This film is quite a rare case when the plot is based on a seemingly stillborn idea, but the quality of performance and artistic component draw the picture.
Actually, the bundle exactly corresponds to the description of the film. There lived a fine young officer of the British Empire. Everything was fine, but then the charges for the war were announced and ... he resigned.
Friends and family thought he was scared, but... There's no "but." He really chickened out, what he is talking about in plain text and, it would seem, what further can I shoot?
In fact, from a formal point of view, further events are nonsense. They have no logic, no meaning, no conclusions. If you include criticism, you can safely spread each episode to molecules, but you do not want to do this.
As I wrote above, professionals were able to breathe the magic of cinema into a very sick child and the result was very watchable. The scenery, the acting, the quality of the shooting and sound – at the highest level. The film draws into its reality and just want to watch. If the script were complete, it would be a masterpiece.
Very entertaining movie. Britain of the late 19th century, perhaps at the peak of its power, is still at war all over the world. Another campaign is now in Sudan. The country is mobilizing its soldiers, "personnel". But someone does not really want to serve and officially mows, making a resignation, and then repents ... and then the whole main plot begins. A journey through the desert... who knows where it is and why. The motivation of the hero of the main, to be honest, is not quite clear. Even his friend, comrade in combat weapons, actor, known for the series Yellowstone, the motivation is much clearer.
The story is intriguing from the beginning, especially today. Then it sags a little, but by the middle again picks up a little scale and action. There is a love story, but war is more interesting. In fact, we have young people who only smell gunpowder. And sniffs in style for the Fatherland, for his brother and all things - only forward.
What can I say? We know that by the end of the 20th century only a few islands were left of the British Empire. All wars sooner or later end, and then only about them remains that to write historical opuses and make feature films.
If we are completely nagging, then we are just a protracted soap opera. It looks good as a theatrical production in places, places as something real and well shot by the standards of big cinema, in places as a romcom with a military plot. The film as a sample of a fighting brotherhood in principle looks good.
One cannot say that films are often made about the period of British colonial influence over their provinces. About the British occupation of their Indian colonies, you can still recall a couple of cool films (in truth, there are few of them). But this is India, but what about Africa? There are even fewer such films. On this side, "Four Feathers" is to some extent a unique film. I came across it by accident.
Among the advantages of the film, first of all, it is worth noting the strong realism of what is happening. Fights are quite cool, you feel the African flavor, you feel tension, etc.
The cast is Heath Ledger, who always took a very responsible approach to each of his roles, and that brought the films with him to a completely different level of emotional intensity and immersion. There is a lot of drama in the film, and Ledger managed such roles best. This film is also unique in that you can see the actor still alive, because as you know, Heath Ledger died of an overdose of sleeping pills and antidepressants prescribed to him by a doctor in 2008.
In the film there is a love triangle, the main beauty is actress Kate Hudson, apparently due to the fact that has a non-standard English appearance of the sample of the end of the last century. The actress played weakly, I did not see the most pure and Bright Love on the screen at all. Even without taking as an example the standard display of love experiences “Memory Diary”, compare at least with “Remember me” or the same “7 meters above the level of the sky” that only a lazy person did not indulge. There, love is shown two heads above. In The Four Feathers, fear is exploited. However, it is not clear whether this is fear of English society, fear of being killed or all at once.
The English are shown to be stubborn, arrogant snobs who do not appreciate the lives of people in countries under their military occupation. On the one hand, this is a cliche, on the other hand, we have seen it in reality and in our time. The film also shows that the color of the skin is not important for friendship, that there are decent people among all races and nationalities. From this point of view, the film does hint at internationalism: the friendship of “black” and “white” we saw in films like “1+1”.
In "Four Feathers" tried to show such complex concepts as honor, duty, friendship and love, while trying not to go too far with each of them. The creators of the film did not succeed – overdo it with everyone. Focus on stories with “friendship of friends” and rather emasculated, you can say “standard” love story, a la “Dear John” or write letters in small handwriting. A standard love triangle, in which the characters are so sweetly good and decent that it is clearly too much. Did they try to show the spirit of the era by re-reading War and Peace from cover to cover? I do not think that everything was decent and simple in that era, it is enough to recall at least Pushkin’s love triangle. Or the tragic fate of Lermontov, Yesenin. Where insidiousness and meanness, jealousy and resentment often prevail. It’s vital, and “Four Feathers” is like reading an audiobook with a good visual or something.
