Some movies have a complex; they really don’t know what they are. “Four Feathers” is a good example of this. Is it a chick flick along the lines of “The English Patient”? Is it a period war movie? Is it an action movie where explosions are more important than plot? I don’t know, but I think it tries to do all of the above.
Heath Ledger stars as Harry Faversham, a man who resigns his commission just before his regiment sets out for war in the Sudan. Branded a coward by not only his father (Tim Pigott-Smith) and his fellow troop mates, but also his fiancé, Ethne Eustace (Kate Hudson). When he goes to the Sudan to follow his comrades (due mostly to the guilt), he secretly tries to help them survive. In the end, it’s really difficult to say whether we are supposed to feel sorry for him, those who died or those he saved.
I really can’t believe this movie has been made three times (1939, 1977 and now). The story is nothing special even thought it has its moments. This version does nothing to improve upon the others. It certainly is the most grandiose though. It also felt longer than its two hours and five minutes. It is a decent movie that might appeal more to period piece enthusiasts (but I’m not one, so I can’t answer to that). Yet, to the average moviegoer, it will not inspire.
Acting – C+
Director – B-
Writing – C
Cinematography – B
Overall, it’s a decent rental if there’s nothing else out, I give it a B-.
four feathers was an awesome find for me... i saw it on the shelf, thought it looked familiar, had a watch and it turned out to be great. heath ledger did a great job.
Posted by: patrick | 20 February 2008 at 04:01 PM