The Four Feathers (2002) User Reviews

As an entertaining adventure film, "The Four Feathers" stands firm

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 27 April 2008]

The story is set in 1884 during the British Empire uprising…

Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) is a young army officer from a distinguished military family who never wanted to join the army… He did it for his father… He resigns his commission on the eve of his regiment's departure for Sudan… Harry has already disgusted his strict father, a respected General in the Queen's Army, by declaring no interest in a soldier's life and now that he is about to be married to his beloved Ethne (Kate Hudson), he wants to settle down…

When his closest friends and fellow officers find out that he disgraced the regiment, they send him a box of feathers of cowardice… When Ethne sends him another feather, he then disappears to redeem himself, to face up to his fears, to discover himself, to win back his self-respect...

Shekhar Kapur's "The Four Feathers" is beautifully filmed and performed… The themes of love, honor, loyalty, friendship, trust, redemption, wisdom, true strength, and true courage are all there… They made the characters entirely plausible… But what truly lingers in the memory about it are the stunning sequences filmed in the Sudan and the splendid staging of several battles, showing the then standard British tactics employed in holding off attackers—the forming of squares, with riflemen deployed in standing, kneeling, firing, holding line, and keeping eye on the target… These exciting scenes of combat and carnage are truly impressive

Highly Underrated

[mOVIemAN56 · 7/10 · 9 August 2005]

The Four Feathers was a film that didn't receive much public interest or anticipation when released in 2002. I didn't even hear of the film until it was being advertised on STARZ as a new release on the network. I decided to flick it on not expecting much but was pleasantly surprised by the film.

Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) is the son of a British war hero. Along with his friends, he is among the top officers being shipped to the Sudan where rebellion has broken out. Harry, unlike his friends, doesn't want to be a soldier and resigns his post. After receiving four white feathers from his friends and fiancée he decides to head to the Sudan to help his doomed friends.

The acting is top notch with Wes Bentley, Heath Ledger, and Djimon Hounsou in leading roles. The setting of the deserts of the Sudan is brilliant used in the film. The battle scenes aren't overdone and are emotionally charged. The film surprised me, with having such a great story, great acting, and great filming, I was disappointed to see it didn't get better from the critics and public.

Take my word for it, The Four Feathers is a worth see adventure/drama.

The Four Feathers. Starring: Heath Ledger, Wes Bentley, Djimon Hounsou, and Kate Hudson.

3 1/2 out of 5 Stars.

The Four Feathers is brilliantly acted and beautifully shot, a good war drama

[Holt344 · 7/10 · 4 March 2021]

The Four Feathers is directed by Shekhar Kapur from a screenplay from both Michael Schiffer and Hossein Amini. It's based on the novel of the same name that have been adapted to the big screen multiple of times and this is the first I've seen, and I liked it. It's set during the British Army's Gordon Relief Expedition in Sudan, telling the story of Harry Faversham who is portrayed by Heath Ledger, who resigns his post just before battle and subsequently receives four white feathers from his friends and fiancee as symbols of what they believe to be his cowardice. He then tries to make things right and sets off on a journey. You understand his reasons and everything feels realistic, a well written character and a great performance.

Wes Bentley, Djimon Hounsou and Kate Hudson, Rupert Penry-Jones, Kris Marshall and Michael Sheen are among the cast, their performances are great. Many performances worth your while but Heath Ledger gives us an entertaining and possibly the greatest performance of the cast. Having one well written character in a film like this doesn't really work, it's easy to not care for anyone except for the main character and it shouldn't be like that. It isn't the actors fault as they're doing everything in their power but the problem is with the writers and script, the premise and story has potential though.

It's a beautiful looking film, no point to argue there. From the sets they created to the costume department, everything looks perfect and the cinematography is also amazing. But there's something missing in the film, like there's no heart in the writing and it feels too modern and not historical accurate. Many films take liberties I know that but I believe they could have done it more accurate if the director wanted it that way. What The Four Feathers got right was the impact war has on people and they succeeded in that.

It's a war drama that has its set of flaws but don't forget the many reasons why the film is worth watching. Cinematography, acting and its action sequences are some of the reasons why I'm recommending this film.

Sweeping new adaptation plenty of idealism , heroism and overwhelming battles

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 5 January 2008]

This sixth rendition about known story by A.E.W. Mason concerns on a British young officer named Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) . Resigning from Army , he's rejected by his father (Tim Pigott-Smith), branded as a coward and sent four white feathers by his friends (Wes Bentley, Michael Sheen) and his engaged fiancée (Kate Hudson) . Determined to save his honor he heads to Sudan against Derviches . There arrives the expedition of help commanded by General Wolsey and Kitchener for stifle the rebellious Sudan's tribes ruled by 'the Madhdi', the ¨expected one¨ (events narrated in ¨Khartoum¨ film -1966- with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier , directed by Basil Dearden). The Madhi along with Arab tribes had besieged Khartoum (1884) and vanquished General Gordon . Faversham disguised himself as a native will save his friends from certain death and he will retrieve the lost honors . He's only helped by a valiant African-Muslim native (Dijimon Honsou) . Then , there took place the major fight scene , the Battle of Abu Klea , on January 17, 1885 when British Desert Column of approximately 1,100 troops fought a Mahdist force of over 12,000 dervishes .

