I loved this movie as I loved the 1939 movie. The 1939 movie was corny and I still loved it. This one was no less corny
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Four Feathers
marycatherineclarke — 19 years ago(January 01, 2007 03:15 PM)
I loved this movie as I loved the 1939 movie. The 1939 movie was corny and I still loved it. This one was no less corny but was just a good.
Mary -
goosiegoose — 18 years ago(January 27, 2008 09:46 AM)
I liked this movie. It was very good. I cried while watching it because of Heath and what happened to him.. So sad.
http://perfect-charlize.com
My Charlize Theron Fan Site!!! -
heyuactor — 14 years ago(August 05, 2011 10:38 AM)
^^Yes it's interesting. Yet, I found the idea Harry had to go to the fight to prove his heart, or honor, ridiculous. To win the woman? There must have been other more like-minded women for him to relate to.
Maybe the book explains in greater detail his reason(s) for refusing to go, and resigning, but I felt it was his objection to imperialism more than cowardice. If that's true than he didn't need to go to prove his lack of 'cowardice' to his friends, did he?
"Did you make coffee? Make it!"Cheyenne. -
mam13143 — 13 years ago(June 09, 2012 03:52 PM)
The older version lets you see more of the british sociology of the time. Today 's movies tend to be all flourish and special effects, but this one is not bad. Thought it was playing to the "gladiator" crowd more than anything, trying to be overly realistic. The acting was very good but the story bogged down in several parts. A story of british honor during the turn of the century, british military responsibility (a little island that ruled the world remember) and what it meant to families of higher station in life. All in all a decent movie but understandable why it didn't elicit a better audience.
