User reviews

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

"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)

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.

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.

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

Lacking in tension, credibility, and pace, THE FOUR FEATHERS is a sore disappointment from director Shekhar Kapur, who is capable of much better than this.

The King's Own Cumbrian Regiment is off to the Sudan to defeat the Mahdist rebels who have attacked and massacred a British garrison. But the Cumbrians are going without their erstwhile lieutenant, Harry Feversham, who has resigned his commission to avoid combat in the Sudan. His three closest friends in the regiment, understandably outraged at Harry for leaving them in the lurch, each mail him a white feather, a traditional accusation of cowardice. His fiancee gives him a fourth feather. In despair, Harry sets off to the Sudan, hoping to rejoin his friends and prove to them that he is no coward.

The first half of the movie is unbearably slow, and exasperating too. The characters don't behave like Victorians, but like high school students from the 20th century who are ignorant of the values of the society around them. Harry's fiancee openly flirts with him unchaperoned and kisses him in public. Harry, like a refugee from our own non-judgmental era, seems amazed that his cowardice is met by rebukes from everyone around him. And his initial act *is* cowardly, no matter how hard the movie may pretend that it isn't. Harry doesn't refuse to fight because he thinks the war is wrong, or because he has conflicting obligations to meet; he admits that he would not fight for anything at all. One could hardly offer a better one-sentence definition of a coward.

The fact that Harry's initial actions really are cowardly is important: it means that his adventure to the Sudan is not an effort at vindication, but at atonement. And while he does prove that he can behave bravely, he is far more successful at proving that he is a hopeless bungler. For most of the latter half of the movie, Harry just follows his friend Abou around, and everything Harry attempts by himself comes to grief from which he is rescued by Abou, usually while Harry puts Abou's own life in serious danger. This does not satisfy the viewers' thirst to see Harry atone for his earlier cowardice. Just showing that he can be brave is not enough; he can atone only by undoing the harm he caused by his earlier decision to let his friends face danger without him, and because of his incompetence it is not he who does that, but Abou. It doesn't take long to start thinking, "Who cares about Harry? I want to watch Abou! He's the only guy in this movie who has the foggiest idea what he's about!"

The word on the street was that THE FOUR FEATHERS might be undone by politically correct posturing. That is not true. THE FOUR FEATHERS doesn't have a political bone in its body. Nobody bothers to explain what the Mahdi is fighting about, or even to mention that the Sudan of the movie's era is an Egyptian colony, not a British one. Nothing in the movie suggests what difference it makes to either the British or the Sudanese whether the Mahdists win or not. To those who don't already have an opinion, it's anybody's guess who has the right of this quarrel. At the end, the movie becomes expressly apolitical. As Harry's heroic friend Jack declares, the British Tommies don't fight for a flag or an idea. "We fight for the man on our left." Actually, the movie might have benefited from more political content. For one thing, it could have clarified why Abou, one of an unidentifed "tribe of slaves," is willing to help the British, who extinguished the slave trade throughout their empire in the 19th century.

As for the production values, Shekhar Kapur should be reported to the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Cameras for his constant torture of the focus control. He doesn't appear to understand that making everything blurry will not make him a better artist. Heath Ledger's role as Harry chiefly calls for him to cry a lot, which he does creditably. Djimon Hounsou is almost unrecognizable in his part as Abou, with a beard, a weird hairstyle, and a light coating of dust, but he has never been more charismatic; there's no doubt why the feckless Harry clings to this rock of self-confidence. Wes Bentley as one of Harry's former friends cuts a dashing figure and later does a convincing impression of disability. Kate Hudson struggles in a ludicrous role.

This movie fails on many levels, but it could have overcome any of those failures except one: the weak hero. It's not enough to make the protagonist suffer constantly to make us sympathize with him. He has to be worthy of something more than suffering in the first place.

Rating: *1/2 out of ****

Recommendation: Even action fans should skip this one.

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.

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.

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')

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!

Based on the novel by A.E.W. Mason, a greenhorn British regiment in 1884 is commissioned to Egyptian-ruled Sudan to fight Mahdi rebels. A young officer, Harry (Heath Ledger), unexpectedly resigns and is shamed as a coward by his three best friends (e.g. Wes Bentley) and fiancée (Kate Hudson). After the negative fallout he goes to Sudan undercover to hopefully redeem his honor.

"The Four Feathers" (2002) is similar to Victorian-Brits-fighting-in-Africa flicks like "Zulu" (1964) and "Khartoum" (1966), but I prefer this one as it's just more compelling and is a quality modern production (I've never seen the old-fashioned 1939 version).

There are a lot of gems to mine here, like Harry's individualism in the face of great social pressure to conform. His reasoning is simple: He never wanted to be a soldier and only took the commission to please his gung-ho militarist father. Besides, how is what's happening in the Sudanese desert relevant to him and the British in the first place? Why should he risk dying or losing a limb for this dubious purpose? One of the best parts is Harry's growing friendship with Sudanian Abou Fatma (Djimon Hounsou).

Unfortunately, the movie's hampered by two problems: The mechanics of the plot sometimes drive the characters and it doesn't feel natural or real. For instance, when Harry easily joins the Mahdi rebels and is later seen riding toward the British regiment it's serious "Yeah, right" territory. Another problem is that, from the main battle forward the movie doesn't allow itself to breath and seems like it's in a rush, like it doesn't have the confidence to slow down and tell the story because it's worried about fitting into a 2-hour timeframe and pleasing those with ADHD.

If you can get past those two hitches, this is a worthy historical adventure flick.

The film runs 2 hours, 12 minutes and was shot in England and Morocco.

GRADE: C+/B-

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.

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.

Bad camera work only adds to this this films problems. The story rambles, for some reason they changed the war to the first war in the Sudan but you never see General Gordon. The British are made to look like the bad guys but it's never pointed out that the Mahdi was involved in the slave trade.I guess they wanted to save the money it would have cost to stage the battle of Omdurman to do the correct war. Get the 1939 version for a GREAT film.