This spectacular adventure detailing the epic feats of a brave hero contains noisy action , idealism , romance , unlimited courage , breathtaking battles and impressive outdoors . Heath Ledger as a stubborn officer is cool , Wes Bentley as his best friend is convincingly played and Kate Hudson as his girlfriend is enjoyable . Special mention to Dijimon Honsou as the corpulent helper . Sensational battle scenes made by hundreds of extras and by means of computer generator . Evocative cinematography reflecting the late 1800's and spectacular African landscapes by cameraman Robert Richardson . Appropriate and atmospheric musical score by James Horner . The motion picture was professionally directed by Shekhar Kapur . He's a costumer/epic expert , as he proved in ¨Bandit queen ¨and ¨Elizabeth I¨ and its sequel . Other adaptations about this famous story are the followings : The classic rendition by Zoltan Korda (1939) with John Clemens , Ralph Richardson and Jane Duprez ; 'Storm over the sand' (1955) by Terence Young with Anthony Steel , James Robertson Justice , Mary Ure and Laurence Harvey ; and for TV (1978) By Don Sharp with Beau Bridges , Jane Seymour and Robert Powell.

Underrated and is better than what the reviews says

[8Jojo8 · 25 April 2004]

This movie has got it all: an aussie hottie, love, honor and obey, different cultures and is well acted. I can't understand why this movie has blown the box office with so much, and why all the reviewers have slaughtered it.

Heath Ledger plays well (as always), and of course Kate Hudson is beautiful in it. If I would have anything to complain about in this picture, it would be that maybe the chemistry between Heath and Kate wasn't that great, but nobody is to blame here.

This is a fabulous movie with great and good looking actors, and if I should have guessed why the movie didn't sell, I would say that it was because they didn't promote this movie enough.

While watching the movie, you can go from crying to laughing at no time, and when a movie conquers that, it's just a blessing watching it.

Heath Ledger can really show what he has got to offer, since this movie is very different from his last "A Knight's Tale". Heath is clever by taking such different roles, just to show what he's got: "Two Hands" (black comedy),"The Patriot" (war, thriller), "Ned Kelly" (western, thriller), "The Order" (horror, mystery) and his most recently, not yet relished: "The Brothers Grimm" (adventure).

The director, Shekhar Kapur, did a good job on this one. He told the actors to make the sand in the desert to look like water and waves, and they did a good job doing just that. All in all, this movie should been a success, because it simply has it all. Too bad.

Slightly too studied in parts, but on the whole a worthwhile remake of A.E.W Mason's novel.

[barnabyrudge · 7/10 · 2 March 2007]

The 1939 version of The Four Feathers remains one of the best movies ever made, even 70 years on from its release. It seems strange that this particular story should see cinematic light once again in 2002 – grand, colonial adventures of this kind don't seem to get made very often these days. Having said that, a director as innovative as Shekhar Kapur (of "Bandit Queen" and "Elizabeth") should ensure the film has the potential to approach its oft-told story from a few fresh angles. Kapur's slant on the story is visually breathtaking and has by far the most realistic battle sequences of any version made so far. But it also feels excessively studied and serious at times, with an occasionally unclear narrative and too many international actors trying (only partially successfully) to pull off upper class English accents. The end product is still a good film, but you can sense that somewhere inside there's an outstanding film trying to get out.

Men of the Royal Cumbrian regiment are told that they will be heading off to the Sudan to fight the armies of the Mahdi, a self-proclaimed religious leader whose disciples have slaughtered many British soldiers. The men of the regiment seem thrilled at the opportunity to go to war, but one soldier named Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) finds himself questioning whether or not he feels passionately enough about Queen and country to give his life in their name. On the eve of departure, Harry resigns his commission much to the anger of his friends and family. Three of his closest friends – Willoughby (Rupert Penry-Jones), Castleton (Kris Marshall) and Trench (Michael Sheen) – are so offended that they send him three white feathers as a symbol of his cowardice. A fourth feather is later added by his fiancée Ethne (Kate Hudson), who breaks off her relationship with him. Ironically, the person with the greatest right to feel disgust towards Harry - his best friend Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley) - is the only one who doesn't send a feather of cowardice. Harry soon begins to feel personal shame for his actions, so he sails to the Sudan and disguises himself as a Sudanese fighter, blending in amongst the Mahdi's army at tremendous personal risk. He performs acts of incredible heroism, and saves several of his former friends' lives. In returning the feathers to each of them in turn, he restores honour to his name.

The book of The Four Feathers is a story which has been continually in print for a hundred years. Books which retain their popularity for that kind of time are invariably good, solid stories which somehow strike a chord with audiences and become part of a wider literary heritage. It is to this film's credit that it sticks to the original quite closely, fashioning a tale that explores lots of fundamental themes such as personal honour, rebuilding broken trust, believing in a cause and finding unexpected courage within. Anyone can relate to these ideas, and The Four Feathers taps into them effectively and presents us with a story which has us asking ourselves what we would do in Harry's position or, indeed, in Ethne or Jack's position. While it never really matches the 1939 version – which was cast, acted, paced and scripted virtually to perfection – Shekhar Kapur's remake remains a worthwhile re-run of the oft-told material.

Despite what all the critics say, I must admit that I liked it.

[philip_vanderveken · 7/10 · 4 July 2005]

I've always been a fan of historically inspired epic movies and although I'm not a fan of costume drama's, I don't really care about the time period these movies are set in. This one has been set at the end of the 19th century, a time period that comes close to the one that I like most in the movies (1914-1950), but even movies set in medieval, Greek and Roman times I can enjoy...

