|
| . |
|
The Four Feathers 2002 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
PG-13, 127 min. (battle sequences, disturbing images, violence) |
 |
Starring: Heath Ledger, Wes Bentley, Kate Hudson, Djimon Hounsou, Michael Sheen
Producers: Robert D. Jaffe, Stanley R. Jaffe, Martz Katz
Screenplay: Michael Schiffer, Hossein Amini
Cinematography: Robert Richardson
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Released: 9.20.02 (Wide) |
Rating:
 (out of ) |
The Four Feathers, the latest film from Shekhar Kapur (Elizabeth), is beautiful to look at and can be admired for its
good intentions, but is eventually sunk by a tepid storyline and some cliché-riddled acting. The proceedings are
so reminiscent of the masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia, I thought I might be seeing a sort of remake or even sequel to
the definitive desert war film. Alas, it wasn't to be. Kapur has shown great talent in his previous films in portraying
conflicted characters surrounded by impossible circumstances. Here, however, his touch is tarnished by a script that
strains credibility by focusing on a trivial love triangle that is as uninteresting as it is superficial. Let's hope Kapur rebounds
from this mild disappointment soon.
The story centers around the British Empire's volatile hold on their interests in the Sudan circa 1884. Back in England,
Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) and Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley), both lieutenants in the Royal Cumbrian Regiment,
share a spirited friendship and a love for the lovely Ethne Eustace (Kate Hudson). Though Harry wins Ethne's hand, his
apparent cowardice by resigning his commission just prior to being sent to war in Sudan garners him the legendary white
"Four Feathers" - a mark of cowardice. Now he must prove his worth to himself by traveling to Africa, becoming an Arab,
and hoping to make amends to his friends stationed there. His journey to redemption is made possible by a mysterious
native, Abou Fatma (Djimon Hounsou), who saves his life on more than one occasion.
The Four Feathers endeavors to be epic, but instead resembles a feeble teenage episode-of-the-week one might find
on MTV. Of course, when Harry goes missing and is presumed dead, Jack steps in to "console" Ethne, who still
secretly longs for Harry. Though Harry eventually makes amends for his pusillanimity, his journey to manhood through
trials of affliction is a bit over-the-top. If not for some first-rate cinematography from Robert Richardson, the picture
would be more or less pointless. Richardson captures some wonderful scenes of contrast between the reds in British
uniforms and the arid, cruel desert sands of Africa. He's obviously studied the pictures of Lawrence of Arabia.
There are some highlights however. The battle sequences are well done and effective if not spectacular. British army
tactics of the era are interesting, especially the "four squares" method of defense. The film's treatment and examination
of the Sudanese people at the time is moving. The life of a slave is no easy thing, as defined by Harry's stay at a prison
camp that is cramped full of humanity, all moaning and eagerly awaiting death as a salve to their neverending suffering.
Finally, Hounsou's strong performance is easily the film's best, as he brings a weight and "outside perspective" to the
picture's seemingly endless wandering from point A to B. Hounsou has found similar success in films such as Amistad and
Gladiator as a friend or victim who is an unflappable symbol of pride and courage.
Aside from its many flaws, The Four Feathers features no British actors in its cast. Bentley and Hudson are Americans,
and Ledger is Australian. I find it curious that Kapur either caved to studio demands or simply left casting to someone
else. Whatever the reason, the film is crippled before it has a chance to get started. This is not a knock on the three
actors in question, but merely an observation in the credibility department. As it is, the film may be best viewed on video with
the volume turned down and the vibrant pictures shown a big screen TV.
© 2002 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
 | Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
