For many years I hung back from watching this movie due to the poor reviews it received at the release time. Well when I finally caught it on TV, I realized what a gem I had missed, will now purchase it for my own DVD collection. What a loss of an actor Heath Ledger was, firmly believe he would have gone on to be viewed as one of our finest actors of this generation. All the british actors were terrific in their respective roles,only slight miscast would have been Kate Hudson, so many other young british actresses would have been more believeable in the part.Keira Knightley comes to mind.
June 11, 2008 |  | Superbly acted, will make you think |  |
I never read the novel, nor saw the 1939 old movie version. So I was coming into watching "FOUR FEATHERS" fresh. I expected something boring and predictable. That's not what I got. I was enthralled with this film. It is a complicated and humanistic film that will touch you and make you think in unexpected directions.
Very well-acted. Nice ending, not too sweet, not too sour. Really enjoyable movie. Highly recommended as an epic historical action film.
March 19, 2008 | | Distantly related to the novel | |
When a film maker is given a novel that lays bare the soul of a sensitive man who loves deeply and cares for his friends, a novel that examines courage and the necessity to face the fears that are within almost any sentient being. One would expect a rich experience in return. Add to those elements a breathtaking setting, the pomp and beauty of this era of the British Empire and a cast of very capable actors, how can you miss? I really don't know. My guess is that you burden your audience with wooden dialogue and political staments that have very little to do with the main plot. Dismiss as unecessary the sacrifices of the minor characters, remove Feversham's search for himself before he embarks upon his mission to reclaim his honor and there you have it. A movie that perhaps untethered to the novel might have stood a better chance on its' own merits. The cinematography is gorgeous and the costuming impressive. Unfortunately reading the novel beforehand has doomed me to an almost Ishtar level of discomfort. Since I have enjoyed this cast and knowing the level of craftsmanship available to the film maker as well as the deep drama that is the treasure of Mason's novel I was left feeling empty. Perhaps the 1939 version would better satisfy.
November 6, 2007Sorry but if this movie gets better with time I wouldn't know. I was too impatient and bored to wait. If a movie doesn't capture me in the first 5-10 minutes I'm finished. This could be a five star movie for someone who has some patience and willing to invest the time.
March 9, 2007| | | Faithful to its source; just not very entertaining | |
Well, at least the movie is faithful to its source in its spirit. Based on a book written on 1902, it's nostalgia of the British empire belongs to that era. The plot deals with a soldier who is expelled from his regiment for refusing to go to fight a colonial war in Sudan because of his impending marriage. Not only his colleagues regard him now as a coward, but also his future wife. He had no choice then but to go to war to prove he is a real man and not a coward. The filmmakers try nothing in terms to bring the material up to date, to our more contemporary (and one hopes, more enlightened) attitudes. There's no post colonial guilt here whatsoever. In some ways, this speaks well of the filmmakers in terms of not trying to tamper with the original material; in another way, it is a bit shocking seeing such jingoism in a contemporary movie. All of this wouldn't matter much if the movie was entertaining; unfortunately, it is only intermittently so.
January 30, 2007More reviews at Amazon.com ...
Daily Birthdays
(127 reviews)