As I already said, this movie has been set at the end of the 19th century, in 1898 to be more precise. When a British officer is about to be sent to Sudan to fight a war he doesn't approve of, he is seen as a coward. He has to resign his post, right before his regiment ships out to battle the rebels, and to make things even worse for him, he receives four white feathers from his friends and his fiancée. These feathers symbolize how they feel about him, they see him as a coward, but what they don't know is that he plans to go to Sudan anyway, undercover, so he can save his friends from a certain death and redeem his honor...

The story certainly is interesting and offers an interesting approach to a story that has been told many times before. But what I liked even more than the story was the photography. Everything was portrayed in a very nice way, especially when they are in Sudan. I'm not saying that the part of the movie showing England isn't any good, but I'm not too much a fan of those Victorian costumes and habits. I prefer the dust and dirt from the desert and the battles in which good manors only come later and the true human nature gets the upper hand.

Even though many people seem to hate this movie, I can't join them in their opinion. All actors did a nice job and even though it is perhaps true that they could have found a better actress than Kate Hudson to play the role of Ethne, it never bothered me in such a way that it spoiled all the rest of my fun. And about the historical accuracy I can be brief as well. It looked good enough to me to be believable. Perhaps there were some minor details that weren't right, but since I'm not too familiar with the time period shown in this movie, I certainly didn't notice them. Anyway, I liked what I saw and even though many people gave it a bad review, I certainly liked it for what it was: A very decent movie about honor, freedom, friendship,... I know that these words are too often abused in many Hollywood movies, but this time it worked for me and that's why I give this movie a 7.5/10.

Don't listen to the virtue signaling morons!

[jaycop · 7/10 · 6 December 2020]

I felt the need to comment since I saw a lot of pretentious comments attempting to be the next Roger Ebert. If you go into this without comparing it to earlier adaptations and don't self righteously dwell so deeply on the supposed glorification of imperialism then you'll most likely enjoy this film.

It's well acted and has the staples of a classic a story; love, betrayal, heroism & honor. I watch A LOT of films and am quite critical of many films that I watch, but for the life of me I cannot understand how people could score this film at 1,2, or 3! Just relax & enjoy an entertaining piece of cinema!

I demand the 3-hour original release!

[jmcgarmott · 10/10 · 28 August 2003]

This film had so many things going for it, despite the odds. In the end, it was the odds that pulled it down. The film was well made, and though I wasn't too impressed with Elizabeth I think Shekhar Kapur did an admirable job under very pressurised situations (constantly visited by worried producers, directing a film whose script isn't finished yet, the rigours of the desert, as well as the daunting aspect of directing 1,000+ extras which few films nowadays have with the advent of CGI replicating). The cinematography was wonderful, seriously on par with The English Patient though in a different way - in its way. The score - what can I say about it except that I've almost worn out the score soundtrack CD by James Horner due to the unique Qawwali wailings combined with a heartbreaking and tender piano theme. Heath Ledger, Kate Hudson and Wes Bentley, all non-Brits, did an admirable job handling the accents and still managing to come out with dramatic performances. I don't get it - why did non-Brits accuse them of not having perfect accents? I don't know whether they have perfect accents but they certainly sounded British. Some people said they were stiff. I don't see how that could be a complaint for a movie set in Victorian Britain. The script was not bad - nothing negative should be said about it.

Now here is where the theatrical release of the film faltered - the editing. The original cut was three hours long, a release which apparently Miramax boss approved of. Somehow, 9/11 got in the way due to the anti-colonialist stance of the movie. Also, studios generally dislike 3-hour releases. Kapur was flung back into the editing room to chop it down to 2 hours. Which he did. And many people complained that the movie was incoherent, that there were jumps. And this is why. (Spoilers till end of paragraph.) I think the scene where Ethne's feather was presented to Harry may have been filmed but was cut, causing some people to lament the loss of a dramatic moment. Also, many people couldn't understand the motives behind Harry's actions, first leaving the army, then going after his friends. I believe the editing had a lot to do with that.

In other words, everything about the movie was good, right up to before it was to be edited to 2 hours. Some people might complain it was boring - they deserve to watch films like The Matrix and that's it - that's all they deserved. Some people kept saying that the previous version(s) were better. Maybe that's true for the older folks but for me (and I believe for most of the younger generations) it is difficult for us to watch films made decades ago, due to the different style and pacing of different eras. The older generation may watch films such as Chicago and lament the advent of the MTV generation; whereas people like me would watch Casablanca and find it wide-open-mouth-shocked to be ranked 2nd on the AFI 100 Films. So I believe there is nothing wrong with the remaking of The Four Feathers - it is making a period film using today's kind of epic filmmaking style. You can see how the colours are so rich, how the battle scenes are filmed in ways more sophisticated than a 1939 film can.

Also, poor marketing has failed this movie, causing it to earn only 1/4 of its budget on the domestic market. On the other hand, I did noticed that negative critics tend to be American. Some people actually thought of it as swashbuckling adventure. It is not - while Harry may do things that seem impossible realistically, it works fine in a film which also aims to make people feel rather than just watch. There is enough realism that it doesn't look stupid. Apparently Americans disagree - one viewer reported laughing in the cinemas ... and it isn't the part where the Englishman is laughing.

The DVD version has been released in the US. It is the Special Collectors' Edition, but it remains the same 2-hour flawed movie. I charge that Miramax release a 3-hour Director's Cut edition of the movie in its DVD release overseas. The film deserves at least that.

Beautiful-Looking, Old Fashioned War Melodrama

[noralee · 7/10 · 22 December 2005]

"Four Feathers" reminded me of "Dances With Wolves," a beautiful try at PC reinterpretation of a soldier's role in an imperialistic war.