5 out of 10
The film 4 pens, where the action takes place in the late XIX century, begins with an episode when high-born viewers watch a brutal game of rugby. The viewer is then introduced to a group of handsome friends whom the British Empire sends in blood to defend the interests of big capital in Sudan. Heath Ledger refuses to travel to faraway lands and die for nothing. His friends turn away from him, his own father and his bride abandons him with contempt. He is given 4 feathers, signifying shame and cowardice. You might think you’re watching a heartbreaking movie with a bright pacifist idea, but no. The hero, following his friends, goes to Sudan, but only as a civilian, rubs into the trust of local fighters against the interventionists, betrays, fights, looks and sometimes suffers like Christ in order to prove to his homeland that he is not a coward.
The four feathers cynically show how beautiful Britons bravely and noblely fight in a foreign land, how sweetly they kill only in battle (and no other way) rebels with the words "save Christ" or something, and also what wild cattle the locals are, that even one of them, a Negro, so imbued with highly spiritual British friendship that he became a "Vlasovite." By the end of this pompous nationalist film, discrediting all humanistic values as possible, the viewer will finally hear what the main meaning is. That we must fight not for the idea, not for the future, not for the homeland! You just need to be ready with a friend with whom you decided (preferably at a military training camp) to go kill other people for the newly formed friendship. Then you will find fame, honor, money and the love of cynical cookies. In other words, the film, where the charismatic Heath Ledger played, is an excuse for all colonial atrocities, as well as advertising military corporations that profess this principle - "for themselves, for their fighting brother and for money." Join, fight, die... while others make money from it.
A good military drama, which attracts not by battles, but by awareness of their position and courage. Four pens of shame were awarded to those who shied away from the call to war, officers who resigned received such a souvenir and completely ruined their lives. The stigma of shame.
The young protagonist, an excellent royal guard, the pride of England is better than his comrades in everything, they are inspired, they are equal to him. The guy has everything: a loyal friend, devoted comrades, a beloved girl, an officer's father, honor and respect. Civil service (civil service) bears its fruits, but the situation changes when the royal regiment is called to Africa for war.
Fear of death is a very strong feeling. Awareness of one’s demise, excruciating pains, and the horror of battle can have different effects. The film gives us Heath Ledger’s superb performance of this fear, confusion and insecurity. Some are eager for battle, others are inspired by patriotism, others want to excel before the country, and the main character wants to live. Controversial moments when watching did not prove sympathy for the character, only clear actions.
What do you do when you’ve had a lot and suddenly lost everything? Difficult experiences and shame can awaken feelings of responsibility and courage. After human experiences, the script introduces the viewer to the peak of battles. No matter how the officers say that the regiment will only patrol, and that it is unlikely to enter the battle, but war is a variable thing. You don't kill, you get killed. Civilian regiment in the combat zone. Perhaps you were the best at training in front of the Queen’s Palace, riding in parades and receiving awards only for theoretical knowledge, from now on you are in a war where your diplomas and orders mean nothing – only a well-coordinated combat team.
The film is divided into two fronts: the African people and the British military. The atmosphere of cruel treatment of prisoners, different views of African tribes, traitors and unexpected friends are perfectly conveyed. Ledger's character shows a fractured character, strength of spirit and a sense of responsibility.
After dashing episodes with prisoners and small forays by the British, two opposing forces clash. What role will Ledger play in this battle?
It seems that the regiment is small, and the battle is only one, not large-scale, but quite exciting and dynamic. The picture will please with strategy, honor of officers and atonement for sins.
Actors look natural for such a horrible place. Heath Ledger is beautiful. Another military drama cemented his status in this genre. Jimon Honsu was sympathetic throughout the viewing phase. The African-American can choose the roles of disadvantaged, but righteous characters. Wes Bentley, who evokes feelings more hostile and betrayal than positive, but the actor coped perfectly, and the final ailments of his character were transferred to the screen qualitatively. But Kate Hudson did not arouse sympathy. There was no drama in her performance.
