The Four Feathers Movie Review:


Paramount and Miramax studios roll out their first Oscar ad campaign for the 1800 colonial drama The Four Feathers. Though the film might receive nominations for cinematography and score, the film itself is no where near Oscar consideration.

This is the sixth on screen adaptation of A.E.W. Mason's classic novel of the same name. The film takes place in the late 1800s and follows members of the British army. Harry Faversham (Ledger) is the regiment's best solider and is engaged to the innocent Ethne Eustace (Hudson). Harry's friends are all good soldiers, including Jack (Bentley) who is a bona-fide leader. Once his regiment is ordered to go to war in Sudan, Harry turns in his commission. Wanting to be with Ethne and not wanting to fight a war that he doesn't understand Harry is considered a coward. His father, who is a hard-nosed general, doesn't accept his presence and his group of solider friends along with Ethne send him four white feathers, which is a symbol of cowardice. The only close friend that didn't send Harry a feather was Jack. After being ridiculed with all the anxiety and cowardly remarks, Harry sets out to Sudan to prove he is uncowardly to his fellow mates. There he disguises himself as an Arab and goes undercover as a spy to help the British. Harry is watched over by his tribal guardian named Abou (Hounsou). Over the course of years, Harry searches for his friends to prove to them all that he is loyal and not a coward.

This film looks great and for the most part is made well. However, there are too many obvious holes for the film to overcome. Director Shekhar Kapur does a respectable job, but his pacing just leaves gaps of time. There are many moments where it is almost like how did Harry get from there to here? Why is this character doing this? Some of this is due to the editing for screen time, but also falls on the decisions by the director to not give more emphasis or explanations. Kapur is a fine director, whose last work was the great Elizabeth (1998). The Four Feathers is Kapur's type of material and a good choice for him, though he had some obvious structure problems as well. I also did some research and found that Kapur changed some of the major themes of the book. An example is the brutality of the British. I have not read the book as of yet, so I can not comment on the changes. All I know is that Kapur and producer Stanley Jaffe clashed over the changes, and finally Jaffe left the film.

Many problems also derive form the screen adaptation by Michael Schiffer and Hossein Amini. The writers try to put as much as they can in the two-hour script, but there are plenty holes throughout the film. An example is Harry's guardian Abou never gives a reason as to why he watches and protects Harry. It makes no sense at all. Also the time progression moves so fast and major characters are underdeveloped. An example outside of Abou, is the prison master towards the end of the film. The dialogue is some what crisp and the action sequences, especially the war ones work well. However, the obvious problems standout like snow in a desert.

Heath Ledger does a terrific job as Harry Faversham. Ledger is a rising star and he takes risks with the range of this character and he passes all of them. Wes Bentley is solid as well as Harry's best friend Jack. Kate Hudson is once again unbelievable and reminds me of a cartoon because she makes the same cute smile every two seconds. Maybe it is just me, but with every character that she has played I just don't see her with any depth or exploration with her acting. I didn't even care much for her Oscar nominated performance in Almost Famous (2000). The acting standout of the film is Djimon Hounsou, who plays Abou. He is superb and the scenes with he and Ledger are very strong. Hounsou can previously be seen in Amistad (1997) and Gladiator (2000).

The Four Feathers is a watchable film that does have problems. However, I believe that most audiences will like it. However, the buzz from the book lovers pick the 1939-film version as the best one. And the Oscar hype behind this one might only score nominations for cinematography and musical score.

Report Card Grade: C

09/27/02
Copyright, 2002 Joseph C. Tucker

A choppy, sliced and diced version of the classic British novel "The Four Feathers" lands on the big screen with a young star-bound cast.

Based on the infamous British novel, "Four Feathers" has flown on to the big-screen in a variety of forms over the years. Hollywood revisits the epic struggle of Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger), who was given four white feathers after he left his post in the British militia. A white feather is a symbol of cowardice and the event destroyed Harry. Adding salt to his wound, the fourth feather happened to be from his betrothed, Ethne (Kate Hudson), who he left the army to marry.

Struck with guilt and a passion to prove he can be a worthy soldier, Harry chases after his regiment is determined to make sure everyone of his militia brothers returns safely to England.