While I haven't read the original novel or have seen any of the previous five filmed versions of the story and my knowledge of the history of this period is pretty much formed by movies and "Masterpiece Theatre," this is the first one done by someone born in a former British colony, director Shekhar Kapur, so I was curious to see how the natives were treated (well, more like the Pawnee than the Lakota in "Wolves").

This version also carries today's symbolic weight of Western soldiers against Muslim warriors, especially as the enemy is identified as the Mahdi -- who Osama Bin Lama proclaimed as the last glory of Islam that he aspired to replicate.

This new interpretation has Heath Ledger refusing to fight in the Sudan not because of the cowardice symbolized by the titular feathers but more in the spirit of Country Joe McDonald's view of the Viet Nam War.

I got lost a few times in the geography and rescue choreography and found Djimon Hounsou a noble African with no motivation or reason for being there whatsoever.

However, the cinematography is gorgeous and will all be lost in video. Particularly thrilling are the battle scenes, which rate up there with "Barry Lyndon." I was especially impressed that Kapur didn't keep repeating the same sight lines, as most show-off directors do about shots that must have taken hours to set up.

While crossing and re-crossing the sands didn't make a lot of sense with little explanation as to survival, the treks and fights there were lovely.

And heck, I'm a fan of the three leads, Ledger (who looks great even in a fright wig), Wes Bentley and Kate Hudson (who mostly gets to dress up and look pretty), so I just sat back and enjoyed an old-fashioned big-screen Hollywood adventure (despite the endless chatter from the row of old ladies behind me).

(originally written 9/21/2002)

This director doesn't know what a square is for - SOME SPOILERS

[teacher_tom516 · 1/10 · 6 September 2007]

This movie should have had SO much going for it. A top rated if somewhat revisionistic director whose first big effort in the west, Elizabeth, certainly made me look up and take notice. A pair of strong male leads whose work in films like American Beauty and The Knights Tale certainly wasn't shabby. Superb production values. And some research certainly went into it as shown by the introduction which references Sir Henry Newbolt's famous poem of Victorian and Edwardian youth and manhood going into battle as if they were going to a football match.

Then, as they say in the Victorian army, 'it all went 'orribly wrong'.

SOME SPOILERS BELOW The history behind this director's chosen period - the first Gordon relief expedition - certainly has more than enough adventure and drama to it, particularly when one considers that not only does Newbolt immortalize it in Vitai Lampada but so does Kipling with his 'Fuzzy Wuzzy' who, indeed, did nearly break the legendary British squares at the battles of Abu Klea and Tamai.

Someone, however, needs to explain to this director what a SQUARE FORMATION is and what it does. This is more than just a military nerd's nitpicking it is - and one sees this at the party scene toward the start - a KEY ELEMENT in the narrative. The officers of the Royal Cumbrians 'form square' to create a nice little romantic space for the romantic leads but what's never explained - probably because the director doesn't get it - is that a square formation is key against both cavalry (as at Waterloo) and native warriors (as at Ulundi and the Sudan) because A SQUARE CANNOT BE FLANKED. You cannot 'get behind' a square and stab the hapless infantryman in the back because another face of the square is guarding the back. As such this formation, outdated on European battlefields where long-range rifle fire and more accurate cannons could mangle these squares at range, was key for fighting less technologically advanced or cavalry heavy enemies.

Now a square is ridiculously vulnerable to fire - logically a shot that hits one guy at one face of the square will hit someone on the opposite face. Infantry cannot stand in square for long as ranged fire will cut them down until there are too few men standing to maintain the formation. Thus the next thing that the director doesn't get comes into play - COMBINED ARMS. A square can stand IF it has artillery - sometimes outside as at Waterloo, sometimes at the corners as at Ulundi and the Sudan to shoot up attackers at range. And the British infantry had a wonderful new piece of artillery with them in the Sudan - the Machine Gun. When speaking of the colonial wars, one British politico remarked, "Whatever happens, we've got the Maxim gun and they don't".

Problem is, after referencing the Newbolt poem the director FORGETS the central stanza with its reference to 'The Gatling's Jammed and the Colonel's Dead'. This was one reason why the Brit squares were nearly broken on occasion by the fanatical Dervishes - the machine guns would sometimes jam, if fired too fast or if it got too hot or sand got into the mechanism, etc.

Toward the end of the battle the surviving British officer orders the soldiers to break formation and retreat. This totally ruined it for me. NO British officer in their right mind would be so stupid - sheer logic dictates that one REMAIN in formation as long as possible as a retreat, every man for himself, would lead to the utter destruction of the unit. Even the surrounded British companys at Isandhlwana fought back to back until they were utterly overwhelmed. By rights the entire regiment should have been eliminated to a man.

Well, that's the military side of things.

The actors are way too politically correct. Like it or not Victorians WERE racist in their attitudes to 'lesser breeds without the law' and no British officer would have hesitated to shoot a man who fired on his troops - the sharpshooter would have been shot down like a dog without a second thought. No explanation is really given for the political situation and one gets the impression that these are transplanted American GI's in Fallujah trying to win hearts and minds rather than British redcoats in the Sudan.

The speech of Durrance at the end was ludicrous and long and given the lack of emotion throughout the movie, never had a snowball's chance in hell of stirring up emotion for the man on the right (or left).

The editing was choppy - particularly toward the end when the couple are walking out of the barracks. The soldiers drilling in the background jump-cut all over the place.