For a historical, military blockbuster, the film is average. But he does not try to compete with legends, but shows his main highlight: how to replace the four feathers of shame with four feathers of courage. The definition of cowardice is revealed and confronts with honor. The movie is for one-time viewing, but it can intrigue.
Screening of computer games, comics, literary novels and other sources has long become one of the most important elements of the foundation of cinema. With each new year, only increasing the number of these adaptations on the screen. But in almost most cases, achieving such a result, when the film adaptations are either weaker than the original, or completely disappoint fans of the original source. A rare exception to the rule for me personally was this film directed by Shekhar Kapoor, which turned out to be the case when the filmed feature film easily surpasses its literary source.
The plot of this film directed by Shekhar Kapoor maximally accurately and with dignity transfers to the wide screen a magnificent novel by Alfred Edward Woody Mason. Telling the story of a group of young guys and devoted friends. They are young, hovering in the clouds of their dreams and craving adventure. Even without realizing and not realizing what hell awaits them on the battlefield.
The story revolves around a young boy, Harry, who refused to go to war and received a symbol of shame in the form of four bird feathers. Light feathers that change Harry's life once and for all. Depriving him of his friends, beloved girl, father, honor and branding him a real coward.
Similar to the literary source, this film directed by Shekhar Kapoor explores very deeply the theme of war. Almost exposing all of her physical and psychological horrors on screen. Very painfully reflecting the harsh reality of how these most senseless wars change and even destroy the lives of so many young and hungry guys. Brilliantly demonstrating this against the backdrop of redemption for manifesting an act of cowardice and a full-fledged "growth" Harry is like men.
The director of the film Shekhar Kapoor made a truly magnificent dramatic canvas, which willingly bribes not only with an impressive number of epic battle scenes, but also with deep drama. So touching to the core. Especially against the background of the truly magical music of the late James Horner, which I definitely want to call one of the best works of a genius too soon gone.
Echoes of emotional sadness from the early departure of Horner is also caused by the lead actor Heath Ledger, who in my opinion played his best role after the image of the Joker from the Dark Knight Christopher Nolan. Brilliantly manifesting himself as a strong dramatic artist and creating such a deep image on the screen. Does not leave indifferent and the game of such wonderful artists as Michael Sheen, Wes Bentley and Jimon Honsu. The only disappointment for me personally was Kate Hudson. I never considered her a decent actress and it is clear that despite all her attempts, she not only failed to reveal her character completely, but also did not “understand” her simply.
9 out of 10
Four Feathers is an absolutely rare example of how a feature film is better than its literary source. Having created on the screen the impression of the strongest dramatic canvas, which easily touches to the depths of the soul. Touching music by James Horner and Heath Ledger's magnificent performance in particular.
Dedicated to the bright memory of the brilliant composer James Horner and insanely talented artist Heath Ledger. They both left too soon and their absence is felt by echoes to this day. Rest in peace. We remember you.
Great war drama. Screen adaptation of the novel of the same name by English writer Alfred Mason. This film is not the first, but I watched it. What can I say, the film is imbued with the English ear from the first to the last frame. The beginning of the film is simply magnificent - a ball, training soldiers and their entertainment. I will tell you about the bundle - a young officer played by Heath Ledger, not wanting to go to war, resigns right before sending the regiment. His friends send him four feathers, a symbol of cowardice. Realizing what he has done, he immediately follows them in the hope of proving them wrong. There is also a classic love triangle. It was based on real events - the uprising in Sudan of local residents against the British Empire. The scenes of the fights are staged and played perfectly, they even look great today. Very qualitatively selected music, it seems that before us there are epic events, although this is not the case. I also want to mention the quality of the camera. I especially remember the Sudanese desert. Let’s look at the characters:
1. Harry Feversham played by Heath Ledger. The son of a general who went to serve only for his father. Although he was scared, his conscience made him correct. He does a great job of saving his friends. Not every person would do that. And not everyone would endure as much as they had to endure. Heath is a brilliant actor, it is a pity that he is no longer with us. He is able to express the emotions that arise from everyone watching this film. You empathize with him, you scold him. Decent work.
