The Four Feathers (2002) - Adventure, Drama, Romance

Hohum Score

94

Hohummer

A British officer resigns his post just before battle and subsequently receives four white feathers from his friends and fiancee as symbols of what they believe to be his cowardice.

IMDB: 6.5
Director: Shekhar Kapur
Stars: Heath Ledger, Wes Bentley
Length: 132 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 49 out of 216 found boring (22.68%)

One-line Reviews (165)

while it took sometime to get into the plot, it was definitely suspenseful - much in the way that "the patriot" was.

This movie was super boring.

As an entertaining adventure film, "The Four Feathers" stands firm… .

A very well done, well filmed state of confusion .

Whilst the cinematography is fantastic with beautifully filmed and framed shots and exciting battle sequences, the script fails in its inability to provide a credible motivation for Harry's (Heath Ledger) actions and the events that enfold.

pretty good but gets boring .

The first half of the movie is unbearably slow, and exasperating too.

Add lots of action and a compelling romance, and you got a great movie.

A bit slow and long in places, still worth the two hours.

It is watchable but plodding, a long two hours, and I had a sense throughout of let's just get on with it.

I almost walked out on this movie.

THis movie was SO FREAKIN INTENSE!!.

Enjoyable, nice to look at and worth seeing .

dull, lifeless, and disappointing .

Dramatically on-track (OK the first half drags in places) with some cutting-edge action sequences, stunning cinematography and thunderingly good good music from James Horner and Co, what you have here is entertainment with a capital E.

Enjoyable.

The confusing and tedious story line acted as bookends for a great battle scene and, for my money, could have been scrapped altogether as it did little to enlighten those in the audience who had not read the book or seen the previous films, or who were unfamiliar with British history and the mind set of the Victoria era.

The end result of all this confusion is a big case of the "SO WHAT"S?

The battles are long and drawn-out, and very graphic.

They tried to introduce the "wog with the heart of gold", excellent acting there, but it meant a slowdown in the storytelling, back to BORING.

But that aside, it was an enjoyable film to watch with sympathetic characters, wonderful scenery, and an interesting story.

For the pros, there are some *really* nice scenes and one decent, if slightly predictable, plot twist.

It seems disjointed and hard to follow at times, without giving much of an explanation for the actions of the characters, which I would have thought is necessary for this kind of film.

Long, boring, and generally aimless.

The war scenes in this film are done extremely well and make it very entertaining to the audience.

The film has its exciting moments.

The story is pretty good, but the whole thing is too long.

After the tedious grueling experience of watching this movie I can understand why I have never heard of any of the actors and actresses in the movie.

I know people who have enjoyed it and there are obviously people who didn't.

what a waste of time and money!.

Utterly boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The photography was truly stunning!

All and all a fun and entertaining movie and well worth the price of admission.

how DID they escape brain damage to the confusion and madness of desert combat, what an interesting segue!!!!!

and this fact does it more than a propaganda tool or only new version of a forgotten story.

But, although this film is definately trying too hard to be an epic (the cinematography is of the standard), it is still and engaging, if too long, film.

His friendship with Harry is actually more compelling than Harry's friendship with his regimental messmates.

The only real problem I had with the film is that it's too predictable.

And it is confusing at times who the characters are.

Basically, "The Four Feathers" recycles every cliché you have ever seen in a cavalry versus the Indians western, with Redcoats replacing bluecoats and Islamics instead of Apaches.

it was too long and slow .

This new version is an expensive, ponderous platform for dated, generally unfashionable, imperialistic values and a poor vehicle for the limited talents of Heath Ledger and Kate Hudson, a couple of pale, pretty youths who need a lot more experience in Hollywood to carry something like this off.

Having seen the other much much much better versions of this story played out,I am convinced that I could make a better,more engaging film if someone wants to give me the cash.

Would be epic turns into a jumbled, boring mess.

When poorly told, you are bored by options two and three, and impatient for the punchline.

Something is missing to become an excellent film, but anyway it is an enjoyable entertainment.

It completely lacks the finesse of the earlier versions, there are few action scenes which lack excitement, and the rest of the film is slow, tedious.

I did like watching it for the visuals, but I did feel somewhat empty.

It's pretty close to propaganda.

However, once there, the film is excellent and engaging.

This movie dragged on...

The story was good, but a little slow in parts.

Yes, the film is too long, and could really have been shorter.

This spectacular adventure detailing the epic feats of a brave hero contains noisy action , idealism , romance , unlimited courage , breathtaking battles and impressive outdoors .

Most of the exciting aspects of the original plot have been removed.

Heath Ledger as a stubborn officer is cool , Wes Bentley as his best friend is convincingly played and Kate Hudson as his girlfriend is enjoyable .

I guess they wanted to save the money it would have cost to stage the battle of Omdurman to do the correct war.

Mason gives us a true answer to the fact that Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) had really an attack of cowardice when he wanted to leave the army some days before his regiment of the Cumbrians had to leave for Sudan.

It is a total waste of time

Enjoyable movie for those who have not read the book or seen the 1939 original .