The film, for all the redcoats and 'jolly good old boy' accents NEVER invokes the Victorian era in manners or morals. The director just does NOT get the heart of the film that at this time courage, honour and all those things which we consider effete and stupid today were actually cherished - at least until the carnage of WW1 showed them to be idols with feet of clay.

SPOILERS END HERE.

As a film it's overblown, revisionist and Kate Hudson is horribly miscast. There are many fine British and Commonwealth actresses - why Kate? Just because Almost Famous made her flavour of the month? This film was about as Victorian as Shanghai Knights. No Gunga Din, Zulu or Man Who Would Be King, this one. Spare yourself the agony and expense and watch one of the above three instead of this rotten egg of a picture.

Critics? Don't listen. This is a very, very good film.

[mercybell · 10/10 · 21 September 2002]

The newest rendition of the Four Feathers is a real epic, aesthetically beautiful, sweeping, completely refreshing in terms of emotional presentation and scope for both characters and audience. This is one of the best of this year in terms of mainstream film.

The beginning drags, and the editing is confusing at times, the lighting is dark, and it has a rich (as in dense) atmosphere to it that can make it seem unnecessarily claustrophobic at times, yet which helps during certain scenes (don't want to give anything away). In fact the first 1/3 of the movie is a plum bore. But as soon as Harry goes off following some enemy spies, the movie flows beautifully. It becomes quite the rousing adventure, with lots of fairly disgusting dead bodies and their missing parts all over the place (surprising for a PG-13 flick) and the sole battle scene is one of the better ones I've ever seen, because it creates uncliched emotion, and it's very effective in creating a seemingly helpless situation, with great battle choreography to boot.

In a movie that has quite a few flaws, it does something really well, develops supporting characters (other than Wes Bentley). The 4 different comrades of Harry's, plus Adu (Hounsou's character), have faces and lives and are important to the flow of the story, though they seem fairly unimportant till it matters (again, don't want to give anything away), when something happens to them, you want to know, and care about, what will become of them. It was refreshing to actually know the fellow soldiers in a war movie for once! And it helps add to the great emotional impact this movie has.

The acting is OK. There are no bad performances, bad accents to be sure, but Heath Ledger ceases to be his heartthrob self and eventually turns into the character (somewhere between the chapped lips and matted hair I suppose), and provides a steady and trustworthy lead performance. Hudson, I think, is too big for her role, though she and Bentley both provided, again, well done and steady roles. Djimon Hounsou is really the standout. Other than technical aspects I don't think it'll get any nods, except maybe for Hounsou who is exceptional in the film.

I think that this is a very good film that boasts great cinematography, authentic and realistic costumes and excellent production design, and for me, a great emotional punch, plus a captivating adventure story. It's definitely not a teen flick, or chick flick, it's too gruesome and historical for either faction. And unlike other better systematically made films I've seen this year, it didn't feel "canned", too unoriginal, or overly pretentious, it felt fresh.

I think this suffered the fate of fairly bad advertising and early press and not living up to the expectation of "Elizabeth", but I'm glad I saw it because I really did enjoy it, a lot. Highly recommended.

Enjoyable. Adequate. But Pales Compared to the 1939 classic.

[Kirasjeri · 7/10 · 29 September 2002]

If you did not see the 1939 Korda brothers classic of the same name you will find this version entirely adequate and satisfying; if you did, you will likely be disappointed.

This version is apparently based far more faithfully on the novel - which means it is set in 1885 instead of 1898, and does not include the huge Battle of Omdurman or the prison revolt. The one battle in this version, the breaking of the British square, was better done in the earlier version which was far larger in scope and size than this more modest effort. Basing it on the novel also means more talk, more romance, and that is too bad.

Various attempts are made to humanize the natives, and there is some PC questioning about British imperialism, although nowhere does the movie mention that the British in Sudan in the 1880's were stopping the slave trade, besides protecting the Suez Canal.

The plot we basically know: a young British officer who resigns from his regiment when they are about to go off to war is denounced as a coward by his friends who give him the feathers; he then has to prove his courage by rescuing some of them disguised as a native.

That is where there is a real problem. In the 1939 version, Harry Faversham, the officer, goes to considerable lengths to disguise himself, such as being branded on the face and pretending to be a mute. Here, he just sort of muddles through. It is not convincing. He is befriended in a way by an all-too muscular native - a hackneyed convention.

The acting is no more than adequate, and in that it is not that different from the earlier version, although missing here is the great scene at the dinner table with C. Aubrey Smith, the venerable actor playing an old general, discoursing on past battles and the tradition Faversham needs to uphold. A shame that wasn't in this film.

Some of the actors having pierced left ears is entirely out of character. The final fight where a drugged and half dead Harry is further beaten almost to death - but then suddenly kills his attacker - is tired and old and almost embarrassingly bad.

Well, this was better than the old TV version of some years ago, but it pales compared to the 1939 version. So be warned.

Read a history book before you make a movie...

[i_ron_d_uke · 1/10 · 5 October 2002]

This film has very little to do with the novel on which it claims to be based. Historically it is highly inaccurate. To take one example of a good many, no British soldier wore a red jacket on active service in 1898. The last time the British Army wore red in action was in 1885 & it was unusual then. The Mahdist ansar became a very nasty type fanatic & killed many, many thousands of their own people. This is much the worst of an often remade story.

Theater was empty in prime time

[bhwms · 28 September 2002]

It should have said something that the three of us were the ONLY ones in the theater. I loved the 1939 movie, and the previews looked awesome. The book was a good read. I also love British military history.

