Rating: 
Summary: Where's the 4th feather?
Review: This movie was beautifully shot and the acting was well-done, yet something seemed to be missing (who gave him the fourth feather? - I only counted three feathers returned: one to his fiancee, one to the guy he borrowed money from in the Sudan and one from the guy he rescued in the prison camp). I digress, although I wouldn't recommend not to see this movie I would say that you should wait until it comes out on video or DVD for it is longish and lacks passion.
Rating:
Summary: Harry of the Sudan
Review: Shekhar Kapur's "Elizabeth" was a marvel: incisive, ultra-dramatic, personal, romantic, intimate yet realized on a grand, epic scale. So it was with a great amount of expectation that I approached Kapur's new film, "The Four Feathers."
"The Four Feathers tells the story of one Leftenant Harry Haversham who, upon learning that his regiment is going to fight a war in Sudan, resigns his commission. In 1880 England this is an extreme act of Cowardice and a white feather is the physical manifestation of this cowardice. He is sent four: three from his fellow soldiers and one from Ethne Eustace (Kate Hudson), his fiancé.
The very weak link in this film is Harry's reason for resigning: "I am scared," he says. But not too scared to take it upon himself to go to the Sudan and pose as a Muslim warrior to protect his friends; one in particular, his best friend Jack (Wes Bentley). Huh?
Kapur has directed this film with a firm grasp of all the physical elements: the physical production is flawless and the desert has not looked this beautiful since "Lawrence of Arabia."
The acting is first rate with Heath Ledger, Kate Hudson (a big departure from her role in "Almost Famous"), Wes Bentley and Djimon Hounsou all very effective.
The is a film told on a grand scale with sweeping panoramas, huge, bloody, violent battle scenes and thousands of extras milling about. What it lacks is a personal point of view that would elevate all the physical elements into something that would touch us emotionally: "Four Feather's" is like a big, beautifully wrapped gift with nothing inside. It's emotionally empty and tragically vacant.
Rating: 
Summary: God Awful
Review: Went to see this one thinking that the director of Elizabeth couldn't fail. Wrongo buddy. I think this might be the worst film I have seen this year (haven't seen many though, so forgive me if I'm leaving out something worse). Characters are not flat, they are non-existent. The plot has enormous gaps. The clincher was when a character who goes blind recognizes Heath Ledger by feeling his face. Absolutely ridiculous. This movie thoroughly depressed me because of the waste - of time, of money, of talent. Truly tragic.
Rating:
Summary: Mediocrity at it's best
Review: This is one of those movies where the trailer looks spectacular but does not match up with the movie. Heath Ledger may be good enough to be a TV actor but not for a film of this caliber. There are also long silent awkward moments in this film that make you feel that the editor was asleep at the snip.
Rating: 
Summary: Too Many Historical Inaccuracies
Review: I went to see the movie last night and found the plot okay but what I really went to see was the battle scenes and the uniforms.
The "square" scene was nice but I did not understand why the
artillery took so long to go into action and why didn't the machine
guns fire? The mounted skirmish infantry seemed a little strange. The natives looked great. Should have been more numbers on both sides.
The home service uniforms were terrific. Did anyone else catch the
Naval Brigade Sailors in the column? The campaign uniforms as we
all know were incorrect. The reason I suspect they were wearing red tunics was that the director or producer thought that the average movie goer would be confused and too stupid to figure out that the chaps in khaki are British and not some other imperialist power like the Germans. What a pity.
Now, what does the Mahdi have to do with all this? As we all know, from the movie "Khartoum", the Mahdi died in 1885 while the Reconquest of the Sudan undertaken by Kitchener happened in 1898.
I would recommend you to go and find Attenborough's "Young Winston" which included good and accurate battle scenes involving the Battle of Omdurman(and the Brits are wearing khaki) and a terrific cavalry charge.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible! Just terrible!
Review: This has to be the worst movie I've ever seen. I've seen the movie trailer. It looked pretty good so I chose to see this. But there's no action in the first half of the movie. No point whatsoever. We left before it even finished, we couldn't take it anymore. If you're smart, stay away from this one.
Rating:
Summary: Good Idea, poor execution
Review: This movie could have shown so many more sides of war, love, friendship, and personal struggle. But it turned out to be a film about a young man and his troubles, the typical European meets different African and they learn to respect each other.The film would have been better with more character development. The only basis for the friendship between the British officers is a rugby game, not much to go on. And the relationship between Harry and his fiancée is assumed passion. A huge part of the movie was Harry's redemption from being labeled a coward. The significance of bravery, honor, and other military values wasn't demonstrated at all by the actors, it was presented to the audience in the form of a pre-film message on the screen. Very weak approach considering the importance of that theme throughout the film. Some key elements of the story could have been added. For instance, the journey to and from Africa could probably have been used to give background to the characters in the form of flashbacks or something. Plus the journey itself probably would have been quite an ordeal. Imperial Britain and the British class system (especially in the military) are both incredible interesting. The film could have focused on that some more. The ending was a bit weak too; it left me thinking "of course." All in all the scenery, effects, and acting were alright. Like I mentioned earlier . . . it could have been much better.
Rating:
Summary: Poor imitation of the original circa 1939
Review: The reason that the hero - Harry Faversom- did not go with his regiment and friends to the Sudan was changed from the original. It was "too preachy" about the faults of "the white man's burden" and the British empire. If they wished to get into this subject, they should have given some backround of why the British were in the Sudan. The movie was very diconnected as far as how the individuals got from one point to the other. The service dress of the troops in the desert was tan not the red red dress parade.IF YOU WISH TO SEE THE MOVIE, RENT THE ORIGINAL!!!
Rating: 
Summary: ..........
Review: I am a uhge movie fan and i thought this movie was totally rad. i definently sugest it to anyone. the acting was awesome, and it was really good....
Rating:
Summary: plucked
Review: This is at least the third iteration of the novel to make the silver screen and by far the least successful. The characters are unsympathetic and two dimensional, the constant vistas of the sand dunes are repetitive and dull, and there is no passion. The film feels like it is seven hours long not two. The 1939 version packs much more action, passion, and characterization in the same amount of film. The redemption of the feathers, one by one, and most especially the last one, carried much more impact in the black and white version. There was even some humor to the 1939 version. Save this one for a "last resort" rental on some rainy night.
|