Just one of the many reasons this movie felt like it moved along too slow.

Also the unexpected help, which I couldn't really figure out why was a nice swing in this movie.

" '4 Feathers' shows the hypocrisy of the 'ruling class' in ways the original did not, since it was a propaganda film.

" What I mean, is lots of slow motion (even the sound goes slow mo sometimes), the traditional (and unoriginal) sweeping panoramic shots, most of which serve no artistic point, and lots of trying-very-hard-to-be-grisly style gore.

Pretty but Vapid and Tedious .

The battle scenes look too repetitive and too long.

First you need to make it through the first 45 minutes which feel like hours of lavish pointless British dance halls and gentry kiss and faint, drowned in a sea of the most cheesy lines I've heard for a long time.

Don't waste your money with this film.

I am not terribly fond of war-centered films, but the Four Feathers rises as an exception to this --the visuals are breathtaking, the characters filled with passion, and the story, emotionally-wrenching and powerful.

This could have been a great film but the opportunity was thrown away by the misrepresentation of history, a disjointed story line and a group of characters that you never really got to care about.

Now of course the KORDA's were magicians on making rousing adventure movies.

It looked more like a historical version of the ‘Corleone Family' rather than the 'Duke of Buckingham' and some boring edicts.

The movie is also simply too long (it added a whole other set of scenes when it simply should of ended) and slow.

Enjoyed it so much on TMC...

I just think it was incredibly long and drawn out unnecessarily.

and Did I mention BORING??.

It has everything a good movie should it succeeds where lesser films have failed and I truly enjoyed it.

Enjoyable .

this new treatment explores the nature of fear and the astonishing unpredictable and often unfathomable reservoirs of courage and endurance which man often discovers at the least expected moments.

In fact I was quite bored with this movie and quickly lost the intention for it.

The other group reviewed this film from simply an entertainment point of view and rated it on how much they enjoyed it.

The movie is too slow at the beginning.

A Worst Movie .

Don't waste your money or time to see it in the theater.

The Four feathers was a little slow at the beginning but picked up nicely halfway through and was a good and exciting movie.

BORING...

Even without a comparison to Lawrence, with its slow, blurred shots such as Lawrence appearing on the horizon, this film completely fails to do justice to its desert setting.

Waste of time.

All of this wouldn't matter much if the movie was entertaining; unfortunately, it is only intermittently so.

I found this movie very interesting, and my dad and sister loved this movie, so it's definitely worth watching!

My husband, who has a liking for epic movies, dragged me to this movie (and I'm sick no less) and when it was over I couldn't believe I'd only been sitting there for only 2hours and 15 minutes.

Particularly thrilling are the battle scenes, which rate up there with "Barry Lyndon.

This was the worst movie i've seen in over a year.

Though stiff and dull in places, the film boasts several impressive action sequences, filmed in expansive Cinemascope.

It´s a shame, because I really liked Elizabeth (the director´s previous film), but just about everything that makes a film enjoyable got lost in the sand here.

A rousing love and adventure story, just what a movie should be, entertaining.

This could have been an incredible movie considering the immense power and possibilities of modern technology, especially the battle scenes which were historically pretty intense.

The film's big battle sequence is a clunker, with a few well-staged and well-shot moments (loved Ledger's leap onto the horse), but is mostly unexciting and frustratingly dull.

In the end, this means BORING.

Although the movie is choppy, the story itself is fascinating and keeps you wanting more...

It is to this film's credit that it sticks to the original quite closely, fashioning a tale that explores lots of fundamental themes such as personal honour, rebuilding broken trust, believing in a cause and finding unexpected courage within.

This movie can be very exciting and very boring at the same time.

All in all a giant waste of time!!

We recently saw the 1939 version, and though I found the plot fascinating the movie was, in my opinion, very long-drawn out.

But if you're looking for a cohesive plot and compelling characters, well, if they were present they've been left on the cutting room floor.

Watchable but plodding wartime drama of courage and friendship .

The cinematography alone is awe inspiring.

Somewhat "old-fashioned" but redeemed by sincere performances, striking and beautiful photography, this film is enjoyable and worth seeing.

He does indeed do a fine job here, but unfortunately strong acting in a boring film does not make the boring nature dissipate.

Evocative cinematography reflecting the late 1800's and spectacular African landscapes by cameraman Robert Richardson .

Frankly, this does not shock me, as the movie is rather boring and I doubt there is a way to make an interesting trailer or to get viewers to convince their friends to see it.

Everything else was "Too" : too long, too boring, too dramatic, too many ('to' the point of being absurd) close-ups; (I probably saw more crooked teeth during that 'two' plus hours, than my dentist sees all month!

The storyline meandered between unengaging and just plain boring.

So I think it says a lot that The Four Feathers did little for me, save for much yawning and a sudden desire to take a long nap.

The Four Feathers (2002) is one of the slowest, most uninteresting movies I have ever seen.

The film looks dull and flat despite all the action.

What a waste of time .

Film is irritating and boring for people who posses critical minds.

I really enjoyed it, as did the two women I was with.