This movie had such potential. The cinematography was excellent. I particularly liked the arial shot of the attack on the square. The acting was very good. But the script left several key points out, and added in things that were not needed, taking away from the impact of this story. Did we really need to see all the gore? Did we really need the implied sex scene with the prostitute? Neither added to the story line, but took away from the experience.

As we left the movie, my wife and son both asked questions that indicated to me that the movie was very lacking. The biggest question: We never saw two feathers get returned. Another: What happened to Vicar? What happened to his feather?

Overall: 1 1/2 stars. I won't even watch it when it comes on cable.

Mostly enjoyable, but some events particularly at the end of the film didn't sit right with me

[jimbo-53-186511 · 6/10 · 3 July 2022]

British army officer Harry Feversham chooses to resign just before his platoon are to set sail to Sudan after learning that a British fortress has been attacked over there. When his comrades hear of his desertion, they each present him with a feather (which indicates an act of cowardice). Worse still his fiancee Ethne also gets in on the act. Determined to make a mends Harry heads to the Sudan undercover in order to help his comrades...

Whilst he's depicted as a coward, I saw Harry more as a conscientious objector; he doesn't agree with war, only joined because of his father and wanted to hold back due to his love for Ethne (although he later admitted that he still wouldn't have gone even if he wasn't in a relationship). Receiving the four feathers is what seems to spur Harry in to action (maybe it was a cry for help from his comrades). Naturally Harry's decision to follow them turns out to be a good call as he has a hand in saving at least 2 of his colleagues lives. Along his journey to save his colleagues, he has to go rogue and pretend to be Arabic (although what make up they used round his face in the late 19th century to create this effect is anyone's guess). He's also able to master the Arabic language - again how he achieves this in such a short space of time is another mystery. Still if you can look beyond these things then Four Feathers is a fairly enjoyable romp which walks us through warfare and is nicely complimented by some good camaraderie between the men and some excellent battle sequences. As with a lot of war based films, it's fun and games for a while before things turn serious and this is when you ultimately separate the men from the boys.

Whilst undercover Harry builds up a good relationship with Abou Fatma (played by the brilliant and underrated Djimon Hounsou). The two strike up a good friendship and bounce off one another extremely well; the latter is pivotal in helping Harry and really comes good towards the end.

Whilst I found this film enjoyable there were certain things that niggled away at me; for a start, I didn't like the 'neat and nice' way that the film wrapped up. Jack was sniffing round Ethne from the start and used her estrangement from Harry to try and get with her. Oddly enough, despite not knowing what happened to Harry at this point, she embraces Jack and is set to marry him. When Harry finds out about this, he is very calm and is almost accepting of the situation. I'm sorry, but in no way is this believable?? Ethne was the love of Harry's life and I just can't believe that he would take this lying down; perhaps his conscientious objecting could be interpreted as passivism, but I don't agree if he was a pacifist he wouldn't have gone to great lengths to help his friends. Worse still, Ethne openly admitted that she gave up on Harry and that she shouldn't have done so (which mirrored my viewpoint throughout the film). Although Jack ending up blind may have suggested that we should feel sorry for him I didn't as I never liked him from start to finish and couldn't understand why Ethne would fall for him in the first place?

Anyway I think I've said enough now, but to some up Four Feathers in one sentence I would say "Enjoyable, but flawed."

Four Feathers Short

[craizichriz · 6/10 · 4 December 2005]

"The Four Feathers", directed by Shekhar Kapur is the sixth film version of the classic novel by A. E. W. Mason. The many reviews of this film can be grouped into two prominent points of view. One half of the reviewers rated the film based on the technical aspects (such as how well this movie portrayed actual history, accuracy to the book and how well it reenacted Mason's ideas). The other group reviewed this film from simply an entertainment point of view and rated it on how much they enjoyed it. The group that looked at the movie from a technical point of view, disliked it. Those that ignored the technical aspects seemed to be happily entertained.

From a technical point of view, I feel that Kate Hudson was an unfortunate choice of actress for this character. She didn't have the right personality and mannerisms to fit the role and seemed too "American" for the role of this English lady. Also I believe that the film did not spend enough time developing the characters. This made it hard for me to understand their decisions and empathize with their feelings.

I really enjoyed the settings in this film and the beauty of the shots. Although there were some lulls in the pace, the storyline kept a decent tempo. I had the feeling that some sections had too much of a melodramatic feel. The action sequences were quite exiting and the story itself was entertaining but did not have much depth.

I agree with the arguments made by both sides. It would have been nice if the characters had been more developed, if some of the scenes had been cut a bit shorter and, if possible, some of the melodrama removed. I was happy with how it was beautifully filmed.

Overall I enjoyed this film and I would recommend it to those who are looking for simple, unchallenging entertainment.

Only the battle scene

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 2 August 2014]

Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) is a new young British officer getting engaged to the Ethne (Kate Hudson). He and his friends are dispatched to Egyptian-ruled Sudan to fight the Islamic rebels of the Mahdi. He is more reluctant than the rest. He resigns before the regiment ships out. His father disowns him. His girl abandons him. His friends William Trench (Michael Sheen), Tom Willoughby (Rupert Penry-Jones) and Edward Castleton (Kris Marshall) each sends him a feather of cowardice. Ethne sends him the fourth feature. He undertakes a journey to rejoin his regiment in Sudan. Meanwhile, it's a tougher fight than the British expected with a more determined opponent. Former mate Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley) is sent back to convince the public to relieve General Gordon in Khartoum. Ethne is taken with Jack. On the march there, Harry surreptitiously joins the troops as one of the local baggage handlers. There are many Mahdi spies among the them. Abou Fatma (Djimon Hounsou) befriends the mysterious Brit among the locals.

