Great Film overall

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The latest of many versions of A.E.W. Mason 's iconic colonial epic, a young British officer (Heath Ledger) resigns right before his regiment is set to aid British Forces in the Sudan. This is seen as cowardice and he is given four white feathers, including one from his fiancée (Kate Hudson), as a symbol of his desertion. Now he must journey to Africa, reclaim his honour and aid his friend (Wes Bentley) from afar.Sadly neither very powerful nor epic, the newest 'Four Feathers' is little more than another 'Titanic' romantic history bandwagon chaser. It's biggest strength is the production: Shekar Kapur's (Elizabeth) direction is sweeping and large, enhanced by great costumes, sets and location filming that does make you believe you are looking at colonial Africa, with the last doomed battle a great action showpiece. Veteran James Horner's score, while not among his best, is still competent and gives the needed bombast and emotion to scenes, sometimes more than the screenplay. Its mostly young cast give decent performances, especially the always dependable Ledger as our troubled lead, though Hudson and especially Bentley wade through middling accents, and the rest leave not much of an impression.And about there is where the positives end: the screenplay, with several writers attached including Bruce Joel Rubin and Hossein Amini, is frankly a snooze for the most part, with thin characterization, lazy symbolism and, honestly, a lack of clarity or focus on its themes or messages. You'd think it'd be mostly dealing with questions about courage and bravery, perhaps even a timely take given Iraq and Afghanistan, but the film diverges into a bunch of other territories including colonialism, faith, identity, social classes, romance and does nothing interesting with any of these. Furthermore, because it is so clunky and cluttered with all this junk, the pacing often suffers, with the middle being a pain to get through as we endure long stretches of Ledger just wandering about the desert. If it was trying to be pensive or deep, it really backfired.In the end, baring some big battles, this is a safe skip. Its only remarkable feature is how completely and utterly unremarkable it is.

The only people who could think this a good film are those who have never read the book or the good film version. The screenplay is a typically awful Hollywood travesty which only goes to show the absolute dirth of writing talent in modern movie-land.The acting itself isn't nearly as bad as the writing and I do think the cast would not have looked half as dire had they been given a script and an adaptation that was even half decent.I would not recommend wasting your time watching this tripe, get the book and enjoy that instead. Alternatively get one of the other versions which, whilst not perfect are a hundred times better than this nonsense.

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.

This romantic adventure story of one man's supposed cowardice & eventual redemption was written nearly 100 years ago. There were 2 silent film versions made as well as 2 prior sound movie versions & one Television movie.I will mention a few bits on the prior sound films & the TV movie before commenting on the 2002 film.In 1929 Richard Arlen, Fay Wray, Clive Brook & William Powell were the major cast members. I did not see this version.In 1939 Alexander Korda & London Films made the classic version, some of us saw as children. This starred John Clements as Jack & Ralph Richardson as Harry,with June Duprez as Ethne.Sir Ralph Richardson was the only one of the 3 who could act.This version was so filled with action & adventure, no one cared about the acting or the story improbabilities. This version I saw many times. Now of course the KORDA's were magicians on making rousing adventure movies.IN 1977 Beau Bridges, Robert Powell, Simon Ward & Jane Seymour assayed these parts. Finally they had a cast of good actors.It was a good Television movie, nothing to write home on.Now we come to the 2002 version, Heath Ledger was Brilliant as Jack, Wes Bentley & Kate Hudson as Harry & Ethne were adequate, neither are really good actors.Djimon Hounson is excellent as a Sudanese soldier who helps our hero in the desert.In the other versions this role is very minor & played by a young teen lad.The action scenes are violent & well done,Whether the fact the story & the characters are dated & quite old fashioned, or the fact that the screenwriters did not read the original book or saw the prior versions,may be the reason I cannot give this a better review. the writers were Micheal Scheaffer & Hossien Amini & the director was Shekkar Kapur They should have seen the Korda version before attempting this.This 3 star rating's mainly for the production & Heath Ledger's performance.Ratings: *** (out of 4) 81 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)