Well. I don't really know where to begin. I guess it is to say that I thought this a very fine movie. Wes Bently (Durrance) is no Ralph Richardson and Heath Ledger is no Jon Clements. That seems to be the central criticism of this movie. Here's what I found to be quite enjoyable.

Like Marvin Gaye's "Heard it on the Grapevine," possibly the most recorded or 'covered' R&B tune, A.E.W. Mason's book over a 100 years ago has been made into movies seven times. I can't think of another book that has had that success. Why is that?

Well. Because it's a wonderful story that asks questions that remain to this day unanswerable. Without sounding sexist, as long as women dress for the hunt and struggle to maintain what both genders safely call "allure," men will question each other's courage. Whether you're in the third grade or in the Third Reich or in the Army Rangers or in the United States Marine Corps, the issue is going to come up.

What makes the Four Feathers a great canvas for that issue is that the British are such easy targets. Nevertheless, it could have been written in Greek History with the 300 Spartans, Roman History with Horatio at the Bridge, and on and on. It's a fascinating issue. Can we be afraid? Are we all afraid and just some of us will it away? Are there those who are unafraid?

So forget the statement that poor Harry ought not feel that way. We love this story and ALL the movies made about it because, like the reference to alluring dress above, the question is timeless.

The other reason I like the movie is because it clearly allows Harry (Heath Ledger) to remove himself from the Commissioning scrolls in the absence of fraud or wilful bad behavior. In the past (and I believe in the Mason work itself) the script created an environment where Faversham receives the orders for himself and his three friends (Durrance, Willoughby, Burrows) and then hides them giving him time to resign. That's a different cup of tea, if you will. Here, Ledger just resigns, and makes no secret of the reason.

Additionally, I liked Kate Hudson. She always reminded me of why they should prohibit nepotism in every profession, having gotten her job seemingly only because of her parentage and step-parentage. But she does a credible job as Ethene, and actually takes the role a step further by showing remorse and an acknowledgement of her hideous mistake, no doubt being the straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak, pushing Harry into the Sudan he so wanted to escape. Good acting job, Kate.

Djimon Hounsou did a wonderful job as Harry's protector once he actually makes it to the Sudan. An excellent actor who looks like the brick wall it's a good thing he wasn't around years earlier when they were casting for "Conan," or there would be a different Governor of California.

The tedious comparisons with the 1939 version are just that, tedious. The story in THIS version is still great. Ledger, Hudson, Bently and Hounsou do an above average job, the dialogue is excellent, and the photography is brilliant. The battle sequence of the British Square being filmed from above is the best I have ever seen. 1939 was 75 years ago. Yes, it was a brilliant film. It was still 75 years ago. Move on. 5 stars. Larry Scantlebury

When I was at my early teens, every Wednesday's afternoon, I and my school mates had an unavoidable rendezvous: going to the Theater to see "Action Matinee Show".
During those unforgettable sessions I enjoyed "The Lives of a Bengal Lancer" (1935), "The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1936), "Gunga Din" (1939) and "The Four Feathers" (1939) amongst other action classics.
The story that impresses me more was that of the "coward" Harry Feversham, possibly because at that age kids are unsure of themselves and are afraid to be afraid.
I've never seen the original version again. So when this remake was announced I was eager to see it.

Notwithstanding all the negative reviews, I really enjoy this movie.
Why? Well here are my points:
First there stands the story. Young Harry entering the military under family tradition pressure. He enjoys comradeship but he is not willing to go to war and shed blood (his or others).
When his regiment goes to war he resigned his commission. He is stigmatized by his friends and fiancée as coward and four white feathers sent to him.
His engagement is broken, his father despises him. In other words his world explodes. When he most needed a kind word or a loving caress he founds rejection.
It comes to my mind the scene from "Band of Brothers" when a private is suffering form hysterical blindness and a well meaning word from his Lieutenant works the miracle: he regain sight and courage.
Harry overcomes his fears and rushes to Sudan to help his friends from here on adventures flow unceasingly.

Second the very good photography in charge of the experienced and always effective Robert Richardson, who has authored amongst other: "Platoon" (1986), "The Horse Whisperer" (1998) and after the present movie "Kid Bill" 1 & 2 (2003-4). All his skill is shown in the battle scenes.

Third, actors & actress perform solidly: Heath Ledger as Harry Feversham, Djimon Hounsou outstanding as Abou Fatma, Kate Hudson as the fiancé and the rest of the cast in supporting roles.

Lastly, director Shekar Kapur has done a correct job. Unfortunately general public was expecting more from him due to his very successful previous film "Elizabeth", but honestly he can't be blamed of incompetence, just of not being outstanding always.

It is a very good film for action, adventure or past wars fan. If you enter any of these categories you'll not be disappointed!
Reviewed by Max Yofre.

Watched this one, FOUR FEATHERS (2002), in anticipation of the re-release of the highly acclaimed 1939 version. This one is ponderous, slow, and undercooked. It contains one good battle scene, plunked in the middle, which is surrounded on both sides by an extremely plodding story of redemption. Even the exciting battle scene is undermined by the film's insistence on casting its slow-mo eye on the superfluous.
1939's FOUR FEATHERS comes highly recommended and this one hasn't scared me off of it, but it certainly caused me to lower my expectations.

I first saw this movie when it came out and all I remembered was that it was OK but there was something about it that really bothered me.


Well just saw the DVD and yup the movie still bothered me. It was very very hard to believe that our hero, who comes from a military family and is engaged to a military girl, decides to up and quit when his unit was ordered to the Sudan to fight the Mahdi 'Muslim' rebels. The resignation, presentation of the four feathers of cowardice and his departure to the Sudan happens in such a flash in the movie that it really leaves the viewer wondering 'whaaaaa..... '


OK not to stretch the review for an old so -so film I actually liked the black slave that adopts our hero and saves the cowards life over and over ... this guy was fabulous and is the only reason I gave the movie two stars ....


Our coward .. well he just returned to the UK and AGAIN forgot and deserted the people that helped him the most ...


It certainly is a bad movie about a weak character !

The theatrical reviews for this film were so-so and I wasn't expecting a whole lot from the DVD. I was very surpised by how good this film is. Although some the the British accents wander a bit, all the actors are quite good. James Horner's music gets the mood just right and the cinematography is exceptional. The director and screenwriter have managed to take a novel dealing with colonialism and the British Empire and transfer it to contemporary times without insulting the audience or the subject matter. The ending, in which Wes Bentley speaks at a memorial service, is eloquent and sums up the story's message without hitting us over the head. Well worth the money.