2. Jack Durrance played by Wes Bentley. Harry's friend and co-worker on the regiment. After receiving the news of Harry's resignation, he does not believe, probably until the very end, and only after making sure, sends him a pen. A good and competent officer, but unfortunately this does not save him from serious injury. And even after that, he remains a noble man and a devoted friend. Although his hero and stingy emotions, it still corresponds to his character.
3. Etney Eustace played by Kate Hudson. A noble girl who fell in love with Harry, but learned of his unworthy act, also sent him a pen. She is the most emotional character in the entire film. Tossing between two men, she in the end still chooses love, while not losing friendship. Kate was very good, she played very well.
Unfortunately, the picture has a drawback - some understatement and illogical narrative. But it is not so significant as to underestimate the rating.
The protagonist shows himself wise not wanting to go to war and die in a conflict that is a fact of aggression against the tribes of the African continent. Pompous and prim Englishmen, who at that time captured and crushed under the world. Their savage “civilized” society was alien to the understanding of human equality. They believed they were bringing “enlightenment” to backward countries.
At the end of the 19th century it was easy for an Englishman to make a dizzying career in the military field. This range of choices: China, India, Africa, America.
Old men send young men to their deaths, playing insidiously on their childish ego, their empty sense of patriotism. The main character proved that he is not a coward to himself. But in fact it was just as childish and stupid as his friends.
If everyone refused to fight in the aggressive military companies, there would be no war.
The film is a reason to think.
Think about the fact that the aggressors almost never obvious their aggression.
The aggressors attack a foreign country believing that it is a “soldier’s honor” “valor”.
Also shown is the female protagonist who does not understand what war is.
But easily sends his beloved to her by his condemnation of his behavior.
That's what happens in life. Women do not fight, but they easily send men to die.
Think about it.
What a start! The nineteenth century, a young British officer, who, as they say, is destined to become a hero, succumbs to a sense of cowardice and resigns before the first campaign to war. But to restore honor, he secretly rushes alone to Sudan to heroically save his friends! Here it is, a great story of love, friendship, personal growth of the hero, clothed in a beautiful wrapper of adventures, battle scenes and obsidian natives.
But after 15, 20, 40 minutes of the film, the heart doesn’t freeze so much in anticipation of a beautiful story. Because she's never coming. It won't. We will be spoiled with a shiny wrapper, and the candy will be tasteless, old and hard.
Everything is worthy, everything is as it should be: friends, the bride, emotional torment. But we are only called such concepts as “friendship”, “love”, “self-sacrifice”, called, but not disclosed. And the soul, grown on the works of such giants as Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Pushkin, requires depth, logic, meaning. They're not, just pathos. And in the end, throwing away the tinsel, we see a completely infantile hero who is never destined to grow up. And he would not have feared war not only because he is afraid for his life, but because the very concept of war would have been immoral, dirty and meaningless to him, but he is too superficial for such questions. We see a bride who, not wanting to understand a loved one, also betrays him, forcing a person to go to war because of the evaluation of society. But fortunately, to maintain her status as a "beautiful lady" screenwriters still insert a couple of monologues about remorse, however, immediately, after a couple of months, she is the happy bride of a friend of our hero. We see the specter of Musketeer friendship, but the ghost is ridiculous, backed up only by drinking and dancing together. And somewhere in the distance, we see the response of a foreign culture, beautiful, original, but it is there, in the distance, as a scenery. We're not interested in him at all. Also, we do not understand where the friendship with a black aboriginal came from, and, apparently, its main purpose is to show all the tolerance of the creators.
As for the performance itself, everything is fine. The pace of the film is normal, battle scenes and types of sandy valleys are performed on “5”, the dialogues are not stretched, the actors are well selected and coped with their roles on “excellent”, only their roles were template and boring.