The movie is too slow at the beginning. The structure is too standard and old fashion. This being a remake is begging for a more imaginative structure. The beginning can always be done in flashbacks. This is too stale of a costume drama. It needs something in the beginning to keep the audience's interest. It needs an ambush on the Brits. It needs an action scene to bring in some excitement. The rest of the movie is setting up to the British square. That battle is impressive but it's the only thing that is impressive. Harry in the middle of the battle is somewhat ridiculous. The rest of the movie is lackluster.

An Implausible Romance in Times of British Imperialism

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 17 May 2004]

In 1884, the British empire dominated a quarter of the world. Lieutenant Harry (Heath Ledger) is the son of a British general and is engaged with Ethne (Kate Hudson). His best friend and rival of the love of Ethne is Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley). When his company is assigned to fight in the desert of Sudan, Harry decides to quit the army and get married with Ethne. However, his father disinherits him and three of his friends from the army and Ethne give four feathers to him, symbolizing that he is coward. Harry decides to leave London and goes to Sudan alone to help his friends in the fight against the Sudanese and his own fears. This movie has one of the most implausible story I have ever seen. The decision of Harry going to the desert without any support or plan sounds even very ridiculous. But the action scenes are very well choreographed, the photography in the desert is wonderful and the story about loyalty, friendship and overcoming fears has good intention and is not so bad. Something is missing to become an excellent film, but anyway it is an enjoyable entertainment. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `Honra e Coragem: As Quatro Plumas' (`Honor and Courage: The Four Feathers')

Von Einem der auszog, das Fuerchten zu (ver-)lernen

[vetmad · 9/10 · 4 November 2002]

About friendship, about duty, about truth and it's consequences, about true loyalty among friends, about parental expectation and it's disappointment.

When I saw the "Four Feathers" I noticed the immense similarity to another film I had seen but days ago, "Black Hawk Down". That quote from Plato "Only the dead know the end of war", that the audience is given at the very beginning of the latest Ridley Scott film applies to the "Four Feathers" as well as it does to "Black Hawk Down".

Although the incidents which inspired those films are almost exactly one hundred years apart, the essence of the two plots is quite the same. Only the man next to you, most likely your friend one way or the other, counts. Nothing else. Both stories are surprisingly similar, though the motivation in "Four Feathers" is somewhat more personal than in "Black Hawk Down", the late twentieth century being more marked by conflicts that stir the world's elaborate common conscience, something that didn't exist that way in 1898. Although war itself has lost nothing of its disgusting and useless violence in those one hundred years.

A game of Rugby, young men, two fighting teams, the camera following these men, enabling the spectator to get a first impression of the protagonists and their relations to each other as well as the splendour and camaraderie of the British army at the end of the 19th century, before the real story sets in.

"Four Feathers" tells the story of one man who acts upon his feelings when he exits the British Army, whose friends interpret his honesty towards himself as mere cowardice and present him each with a white feather for his resignation. Only when he alone stays behind after having forsaken the war, he realises that he cannot and does not want to live with the fact that his friends and his beloved think of him as a coward and he acts. Alone in the Sudan, he leaves all his fear behind without question, driven by the worries for the fate of the friends he desperately tries to save.

It's an interesting combination, the Indian director who seems to just have a knack for thorough British history ("Elizabeth" too dealt with an almost mythical part of British History), and this historical era, again bringing it magically to life in his very own particular style. The photography is truly beautiful, the desert with it's wide spread dunes, the sparse vegetation as a threat to life itself but also a friend for those who understand its rules and live by it. The story of the film sometimes fails the attempt to bring the inner turmoil of the main protagonist creditably to the big screen. And it is maybe this discrepancy between the book, dealing with a single mind, and the movie, attempting to stay close to the book as well as entertain an audience, that explains why the story sometimes disintegrates and leaves the spectator quite alone.

The cast though is a real jewel what young Hollywood is concerned, Heath Ledger giving one hell of a performance, the inner turmoil of his character visible at all times on screen, carefully acted, seldom too much. The chemistry with Kate Hudson is certainly there, still Miss Hudson just doesn't look like a 19th century girl (but maybe the impression she left as "Penny Lane" is still too strong). Wes Bentley manages to simply be that Jack, the guilt-ridden and in the end sickly friend who is saved by the one person he gave a white feather for cowardice to. And Djimoun Hounsou who is always a real pleasure to watch. He evaporates the magic as well as the menace of his role towards his audience and his fellow actors and manages to keep the story together on more than one occasion.

The film is worth seeing it for the theme itself has lost nothing of it's explosiveness!

Entertaining

[grantss · 6/10 · 28 December 2020]

Harry Feversham is a British Army officer. When his regiment is sent to fight in the Sudan, he resigns his commission. His three closest friends and fellow officers view him as a coward and each send him a white feather, a symbol of cowardice. His fiancée has the same view and does the same. Humiliated by this, Feversham sets off to the Sudan to redeem his honour.

Reasonably entertaining. I watched the 1978 version of this film and found it stuffy and overly melodramatic but entertaining enough. This version is slightly better - the stuffiness is gone but there's still a lot of empty melodrama and periods where the film just drifts. On the downside, this version is 30 minutes longer, due to some scenes and plot developments being overly drawn out.

