The Four Feathers (2002)

How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

I have to admit, looking at the scores I wasn't expecting a really good movie, but to my surprise it was.The story was way better then I assumed and acting was good. For me the movie was more then worth watching and left me with a good feeling. I liked the fights and the struggle to find his friend and regain his proud as the feather stand symbol for coward behavior. Also the unexpected help, which I couldn't really figure out why was a nice swing in this movie.I think this is something really worth watching and I hope you enjoy it as I did.

Warn my friends! Save my friend! These are 2 of the lines spoken at two different times by a very noble but desperate man who had everything, and I mean everything going for him. He spoke these words to another man who had nothing, and came from even less, but was willing to help. This other man belonged to a tribe of slaves, spoke English and Arabic, but was a Christian. He would adorn himself with different pieces of white jewelry which among his people, spoke of the number of men you had killed. His name is Abou.Harry is the man who had everything but through one selfish decision, lost it all. After seeing the pain his mistake caused all those who loved, respected and admired him - he regrets the foolish decision, and attempts to restore what was lost. This very fine film is filled with virtue, honor and the great strength required to redeem yourself after doing unintended damage to some of the most precious things we possess. Our relationships. Especially the strong right good ones - the ones you would lay down your life for. It is a story mostly of recovery. And is the exact opposite of the everyone deserves a trophy attitude which plagues our modern generation. How refreshing.While in the enemy prison at Omdurman in the Sudan, Heath Ledger's character has to be one of the most pitiful sights you'll ever see. A bright young British Calvary officer, the son of the General, engaged to a beautiful woman who loves him, a leader among his men, and surrounded by a tight knit core of his closest friends, all in the same regiment as himself . . . is reduced to human rubble. It is at his lowest point that Harry learns to overcome the Fear that led to his tragedy. The movie has been intentionally injected with several modern sensibilities which did not and never would have existed at that time, you'll know them when you see them (or hear them). They serve only to weaken the story and the film, all in the name of political correctness. Though plenty of the original Light is left to keep it right.I believe this to be Heath Ledgers most mature role by far, alongside Wes Bentley's shining performance as the ideal soldier and friend. With a great cast all around, I am amazed at how many people have missed this movie. It is every bit as good as Gladiator or Troy, just different - and with a much more moral story. It is a classic film made from a classic novel about the way we were . . . not that long ago. One of my favorites. Anyone who appreciates the ever increasing rarity of good movies made from good stories should see this film.http://fullgrownministry.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/identity/

There's a lot of stunning imagery in this pic, but the director's aim here is to educate the public on the political realities of empire building; foreign and domestic. The director is not sympathetic to the British in any way, and it shows in this film.We have some superb cinematography for an historic epic focusing on four disparate comrades of "Her Majesties Army". But note, we don't come to sympathize with any of them. We don't come to care for any of them. We don't get attached to a single protagonist. One wonders why that is.It's because we're truly looking at a historical drama that asks us to follow the characters from A to B to C, but only from the vantage of a distant viewer, and as audience members engaged in the emotional outcome of the drama, we're left high and dry in this regard. This is a very objectifying work. We see the harsh realities of colonial warfare, but there's no sense of wanting or needing some or any of the characters to live. We're almost looking at an anti-British film. Something that comes near to being pro-Islam, but is more anti-colonial in its stance than a prostelizatizn of some other political thought.But, does that make it a bad film? No, not really. I did like watching it for the visuals, but I did feel somewhat empty. On my first viewing I thought and wondered how anyone could not like this picture, because I thought there was a heartfelt attempt to show the plight of everyone. And that's the irony of it all. Because the film is so thorough in its depiction of hardship, you never get a sense of where to position your own emotional investment as per my previous paragraph.As a stand alone film I think it's okay, but nothing to write home about in terms of being a fully realized drama. The acting is is actually quite good, though overstated at times. The late Heath Ledger tries to infuse the sublime in his thesping as he takes on the dual persona of a young officer who's scared to go to war, but later tears down his cowardice after his trials in the Sudan.Something that might've helped this film would have been for the characters to have realized who and where they were; i.e. what they were doing (to channel a little Yoda here). Yet again, all we see is what one might call the emotional plot. The actions and the reactions of the characters. We never truly get to look into their hearts.Mores the pity.Rent it for a night's viewing. The actual story is pretty decent, and worth seeing because of some very impressive cinematography. But, don't be surprised if you feel a little empty at the end of it.