A quality film, but empty. That's why it's a low grade. But if you get bored with terrible boredom, and any grass will go on a snack - you can watch the film. He is truly beautiful, and you can’t argue with that.
It's 1884. British troops are sent to Sudan, and before departure, Officer Harry Faversham resigns. He had everything: his father the general, his girlfriend, his fellow soldiers, but in an instant everything collapsed and everyone recognized him as a coward. Harry still goes to Sudan, but does it secretly, and before us a fascinating story of honor, courage, love and courage.
I’ve seen this movie twice, recently and ten years ago. The picture left behind a pleasant and strong impression. Everything is filled with courage and dignity. Director Shekhar Kapoor made one of his most successful and profound films, and I really like the picture.
At the box office, it failed, and critics took it controversially, often neutrally, but I personally like this film and its history is well remembered all these years. Talented and wonderful actor Heath Ledger played the main role of Harry Faversham. He was a wonderful actor with an innate acting talent from God and unreal charm. Ledger plays as always clean and with deep thinking, so it was very nice to see him in the lead role.
The daughter of the famous American actress "Goldie Hawn" Kate Hudson at that time punched her role and had little popularity. Still, in this picture, the strongest and most emotional roles were male, and her role was a little superficial and strained. I think any actress would play that role. In the controversial role remembered Wes Bentley. He played well, his look was so angry, furious, his role he played convincingly.
Four Feathers is a 2002 costume, military, adventure drama. The picture is big and strong. It differs from American films of this genre, and is more similar in atmosphere and style to British cinema. I say “yes” to this film and I rate it positively.
P.S. A great tribute to Heath Ledger.
From a director with the iconic name Kapoor for the Soviet Union, you can expect anything. Especially after the Oscar-winning (though only for makeup) "Elizabeth" in 1998. Although, hand on heart, we must admit that “Elizabeth” was at least not weaker than the shaking of the figurine harvest “Shakespeare in Love”. But that's not the point. The fact is that Shekhar Kapoor, having made the seventh adaptation of Alfred Mason’s novel “Four Feathers”, made a really memorable picture.
How interestingly intertwined sometimes history and modernity. The Hindu, whose people have groaned under the yoke of British imperialism for almost centuries, is making a film, in general, pro-British, pro-imperialist, in which English aristocrats in military uniform are trying to guide the true mad aborigines. The Aborigines are absolutely freaked out by their heat, and I only dream of cutting off someone's head, mocking a corpse, burrowing into the sand and, at the appointed hour, jumping out of there with a cry and sticking my to the limit of a curved yatagan into the stomach of some subject of the Queen. And all this, notice, under the green banner of the prophet. Symptomatic metamorphosis. Especially today.
Another feature of Hindu directors filming in Hollywood, and this, in addition to Kapoor, is also Night Shyamalan – this is an appeal to the theme of a superhero. Shyamalan in Invulnerable introduced the comic space into real life, making a superhero of a layman who had no idea who he was. Not yet. It's a classic comic book scheme. Heath Ledger’s Four Feathers is as real as the Iraq War. But he has no supernatural powers. He doesn't fly, he doesn't jump, he doesn't run on walls. He has no foresight, and can be killed with his bare hands. The only thing he has is conscience. She eats him like a dog, a bone, without letting go for a minute. She takes revenge on him for a second attack of fear, turning a person into a clot of transcendent energy that will pass all the tests, but achieve its goal.
I didn’t like the beginning and end of the film. The first shots seem to be copied from the “Siberian Barber”, and the finale is pathetic, pathetic and unnecessarily, in my opinion, heppiannut. But everything about Sudan, which is 4/5 of the movie, is just great. And although the bearded Ledger looks a lot like Brad Pitt, watching him play is a pleasure. When he's a shaved handsome man, it's not that, it's fake. With a beard! Take a look and see for yourself.
That's the story. Friends gave the guy four gifts, and he ruined his life, but returned the gifts.
6 out of 10
To tell the truth, I haven’t seen the earlier adaptations of this novel by Alfred Mason, I mean the adaptations of 1915, 1921, 1929, 1939, 1978. Today I’m going to talk about the 2002 film adaptation, directed by Shekhar Kapoor, who I’ve already loved thanks to Elizabeth. His films, often cold and violent, carry the light of hope and greatness.