If you have seen any of the other versions of this novel on film or read the novel itself, then this condensed version of the epic story will highly disappoint you. For a new audience looking at this for the first time it may ring differently.

My biggest problems with this film were that the story was not told linearly and there some obviously bad cuts in the film that made it feel like an amateur spliced it together. You have scenes that abruptly end in the desert then all of a sudden you are in England looking at moody Kate Hudson. Hudson is so moody and such an adrenaline killer that she spoils a lot of the film. Every time the film goes back to England we are met by a dreary world with pompous nobles and pale as a ghost Kate. In some of the scenes I wasn’t sure if she was sad or seasick. I found it hard to understand why Harry would want her or a life back there.

The bad editing also made me wonder if this film had an original cut of three hours to three-and-a-half hours. If that is the case then I hope we see a director’s cut which restores the flow of the film. That conclusion really help me understand why the film has these obvious flaws.

I continue to enjoy Heath Ledger as a leading man. He has a strong presence and I liked how he evolved his character even if the movie as a whole didn’t support him. As I stated above I really didn’t like Hudson. I liked the effort of Wes Bentley, who plays Heath’s best friend in the film. I never for a moment believed that Heath and Kate were in love and that he really wanted to get back to her.

In today’s world it is hard for us to understand the concept of honor, country and glory. Unless you are in the military, society’s dimensions of the "individual" make these concepts hard to understand. Most of us know what a coward is but it probably isn’t fully understood that being dubbed a coward back then was the equivalent of being banished. I could relate to Harry’s struggle with leaving the army. The thought of dodging bullets for a cause you don’t believe in would make me run to. It also makes you ask the question what would it take for you to die for "god and country"?

I loved the Sudanese scenes in this film because it reminded me a lot of the old epics starring Charlton Heston or Richard Chamberlain that I used to watch when I was a kid. Aside from those scenes and the editing I had a hard time becoming immersed in the "Four Feathers".

(3 of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Dean Kish

1898, the British where fighting to gain control of the Sudan from the Mahdi. After a heavy loss, more troops are called to arms including Harry Faversham (Ledger) and Jack Durrance’s (Bentley) battalion. On hearing the news that he is heading for war, Faversham decides to resign his commission and stay with his fiancée Ethne (Hudson) but she and his friends each send him a white feather, the military symbol for an act of cowardice. Reeling from the scandal, he head for the Sudan to prove them wrong and face his inner demons.

The pressures of self-doubt, family expectance and duty to your country are played out in an old fashioned view of heroism.

Director Shekhar Kapur brings A. E. W. Mason’s novel to the silver screen in beautifully shot but slightly under developed insight into late 19th century colonialism. Even at over two hours long you can tell that this movie’s original cut was much longer (a rumoured four hours) as the middle act seems quite jumpy and unbalanced, spoiling the flow of the film. The whole tone of the movie becomes far too mixed and it becomes difficult to categorise. It is a boy’s own adventure, a historical drama or a political reflection of the current world situation, as there are elements of all three.

The performances from the relatively young cast are good. Heath Ledger is becoming an actor to watch. He is very comfortable with his leading role and plays the part of the unsure Harry very well. Wes Bentley continues to show the promise he exhibited in American Beauty with another fine performance. There is also good support from the always excellence Djimon Hounson, Kris Marshall and Michael Sheen. Kate Hudson has a good crack at a British accent but has nothing much to do but be the object of Harry and Jack’s affections.

The cinematography is superb as Robert Richardson (Platoon) captures all the extremes of the Sudanese desert, during battle and times of complete isolation. The locations also reflect the times extremely well. From the upper class officer training barracks to the deserts prisons, the era is authentically captured and beautifully photographed.

The Four Feathers deserved to more than what appears on the screen. While not a bad movie, you can help thinking that with this cast, director and crew the film should have been much more of an epic. Lets hope there is a Director’s cut.

Star Rating = * * *

Jamie Kelwick

Site Contents Copyright© The Z Review, unless used with permission.This site has no intention to infringe on the rights of the film owners of The Four Feathers and intellectual copyright holders of the movies mentioned herein & hold copyright over the movie, characters, merchandise & storyline.