British author A.W.E. Mason, sometimes referred to as the poor man's Rudyard Kipling, would rollover in his grave if he saw what a shambles Indian-born (as in India) director Shekhar Kapur of "Elizabeth" has made of his classic war novel about camaraderie, cowardice, and second chances. For the record, Hollywood produced "The Four Feathers" for the first time in 1915 and the second time in 1921. American director Merian C. Cooper of "King Kong" fame came along and made it the third time in 1929 with Fay Wray and Richard Arlen in 1929, and British director Zoltan Korda did the best known version in color in 1939, (the fourth time if you're counting) with Ralph Richardson. Weirdly enough, Korda remade "The Four Feathers" under a different title in 1955 called "Storm Over the Nile" with Anthony Steel, James Robertson Justice, Ian Carmichael, Ronald Lewis, Michael Hordern. In 1977, Don Sharp made the fifth version as an NBC-TV television movie with Beau Bridges, Robert Powell, Simon Ward, and Jane Seymour. Since then this durable adventure about the imperial British Army in African has emerged as a perennial favorite with filmmakers. So far they have remade it seven times, six times on screen and once for television. As the seventh remake, Kapur's version of "The Four Feathers" seems more plucked than profound, more improbable than possible, and more jingoistically old-fashioned than fashionable. Watch the Charlton Heston blockbuster "Khartoum" (1966) for an historical frame of reference.Indeed, "Horse Feathers" might have been a title more befitting this sprawling but shallow spectacle about the British Empire in its heyday. Nevertheless, "The Four Feathers" looks pictorially gorgeous on the big-screen with its grand-scale battles and its savage Moroccan scenery. Unfortunately, this swashbuckling costumer lacks the guts of its glorious predecessors. Wishy-washy characters, preposterous plotting, and Kapur's uneven storytelling plucks this rendition of "The Four Feathers." Essentially, "The Four Feathers" chronicles the rise, fall, and redemption of Victorian-Era British Army officer Harry Faversham (Australian heartthrob Heath Ledger of "Monster's Ball"), who resigns his commission when he learns the Queen Mum plans to ship the Royal Cumbrian Regiment off to the Sudan to combat revolting Arab tribesmen. "I sometimes wonder," Faversham comments in half-hearted protest, "what a godforsaken desert in the middle of nowhere has to do with her majesty the queen.Not only does Faversham's decision infuriate his dad, a proud British Army General Faversham (Tim Pigott-Smith of "Gangs of New York") who disowns him, but it also galls Harry's longtime comrades-at-arms: William Trench (Michael Sheen of "Blood Diamond"), Tom Willoughby (Rupert Penry-Jones of "Charlotte Gray") and Edward Castelton (Kris Marshall of "Love Actually"), and his distraught fiancée Ethne (Kate Hudson of "Almost Famous"). Each sends him a white feather, a symbol of cowardice in English circles. Only Harry's closest friend Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley of "American Beauty") refuses to give him a feather. Anyway, the British Army lands in the Sudan, while Harry wallows in misery. When he learns his pals have gotten themselves captured, our psychic protagonist storms off to save them, masquerading as an unconvincing "Lone Ranger/Rambo" nomad. During his journey of hardship, Harry befriends About Fatma (scene-stealing Djimon Hounsou of "Gladiator"), a destiny-bound, "Last of the Mohicans" style, native mercenary who becomes his guide and sidekick.Scenarist Michael Schiffer of "The Peacemaker" and Hossein Amimi of "Jude" have trivialized this timeless tale of testosterone. First, they have changed Mason's hero's name from Faversham to Feversham. Second, they refuse to explain why our hero chickens out. Is he a coward? Or an idealist? Basically, "The Four Feathers" recycles every cliché you have ever seen in a cavalry versus the Indians western, with Redcoats replacing bluecoats and Islamics instead of Apaches. Actually, the British wore grey coats, not redcoats. If you want to see the best version of "The Four Feathers," catch the 1939 Technicolor version and skip this harmless but half-baked hokum.