So, as for the plot. Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) is an officer of the British army, a descendant of an ancient aristocratic family, the best soldier of the regiment, and in general the owner of all kinds of merits. He has it all - four wonderful friends and a beautiful lover, the engagement that Harry's father announces at the beginning of the film. But it can't be that good. The regiment will be sent to war in Sudan, where Britain is defending its imperial rights. And Harry's perfect world is crumbling. He never wanted to be a soldier. He joined the army to avoid disappointing his father. I thought it would be a year or two... but war... going to war that you don’t believe in, that you don’t understand? Perhaps all this is just excuses, but in fact, Harry was afraid. He's resigning. Harry's father refuses him. Harry receives four white feathers from three friends and his lover as a sign that they consider him a coward.
To me, it was not cowardice, it was a fit of pacifism that the average person, especially in those days, would not understand. Anyway, these four feathers changed Harry’s life, and he decides to go to Sudan to be the guardian angel of his friends who rejected him.
As I said above, this film is not only about love, and not only about friendship, but about the strength of spirit in the fight against the cruelty of the world.
In Sudan, Harry goes through a lot to save his friends. And most importantly, he goes through his own rebirth, through his own prejudices of a man who was supposedly born in the “civilized” world and fell into the Stone Age of Sudan. You watch this rebirth like a charmed one.
Actors are on top. I will note here the genius Heath Ledger, as well as Wes Bentley, Chris Marshall, Michael Sheen and Rupert Penry-Jones, who played four friends of Harry. Each character succeeded - the restrained and reasonable Jack, the peaceful and naive Castleton, the cheeky Trench and the narcissistic Willoughby. But perhaps the most striking here was the supporting actor Jimon Khonsu, who played Abu Fatma, whom Harry met in Sudan. Apparently, he has such a powerful charisma and such lively facial expressions that any of his seemingly auxiliary roles in the same Gladiator or Blood Diamond are remembered forever.
Separately, it is worth mentioning Kate Hudson as Edney. She's the only reason I'm going to give the film not 10 out of 10, but 9. I won't say I'm prejudiced, but her stiffness and unnaturalness made Edney hate even more than she deserved. Kate Hudson didn't even help the director's genius. In her place would look much better, say, Natalie Dormer, who is able to play everything - and arrogant, and repentant, and flirty, and chaste.
The battle scenes, as is typical of Shekhar Kapoor, are very natural - no unnatural heroism, a terrible meat grinder on the battlefield, chaos, fear and death. Heroes, even the main ones, are also injured - nothing like Steven Seagal's characters. Sudan, its fortresses and desert really seem like hell.
The script, even if it is an adaptation of the novel, even if it is not the first adaptation, not like anything, not trivial. Music just rips out the soul with hot forceps.
After watching, I said to myself, this is one of those films after which you are not the same as before.
9 out of 10
I didn’t watch the movie, only read the wiki description and reviews. It is idiocy to make a man go to war and shame him for avoiding war. Wars are not for your beloved country, but for your colony. The colony clearly desires independence and has the right to do so. And throughout the film, this spineless man washes away the shame of his refusal to go to war. He risked his life in the war, showed courage there, but for some reason he did not have the courage to go against society, defending his desire to live as he wants, and not risk his life for the sake of the imperial ambitions of politicians.
About the friends he supposedly had to get out of his ass. They chose to go to war, he could try to dissuade them from going to war. But risking their lives for those who deliberately choose to risk their lives is also idiocy. The main character also chose such friends, so they are close to him, as well as their beliefs. The main character did not even try to go against these idiocy of society.
I wouldn’t pay attention to it if there was something else in the film, if it wasn’t the main idea of the film – stupidity, devaluing life, cowardice.
No doubt it's the best thing I've seen lately! And not only recently, but in general "Four Feathers" of those paintings that every moviegoer should see.
I have no words to describe this film. It is about friendship, about duty, about devotion, about dignity, loyalty and love. It is about the things we should not forget.
