None
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.
Armand
admirable story about values. a lesson about courage, sacrifice and friendship. powerful, subtle, impressive. an old fashion film. and an extraordinary work. it is difficult to give a verdict. sure, war, romance, historical slices are ingredients for a nice cocktail. but The Four Feathers is a little more. and this fact is essential. Heath Ledger makes a great role. entire art of nuances, entire force of performance are bricks for an extraordinary character. the truth as heart of personal battle, the action scenes, the dialogs - each - part of authentic jewel. so, it is not a film for descriptions or critics. only source of impressions.
bkoganbing
The popular A.E.W. Mason novel The Four Feathers gets its sixth film version if you count a 1977 one made for television with Beau Bridges. Heath Ledger stars as protagonist Harry Fevasham who resigns his commission on the eve of his regiment being shipped out to the Sudan during the early 1880s to contain an uprising by the Osama Bin Laden of his day, the Mahdi. If you remember that's the fellow who was played by Sir Laurence Olivier in Khartoum.Ledger comes from a family with a military tradition and its just expected he join the army. To placate Dad he does, but he doesn't count on a war, who ever does. His messmates led by Wes Bentley and even his intended bride Kate Hudson think Ledger a coward. He's not so sure they're not right.But he decides to go to the Sudan in any event, he does speak the languages by dint of his military background. Ledger goes to test his own courage and grit. What happens there is the bulk of the story.Most people remember the version of The Four Feathers from Paramount in 1929, one of their last silents that starred Richard Barthelmess and William Powell. The British did their own blockbuster version in 1939 with John Clements and Ralph Richardson, one of their very earliest films in color. This one compares admirably with both of those.What it does do is give a picture of the Sudan very much as it is today, a land of bitter poverty and racial strife. The Moslems versus the Christians versus the Nativist religions. A dose of British Imperialism in full swing at the time didn't help the situation one bit. A lesson to be learned, but probably won't be by the people that should learn it.Still the story of Ledger finding himself in that desert country is still one that has a lot of merit for today. Heath gives a fine account of himself in the lead role and also to be noticed is Djimmon Hounsou who plays the native who pulls Heath's buttocks from the proverbial sling.Heath Ledger's legion of fans will be pleased with The Four Feathers.
Dan Russell
I watched this movie again out of homage to Heath Ledger. I still lament the death of this fine young actor. I trust he would have appreciated anyone sitting through this movie out of respect for him. I also trust that anyone who has seen the original Zoltan Korda's "The Four Feathers" (1939) will concur that this movie does not hold a candle to the original. NOT IN ANY SHAPE MANNER NOR FORM! So, in brief, please watch the 1939 film. You will be amazed at the difference, the grandeur, the historicity, the inspired acting, and the coherent plot. All this and more is lacking in the 2002 version. (I apologize for the harshness of my review to the fans of this movie. But, trust me, if you see the earlier version, you'll see where I'm coming from.)
AD