As with the 1978 version, it's still quite entertaining though. The battle scenes are very well done: gritty, action-packed and quite an impressive spectacle.

Overall, not brilliant but entertaining enough.

The Four Feathers

[albirmike · 3/10 · 18 July 2005]

I have read with interest various comments from your members and can only think that they have not seen the 1939 version of this film. I am sorry to say I cannot find one redeeming feature; there is no continuity, the characters have no substance whatsoever, I could not tell one from another. When the character 'Abou'was introduced,(why I don't know), he became the hero as far as I was concerned and 'Harry Faversham' faded from pallidity to obscurity! I know the voting results are not necessarily a true indicator of a films quality, but the difference in the mark up of this version compared to the 1939 issue gives, in my opinion a true guide in this instance. I urge all who have not seen the early film to make every effort to do so, I think many would then change their minds about Messrs.Heath Ledger et al

Nothing Changes In The Sudan

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 14 September 2008]

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.

Beautiful scenery, but told in a casual offhand and thus sloppy way

[owen_twistfield · 6/10 · 24 September 2008]

The four feathers is the latest addition to a list of movies with the same name and theme. The story: It is the high tide of the British empire. Harry Feversham, a young officer in the queens army, asks and gets dismissed from his regiment after he hears it will be sent to the Sudan to fight against the Mahdi insurrection. His friends and fiancé don't appreciate this behavior and each sent him a white feather as a token of their disfavor. Harry then tries to redeem himself by going to the Sudan and help his friends against the Mahdi.

I watched this movie to get a better understand of how movies are made. This movie certainly has amazing scenery that bring tears to your eyes by their beauty. The sharp sand color, the exotic people and desert landscapes, it all is impressive, as is the moist misty green england. But while the landscape, people and buildings are given much attention the story is told as if in afterthought and with a lot of movie errors. So many that even I noticed. Things in the movie just don't add up.

The first pivotal moment in the story is when Harry gets to hear that he is off to the Sudan. We seem him have an anguished talk with his friend Jack, then see him have bad dream and then next he gets himself dismissed in one go. It all happens in three minutes flat which seems enormous hurried compared to the ten minutes the movie takes to show the happy live. It is somehow too brief, too unexplained and too unbelievable that he can leave on the same day hey he tenders his resignation, without letting his friends know or him being thrown in the brig for cowardice?

You might expect that an important moment in the film is when his bethrotted sends him a feather(thus breaking off the engagement). But we are only told when someone comes visiting Harry: oh by the way who's the fourth feather? My former wife to be. The entire scene is also strange because we hear someone knock on the door, Harry opens the door and next the visitor is inside and they are talking about the feathers. Since the scene was dark I had the distinct feeling the visitor was still standing in the door opening.

Harry takes a trip to Egypt and then travels as part of a small caravan to the Sudan. The caravan brings hookers to the English army(we are told), but they aren't hookers(we are told later), but black Ethiopian princesses? And how come someone is bringing black hookers from Egypt to the Sudan? Should it not be the other way around? Anyway they kill the obnoxious caravan leader(who seems to be alone and unarmed?) knock out Harry who drags himself on a camel and rides to some place. After a while Harry drops to the desert-floor, the camel wanders off and in the next minute someone finds Harry! In addition we see in the background tracks in the sand. The desert seems quite a busy place.

Jack is chasing a Mahdi sniper, he carries a rifle, the next moment Jack has a pistol in his hand. The sniper is chased down a street and a minute later he is chased down the same street again.

Harry, disguised as a Mahdi, is charging amidst the Mahdi horde, first he carries a sword. Then he drops it when his horse is shot. Then he is on his horse again without sword, next he has the sword again. All the while he is at the head of the Mahdi horde even though he fell behind in a previous scene.

The English are attacked by a Mahdi horde. The Mahdi horde is killed to the last man with gun fire, but only the people fall, the horses are bullet proof. In fact the horses seem unimpressed by the fire.

A cavalry Mahdi horde attacks across the desert and we see the shot alternating between cavalry and infantry who arrive at the same time by the English forces.

We see in the background a Gatling gun twice, it is never used. But Gatling guns where never used by the English. English guns are limbered, the next scene unlimbered. The guns hold fire until the position is about to be overrun by the Mahdi. Rifle fire is used at the latest moment? English troops march in close order? Nope that is not normal.

The English cavalry is called tirailleurs? Tirailleurs are light infantry not cavalry. The cavalry chases the retreating Mahdi horde, then is ambushed by Mahdi infantry buried in the ground the Mahdi horde just moved over twice. Come on. English cavalry(now on camels?) movie into a village. They ride without guards. Of course such ineptitude must be punished with an ambush.

The entire movie has a feeling of careless sloppyness. Kapur seems to be in a hurry to get to the desert and it's fine scenery and the story is second to those nice views. Important moments are hardly played out, unimportant events are dragged out because they seem to offering nice pictures. This movie has a remarkable sloppy feel which is a shame really. A six for effort.

Victorian officer redeems his place in society by playing the hero

[jdlevene · 1/10 · 1 January 2007]

I have seen a number of versions of this film from the original to present day. This was undoubtedly the worst. It completely lacks the finesse of the earlier versions, there are few action scenes which lack excitement, and the rest of the film is slow, tedious. Utterly boring!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whilst the film is supposed to be about English gentlemen, none of the actors properly fill the role, and the representation of Victorian society is sorely lacking. Again a comparison with the earlier versions is inevitable. The music is good, and it seems that many of the scenes concentrate on the music rather than anything else, with long moments of nothing but music, when there should be action.