An Absolutely Fabulous Movie
-
No1_sonuk — 20 years ago(April 10, 2005 04:24 PM)
Ok,let me say what I think.First of all I don't ask anybody to give me my Euros back..but the film was crap.It has the same "Pearl Harbor" storyline,
Actually, as indicated by references here to the 1939 version, the story predates the original attack on Pearl Harbor by at least 2 years. Doesn't lend much credence to the rest of your post.
*EDIT - the earliest mention I have found of the story is from 1902 - So it even predates controlled powered flight!!
I know he went blind in the movie but did he stay that way or did he regain his sight.
I don't think it's been covered in any movie versions, but based on medical technology at the time, I'd assume it was permanent.
I watched the entire movie and for the life of me can't figure out who she ended up marrying in the end. Can anyone enlighten me?
Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger's character) - After finding out that it was Harry who saved him, Jack Durrance (Wes Bently) gave her up. -
tik-tok — 23 years ago(December 12, 2002 02:51 PM)
WRONG!!!. if you read the previous negative posts about this movie and make a preemptive judgment upon a film then you are as stupid as dimitriskats . but then again who cares i went expecting a crapy film and was pleasantly supprised it was really quite good, the only thing i can say bad about this movie is that it totally failed to be bore to me, i was in suspense and definitely beat most films i have watched recently i watch when i can at least 1 new movie a day and i havent seen a good one in at least a month until i saw this. it is a personal opinion and i do not wish to mislead anyone. But for a period drama it had lots of action and had that bite to it that made me really hang in suspense although it was predictable you just wanted to see the end.
-
cammonro — 22 years ago(March 23, 2004 07:10 AM)
Bottom line: If you are mildly interested in this movie, ignore what other people say- watch it and judge for yourself. Different films resonate with different people in different ways. After hearing all the trash talk on this film I really expected it to suck and never saw it in the theater. I'm sorry I listened to the all the naysayers. It would have been great to see on the big screen.
I personally loved this film and the themes of real courage, friendship, self-sacrifice and discovering yourself. I also think it's a great period piece and I appreciate the effort involved in retelling the story with modern move-making techniques. I had no trouble following the storyline and am puzzled by all the confusion. But you aren't me. You may hate this film. And that's ok too. I have to admit I have seen films where I wanted my money back but c'est la vie.
As aside I have heard from an Indian friend that because of the bad press this film received, Kapur has abandoned making mainstream Hollywood movies and has gone back to filming only in India. If that's true that is a real shame. -
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.