An Absolutely Fabulous Movie
-
m-manuel — 23 years ago(December 24, 2002 08:35 AM)
I have to agree this movie was excellent. Kate Hudson's part could have been better portrayed by a no-name but Ledger was great and Bentley impressed me as well. I think if you go to this movie and think about the score of the game or the guy behind you who keeps belching under his breath, you might not enjoy it. It is drawn out at times but none-the-less it is entertaining.
-
silverauk — 23 years ago(December 27, 2002 11:21 PM)
This movie is about friendship, between men and women, between Lt. Jack Durance and Harry, between Djimon Hounsou and Harry, Harry and William Trench. It is something we have lost nowadays but as you see, the British built an Empire based on this friendship. The writer of the novel A.E.W. Mason knew all about it as he lived at that time. Our perception of colonialism is false, do we understand why the British gave their lives to deliver Sudan of the fanaticism of the Mahdi, who put thousands of blacks into slavery or dead-camps?
-
albirmike — 20 years ago(July 23, 2005 10:48 AM)
You obviously have not seen the 1939 version or you wold not be so fulsome in your praise of this one! For you and anyone else who has not seen the 1939 film it is being shown on Channel 4 in the UK on Thursday, 28th July. Dont miss it and then re assess your current votes.
-
Li-1 — 23 years ago(February 13, 2003 08:23 AM)
I have yet to see the movie, though I'm definitely curious about it. I've read many negative comments about the film, but there's something I haven't quite gathered. Do people hate it because the movie's plot is too jingoistic, disjointed, and too shallow or is it because the movie's dull? Zulu was accused of being too jingoistic and pro-British, but it's deemed somewhat of a classic.
-
Trajanc — 23 years ago(February 18, 2003 03:33 AM)
It ain't no Zulu, that's for sure.
Zulu benefited from good performances all around, tight directing and editing and a solid script. Some people will like The Four Feathers but there is no doubt the film has problems. It failed with the critics and at the box office for a reason; it is just not that good. The performances range from adequate to poor. The directing never achieves a consistent nor memorable style. The editor seems to have made choices that don't fit with the subject matter. The story itself is nigh incomprehensible to most modern viewers; we understand what is going on but it is hard to understand why these people are doing what they are doing. There are some uncomfortable hints of racism in the movie too.
No matter how bad a film is, and The Four Feathers is certainly not the worst movie ever made, there will always be at least a few folks who just love it to death. This film seems to be no exception. I can't recommend it to anyone but if your curiousity must be satisfied, then by all means check it out. There are worse things you could do to yourself.
-
chiefofbraves — 23 years ago(February 23, 2003 11:26 AM)
Not a classic, not one that will be remembered forever but a good entertaining movie. Not as well done as the 1939 version but not a bomb by any measurment. Some of these negative comments must be from immature, self-centered individuals that can only relate to R-rated nonsense of sex and violence. The director did an excellent job of tying in the expansion and demise of the British empire, as well as he could within the confides of this story, and the complete failure of their expansion and total misunderstnding of the Middle East. I hope he tries with another movie to tell of the Mahdi and his impact of this failure. If you see it I'm feel sure that most of you that takes the time to try and understand will enjoy this movie.
-
haa-1 — 23 years ago(March 17, 2003 08:29 PM)
Visually looked nice and an interesting story. But the acting was very unconvincing (Bentley, Hudson, Ledger, particularly) with no real effort to try and hold an english accent and that was hard to watch. The directing was stilted, the pace was slow, and the line delivery was unnatural. Plus, I could never truly root for Ledger, because he was such a coward
-
sambahdi-1 — 22 years ago(January 01, 2004 02:44 AM)
this could have been a superb film and yet there are lots of things to like about it. for me the production design, the casting and the performances stood out and i think shekar kapur is a great director. the problem for me with the film was that the story felt rushed. for example i wasn't convinced why harry would go to the sudan or that ethny would give harry a feather. i understand why, it just seemed that glossed over. i wonder if the 3 month shooting schedual meant they had to chop scenes because of the problems of shooting a film of such huge scale.
worth checking out. -
KitMagic — 20 years ago(April 19, 2005 03:18 AM)
About the "such a coward" comment:
Umhe wasn't. He was afraid, but that's not the same thing, and he proved
himself not a coward. That was a large part of the whole point. If you didn't
understand that, it wasn't Heath Ledger's faulthe portrayed it in such a way
that almost anyone could understand, unless they were just plain unfamiliar
with the concept, or too bored to even really pay much attention, or both.
Could people possibly refrain from criticizing a movie (any movie, not just
this one) for problems that it doesn't even have? (And I'm sorry if the movie,
the actors, etc. didn't succeed in getting across certain points to certain people.
But SOME of that MIGHT be about some of the audience members' apparent
lack of experience/knowledge/etc. regarding certain classic/famous topics/themes/etc.!)
I don't mean to be mean, really, I just want to make a point. (In case the
movie didn't already succeed in doing that, for some of you! ^~)
(Oh, come on, aren't there any guys out there who can imagine being afraid of
war, not wanting to get killed, not having ever intended/expected to be even
assigned to actual active duty in the first place, etc.? It CAN'T be that I
understand/sympathize/etc. ONLY^~ because I'm a girl!!! ^~)
"True courage lies in facing danger when you are afraid."
L. Frank Baum (The Wizard of Oz)
(AND, FYI, PART of what The Four Feathers [any version] is ABOUT is the very
SILLINESS of the popular belief that fear = "cowardice" = "the worst thing
imaginable", etc.!!! ^~ [I'm TRYING^~ not to get mad>< at people who
don't even act like they KNOW^~ that!!! ^~])
(Okay, I'll shut up now. ^~)
Kit =^__^= (the semi-courageous ^~)
=^__^= -
KitMagic — 20 years ago(April 19, 2005 03:30 AM)
To say that you don't believe in war, don't want to go to war, won't go to war,
etc. IS pretty brave (probably even more so in England that long ago!!! ^~).
Also, to follow into war (secretly) those same friends who thought you were
just a "coward" is brave both martially and socially, AND is probably more than
some of those friends even (act like they) deserve.
A large part of the whole point was, the "coward" turned out to be MUCH BRAVER
than any of his friends-who-thought-he-was-a-coward had expected him to be,
been mad at him for supposedly not being, etc.
(I feel like I'm stating the obvious. ^~ Anyone else agree? ^~ [That I'm
stating the obvious, that is. ^~])
Kit =^^= (stater of the obvious ^_~)
=^~= -
HellBoy13 — 21 years ago(August 05, 2004 01:36 AM)
This was not a bad movie, but it wasn't a really good one, either. The story holds up, though it could have been portrayed better. No, Harry was not a coward, he was a pacifist who was branded a coward by his closest friends and his fiance (except for his best friend).
The movie is Harry's redemption, to prove to his friends and to his girl (and to himself) that though he objects to being a soldier, he will not let his friends down and do anything to be by their side to support them. He makes a new friend in the process, who sees the strength of Harry's friendships and helps him save them.
"What do we do now?"
"Enjoy it"