The cinematography is stunning with nice throwbacks to "Lawrence of Arabia.

I may have expected a new take on British Imperialism from an Indian director, who did such intriguing work with Elizabeth R...

There are some breathtaking shots of the Sahara desert, and also some of the wet English countryside, and the main battle scene is tense and exciting.

It's all just enough contrived to keep you detached.

I know that people of that periodfound it undignified to show their emotions, but I just found thecharacters dry and uninteresting.

The war scenes are slow and really make no sense.

and very dull it is too.

Don't waste your time and money renting this film.

Of course, his supernatural guardian angel, the Sudanese warrior, helps Harry to escape -- a predictable plot.

I saw this at the cinema and had to sit through it, and it was a waste of my money.

True, the movie boasts the occasional bit of lovely cinematography, but come on, we know that's due more to the stunning locations than the camera-work.

I thought that Gosford Park was dull.

For me the movie was more then worth watching and left me with a good feeling.

Theater was empty in prime time .

Not easy to watch, but well worth watching .

Just what a movie should be - entertaining .

Shekhar Kapur's "The Four Feathers" is beautifully filmed and performed… The themes of love, honor, loyalty, friendship, trust, redemption, wisdom, true strength, and true courage are all there… They made the characters entirely plausible… But what truly lingers in the memory about it are the stunning sequences filmed in the Sudan and the splendid staging of several battles, showing the then standard British tactics employed in holding off attackers—the forming of squares, with riflemen deployed in standing, kneeling, firing, holding line, and keeping eye on the target… These exciting scenes of combat and carnage are truly impressive…

The original had all of the elements - including humor - that made a movie enjoyable.

beautiful cinematography, good acting, fascinating story.

Sadly and predictably, no matter how many efforts were made of adding a fresh air of modern international affairs to the subject matter, the whole notion is so dated and predictable that it cannot stand the test of time without showing the seams.

Dull and conventionally shot, the film's attempts at "rectifying" its source material are mostly hokey.

Important moments are hardly played out, unimportant events are dragged out because they seem to offering nice pictures.

And I though the ending was a little on the confusing side Once they were back in England and everything calmed down, I thought the movie was over and I was expecting the credits to start rolling- when suddenly it takes you back to the lead charator (whom you soon learn that he never left the desert)and and another back story begins as the setting jumps from England back to the desert where the lead charactor is groppling his way through a prison to rescue one of his old friends.

Great battle epic spoiled by tedious story .

Kapur's slant on the story is visually breathtaking and has by far the most realistic battle sequences of any version made so far.

In fact sometimes I found the various Sudanese events really quite confusing to follow.

The music, which was composed by the great James Horner (Titanic, Braveheart, A Beautiful Mind) is phenomenal, and breathtaking.

While the first half was surprisingly enjoyable--there were some interesting shots and the plot kept my attention--the second half was a complete disappointment.

All in all, I very much enjoyed it and recommend it.

It becomes quite the rousing adventure, with lots of fairly disgusting dead bodies and their missing parts all over the place (surprising for a PG-13 flick) and the sole battle scene is one of the better ones I've ever seen, because it creates uncliched emotion, and it's very effective in creating a seemingly helpless situation, with great battle choreography to boot.

My immediate reaction to this movie was, "what a waste of time.

Assuming you have not read the novel NOR seen the 1939 original feature, this version is overall enjoyable.

It is very sad,and at the same time uplifting and exciting.

I think this is something really worth watching and I hope you enjoy it as I did.

Heath Ledger struggles a bit in the lead male role, but the supporting actors (Wes Bentley, Michael Sheen, Kris Marshall, Rupert Penry-Jones and Djimon Hounsou) are all in fine form, breathing life into characters that could easily have been the standard military movie stereotypes (the wacky guy, the quiet religious guy, the mysterious foreigner, etc.). Unfortunately the rest of the movie is not so good: the plot is implausible and has gaping holes, the central romance (to which quite a bit of time is devoted) is boring, and there is some bizarre editing in places, which is confusing and distracting.

At a time in which tensions between the Muslim East and the Christian West are again on the rise, it is fascinating to learn that things have not changed much since 1884, the year in which this film's story is set.

I remember very fondly seeing the 1939 version of this story and also recall my absolute pleasure in its exciting storytelling.

I think for some of us who have seen the original first, it will in some respects come out top, though I did find this 2002 Four Feathers still very enjoyable and why I rate it 7 out of 10.

The ending speech was soooooo slow i wanted to gouge out my eyes.

This is pretty much a bland and over drawn out movie that becomes very predictable early on.

This movies was full of the same old predicable cliches and boring slow motion camera work to make it all seem even more dramatic than it was.

Djimon Hounsou takes the screen like a star and almost steals the picture; his performance of a somewhat stereotypical role is remarkable, almost mesmerizing - he's what you'll remember, along with the stunning vistas.

Boring .

Pretty much bland and predictable .

Third, the cinematography is too confusing, and the camera never does take advantage of the topography.

Minority opinion ---- this was to me a surprising "10" rated film, beautiful to look at, exciting, well acted and often touching.