 
Summary: A very underrated film
Review: The Four Feathers is a very underated film in that it shows the Victorian era of the British empire something that isn't protrayed often by hollywood. The acting is so-so which all the other reviewers will agree with but the story is first rate. Maybe if more established actors had taken up this project or a different director the outcome would have been better. The story is solid and some of the scene's are sort of uplifting in the sense of the courage that is protrayed. I enjoyed the film for the same reasons i enjoyed braveheart or black hawk down for the courage that was protrayed. A film that anyone who enjoyed them must consider viewing.
Rating: 
Summary: The Four Feathers
Review: When I saw the rating of 3stars given this movie...I could NOT believe it...I have not seen a movie this powerful in a very LONG time...everyone I know who has seen it, wants to see it again...the story of overcoming fear...and finding you have more courage, and raw endurance then you ever thought possible was extremely powerful...not to mention the loyalty,real loyalty,and is quite wonderful to see, even in a movie. Great movie.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but a little different from the 1977 Version
Review: Entertaining to watch, but a little disappointed in the character development. I enjoyed the 1977 version, for whats its worth, but this version is good, and well worth buying!
Rating:
Summary: Favors the Feathers
Review: ...I thought "the Four Feathers" was a fantastic movie. This movie offered a lot: romance, action, drama, etc....I love this movie!!!! The acting was great, the settings were great, good plot.... I am definitely going to add it to my DVD collection.
Rating: 
Summary: The Four Feathers: Why This Remake?
Review: Usually, whenever Hollywood shoots a remake of a previous film, the producers hope that the newer version will not be simply an update with some technological advances thrown in. They are likely to suggest that their remake emphasizes certain themes that were lacking in the original. The enduring success of the 1939 version of THE FOUR FEATHERS was clearly to be seen as an ideal melding of character and spectacle. Some forty years later, a new generation of producers updated the A. E. W. Mason story into a mess that was neither character nor spectacle. Then twenty five years after that, the newest generation of producers believed that they learned enough about the second version's debacle to enhance the lasting appeal of the original. Sadly, what director Shekhar Kapur has managed to accomplish is to emphasize the spectacle at the cost of the characterization. What made the first version resonate in the minds of the audience was the credible metamorphosis of Harry Faversham from a mindset of self-inflicted cowardice to a continent spanning set of acts of self-sacrifice that nearly everyone--except oddly enough for Harry himself--saw as incredible heroic. Heath Ledger, as Harry, sleepwalks through a role that demands that he show far more inner turmoil than he does. One minute he is quite sure that as a newly minted lieutenant in the British Army he has no desire to serve. To Harry's credit, he justifies his refusal on the grounds that as the son of a former officer, he was expected to serve even if he had serious reservations. But if his moral qualms were strong enough to risk the censure of family, peers, and fiance, then he ought not have been so quick to shift gears and head for the Sudan where his regiment was beseiged by armies of the Mahdi, a radical Muslim fundamentalist who has sworn to rid his country of what he sees as the morally debilitating influence of Western ideology. It is not unlikely that with the recent ratchiting up of tension between a more modern version of radical Muslim ideology and a Western culture that rings as debilitating to extremists now as then that the producers would emphasize that aspect of the film. The problem with that is that in so doing, the film leaves the realm of entertainment to that of the filmed polemic. There is a scene midway through that updates the role of the suicide bomber. Just before Harry's regiment is attacked by the main body of the Mahdi's forces, a small detachment of Sudanese attack the British on horseback, even though they know that to do so is suicide. They are shot out of their saddles by accurate British rifle fire, much to the consternation of the ones shooting. It is impossible to view this scene as anything other than as a thinly veiled reference to the current crop of suicide bombers willing to die merely to kill the enemy. As Harry is watching this battle, he sets a tone for himself that he follows for the remainder of the film. He watches far more than he participates. In the first film with John Clements as Harry, Clements played Harry as one who does far more than he watches. That Harry took charge. Ledger's Harry had only a few scenes of face to face confrontation with the Mahdi's soldiers, and even then his actions are invariably accompanied by excessive histrionics. Of far more interest is his friend Jack, who defends Harry from the accusations of cowardice by their peers, but then has the great bad luck to fall in love with Ethne (Kate Hudson), who promptly dumps Harry as soon as she learns of his decision to resign his commission. The major problem of this latest version of a man who is given four feathers as a symbol of his cowardice is that he does not really do enough to warrant being the focus of interest. One gets the feeling that Jack and the survivors of the British Army could have been served equally well by a local Sudanese (Dijmon Hounsou) who is one of the few characters whose credibility is established early on and runs true to form until the closing credits. The ending is no surprise to those who have seen the earlier version. What may be of surprise is that those same viewers can rightfully conclude that as a film that was supposed to combine action with strong character, THE FOUR FEATHERS is as morally deficient as those white feathers that floated so symbolically and obtrusively throughout.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing, at best
Review: Having seen both the TV version starring Beau Bridges and the 1939 version with Sir Ralph Richardson, I can categorically say that this current release is an insult to the previous films and certainly to the book. First, this lacks any character development, and portrays Harry Faversham as a coward when, in fact, he was a conscientious objector (with the same fear anyone going to war would have). Second (and as a consequence of the first), the moral messages of cowardice, valor, honor, and redemption are conspicuous by their absence. There were some good scenes but I think this film is a tribute to missed opportunities. Given the technology today, it could have been a magnificent film instead of a "rush to market" poorly told story. I give this two stars because of the physical aspects of the film... beautiful scenery and I think the casting was good or, at least, had the potential had they been exposed to a decent script and direction with a sense of purpose. This film is as much an epic drama as was the latest Pearl Harbor. Both are losers in my opinion. Don't buy this and don't even bother renting it.
Rating:
Summary: Simply excellent!
Review: This director, I've never heard of him, is excellent. The movie was great! A great action movie, a great distraction, a great cultural movie, a great experience.
Very happy to have seen it.
Rating:
Summary: 3 stars in general is very appropriate
Review: All the actings by the actors in this movie are just so-so. The story is somewhat contrite and shallow a bit. Nothing in depth was probed and didn't seem to be profound either. A watchable but not great movie.
Rating: 
Summary: A Disservice to the Original
Review: This is a movie that can not make up it's mind what it wants to be. At times it is an action movie, at other times it is making a statement against imperialism, and at other times a love story. The problem is it does not stay on any one theme long enough to make an impact. It is beautifully shot, but one gets the feeling that a lot of footage and the story wound up on the cutting room floor.
It is a shame really, as one keeps getting hints that the cast and the director coul/want to do more in this film, but somewhere along the way the focus got lost
Rating:
Summary: Better than 39
Review: This was an excellent film. The more modern special effects were excellent and the slight changes to the story line were improvements. There will always be loyal fans of the 1939 version and I count myself among them but you must give Heath Ledger credit for being able to carryout the part made famous by Ralph Richardson.
|