Harry considered himself a coward because he was afraid to go to war. But the brave is not the one who does not feel fear, but the one who despite fear goes into battle. Harry proved to everyone, especially to himself, that he was not a coward. He did everything for his friends. I admire this character. Heath Ledger played him incomparably, giving him a special charm.
The video in the film is wonderful (if I may say so) - an endless desert, sandstorms ...
I could not watch this movie without tears, it caused a lot of emotions and emotions in me.
And here's what I want to say, Four Feathers reminded me of The Shawshank Escape. Yes, I know that these are completely different in plot and subject films, but they have such similarities as: excellent cinematography and directing, perfect production; suffering of the protagonist, drama and despite this-happy ending.
10 out of 10
That's a great movie! Four Feathers is a noble and powerful military drama about courage. Whether in battle or in life, courage in everything.
From the first minutes it becomes clear that a simple script for such a big movie would not be enough. As it turned out, the film is based on a novel (it would be interesting to read). A kind of classical bookiness passes through the narrative with a red invisible thread, it is felt at a subconscious level.
Someone will argue that the Four Feathers is full of pathos, but why listen to the offended minority? Paphos and the power of superb film adaptation are two completely different things. For some reason, people associate pathos now with Hollywood and its big projects - in my opinion, it is stupid to reason so.
Sorry, distracted. So, “Four Feathers” refers to a number of films from which it is literally impossible to break away. Throughout the session, you do not notice the time - and after all, the session lasts two hours, not everyone will tolerate even relatively long films for more than an hour and a half without distraction. But it was worth it. All one hundred and twenty-five minutes the viewer stays in the filmed book, completely and completely, because everything is recreated extremely strongly. The director managed to show human feelings and the influence of fate at the most impressive level. Each character (and the extra as an individual) plays an important role in the plot, among which there are no weak or relative characters. I liked all the actors, especially Heath Ledger and Wes Bentley, because their pitch is extremely deep in the direction. Only here is a little disappointed except that Kate Hudson: maybe it’s just not her role.
There is nothing superfluous in the film: some moments are deliberately missed, they say, the viewer has already thought and guessed. Indeed, otherwise they would surely have delayed obvious episodes that did not exist, although they were implied. Therefore, an excellent effect of the aforementioned “big Hollywood cinema” is created, when it was still able to shoot not too, so to speak, patchwork and with an open claim to leadership in a number of other films.
Is there anything else to say about the story? It cannot be described in two words: it is a saga on various eternal themes, like honor, duty, conscience, war, friendship, love, justice, as I have already said – courage. This is a magnificent drama, not always smooth and smooth, but justified any positive hopes.
Such paintings are discussed, revised and remembered ...
England, late 19th century. A regiment of the Royal Guard is sent to war with local tribes in one of the many British colonies - Sudan. But Harry F. is resigning. He never wanted to be in the military. He's scared. Harry receives white feathers from his three friends and girlfriend, a sign that he is a traitor and a coward, and his father, a military general, no longer wants to know him. He couldn’t live with it and live with it. Harry is going to Sudan.
Heath Ledger is a genius. Many, mercilessly many experiences fell to the lot of his character, and he managed, transmitted, showed all this to the viewer. And this scene is at the end! When, after escaping, Harry fights with his overseer, and being on the verge of death suddenly crosses the line that separates the human in people, from the wild, animal, unbridled, which can no longer be stopped until it has escaped, and then either victory at any cost or death ... There was a similar scene in 28 Days Later, if you remember. There, Killian Murphy’s character also reached this point. And crossed it.
Jimon Hons liked it. Calm, cold-blooded, with a necklace of teeth around his neck. A look.
The main idea of the film was expressed, perhaps, in the final speech of Jack, Harry's friend: "In the heat of battle, you can forget about the idea you are fighting for, about the flag, but you always know that you are fighting for the one on the left ... fighting for the one on the right ..." And when armies dissipate, when empires disintegrate, all that remains is the memory of the precious moments that we were shoulder to shoulder.
A good, high-quality, spectacular film about war, friendship, duty and what does not happen, no matter what fears you are tormented - you need to fight to the end.
8 out of 10