Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Kirpianuscus beautiful cinematography, good acting, fascinating story. love,fundamental choices, honor, courage,sacrifice and the clash between different cultures. a form of romanticism who reminds old fashion films about the same theme. and Heth Ledger in another demonstration of his admirable art. the resurrection of the flavor of lost time - this is the basic virtue of the film. and the source of its insignificant success. because the work of Shekhar Kapoor has the ambition to remind. not Zulu or Lawrence of Arabia , but the spirit who was basis of each of them. and this fact does it more than a propaganda tool or only new version of a forgotten story. because the fascination about the Empire has the chance to be used by directors who redefine it in wise manner.and the result is admirable.The Four Feathers represents a brilliant example.

SnoopyStyle 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.

owen_twistfield The four feathers is the latest addition to a list of movies with the same name and theme. The story: It is the high tide of the British empire. Harry Feversham, a young officer in the queens army, asks and gets dismissed from his regiment after he hears it will be sent to the Sudan to fight against the Mahdi insurrection. His friends and fiancé don't appreciate this behavior and each sent him a white feather as a token of their disfavor. Harry then tries to redeem himself by going to the Sudan and help his friends against the Mahdi. I watched this movie to get a better understand of how movies are made. This movie certainly has amazing scenery that bring tears to your eyes by their beauty. The sharp sand color, the exotic people and desert landscapes, it all is impressive, as is the moist misty green england. But while the landscape, people and buildings are given much attention the story is told as if in afterthought and with a lot of movie errors. So many that even I noticed. Things in the movie just don't add up. The first pivotal moment in the story is when Harry gets to hear that he is off to the Sudan. We seem him have an anguished talk with his friend Jack, then see him have bad dream and then next he gets himself dismissed in one go. It all happens in three minutes flat which seems enormous hurried compared to the ten minutes the movie takes to show the happy live. It is somehow too brief, too unexplained and too unbelievable that he can leave on the same day hey he tenders his resignation, without letting his friends know or him being thrown in the brig for cowardice? You might expect that an important moment in the film is when his bethrotted sends him a feather(thus breaking off the engagement). But we are only told when someone comes visiting Harry: oh by the way who's the fourth feather? My former wife to be. The entire scene is also strange because we hear someone knock on the door, Harry opens the door and next the visitor is inside and they are talking about the feathers. Since the scene was dark I had the distinct feeling the visitor was still standing in the door opening. Harry takes a trip to Egypt and then travels as part of a small caravan to the Sudan. The caravan brings hookers to the English army(we are told), but they aren't hookers(we are told later), but black Ethiopian princesses? And how come someone is bringing black hookers from Egypt to the Sudan? Should it not be the other way around? Anyway they kill the obnoxious caravan leader(who seems to be alone and unarmed?) knock out Harry who drags himself on a camel and rides to some place. After a while Harry drops to the desert-floor, the camel wanders off and in the next minute someone finds Harry! In addition we see in the background tracks in the sand. The desert seems quite a busy place.Jack is chasing a Mahdi sniper, he carries a rifle, the next moment Jack has a pistol in his hand. The sniper is chased down a street and a minute later he is chased down the same street again. Harry, disguised as a Mahdi, is charging amidst the Mahdi horde, first he carries a sword. Then he drops it when his horse is shot. Then he is on his horse again without sword, next he has the sword again. All the while he is at the head of the Mahdi horde even though he fell behind in a previous scene.The English are attacked by a Mahdi horde. The Mahdi horde is killed to the last man with gun fire, but only the people fall, the horses are bullet proof. In fact the horses seem unimpressed by the fire.A cavalry Mahdi horde attacks across the desert and we see the shot alternating between cavalry and infantry who arrive at the same time by the English forces. We see in the background a Gatling gun twice, it is never used. But Gatling guns where never used by the English. English guns are limbered, the next scene unlimbered. The guns hold fire until the position is about to be overrun by the Mahdi. Rifle fire is used at the latest moment? English troops march in close order? Nope that is not normal. The English cavalry is called tirailleurs? Tirailleurs are light infantry not cavalry. The cavalry chases the retreating Mahdi horde, then is ambushed by Mahdi infantry buried in the ground the Mahdi horde just moved over twice. Come on. English cavalry(now on camels?) movie into a village. They ride without guards. Of course such ineptitude must be punished with an ambush.The entire movie has a feeling of careless sloppyness. Kapur seems to be in a hurry to get to the desert and it's fine scenery and the story is second to those nice views. Important moments are hardly played out, unimportant events are dragged out because they seem to offering nice pictures. This movie has a remarkable sloppy feel which is a shame really. A six for effort.

Jay Harris 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)