I'll post a long review momentarily, but until then, here are a few quick thoughts.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Four Feathers
Kirasjeri — 23 years ago(September 21, 2002 03:25 AM)
I'll post a long review momentarily, but until then, here are a few quick thoughts.
This version bears NO similarity in plot to the 1939 classic, other than the basic concept. It is not even the same time frame: this new one is set in 1885, not 1898. By the latter date, uniforms and weaponry were quite different.
There is only one battle scene, and although adequate it is not as good as any of the three battle scenes in the 1939 classic. The original was a much bigger production.
This new version bends over backwards to "humanize" the natives, but never even discusses why the British were there: protect the Suez Canal and end slavery in the Sudan.
There are various minor errors and anomalies that generally detract from the realism for those looking closely. But not too bad.
The romantic element is much longer than in the classic version.
The classic scene at the banquet table with C. Aubrey Smith as the old general is gone.
In conclusion, I was disappointed, perhaps as I so love the original. But if you haven't seen it this version may satisfy you.
More later. -
Blinkiegirl — 23 years ago(September 22, 2002 09:39 PM)
I agree with you, Tom, since the wonderful 1939 version with John Clements & the inimitable Ralph Richardson (my personal fave from that version!) simply can't be matched, let alone surpassed. That said, I was still able to enjoy watching it and am sad to see it basically universially panned by critics. My main thoughts:
*In my opinion, the character of Jack Durrance suffers most by the unevenness of the editing. In "1939", we were allowed to see a truly good friend who was 100% soldierthink of his awakening in the tent, blind and confused, yet every bit the officer and gentleman that he was. Flash to his ultimate decision re: Ethne, and again, we are permitted to absolutely KNOW what is going on inside him and truly appreciate his nobility and courage. "2002" gives us no such opportunityhe just sort of drifts away.Maybe those were some of the scenes that ended up being snipped.
*The most confusing character??? Abou, definitely. Don't get me wrongDjimon Hounsou was fabulous! But reallyI read one review that said that his character should've been named "Deus Ex Machina", since that was his main function. I just didn't get his character.
*This new version gives us so much more "internal Harry", which is probably just because we are willing to see emotionally conflicted men in 2002, which (we all know) was something that neither filmmakers nor the movie-going public were into in 1939.
*This disjointedness of the second half of the film was disappointing. From what I've read, much editing was required because of the execs' beliefs that we just can't handle anything much more than 2 hours. Based on the lengthy shooting schedule, there's got to be more movie somewhere. I'm hoping that when the DVD is released (maybe extended scenes, or a director's cut, or whatever they may choose to call it) the numerous gaps will be filled and the charactersand the entire storymade more complete. -
Kirasjeri — 23 years ago(September 23, 2002 02:53 AM)
You are absolutely right. Clearly a lot was left on the editing room floor effecting character development for the worse. But, with a lot less action, it was still slightly "talky". Add another good battle, and a little more plot, say 20-24 minutes, and it would have been better.
The Faked Death scene at the end was contrived and derivative. I've seen it before, and it was a far cry from the battle in Omdurman in "1939". And the fight where Harry is almost beaten to death but then suddenly comes back to life was some corny stuff Van Damme would have pulled.
The review in the NY Post was quite good. -
curmudgeon0 — 23 years ago(September 22, 2002 11:37 PM)
I haven't seen the 2002 version yet, but I can clear up some of Tom-379's objection. I've just read the A.E.W. Mason novel, and this new version is apparently seriously based on the book, not on the 1939 Hollywood film, which bears almost no relation to it.
The book's story starts in the early 1880s, not 1898. It has NO battle scenes at all; the battle of Tamai, where the Dervishes broke the British square, is only mentioned in passing, as the battle in which Castleton was killed. In the 1939 movie it's a pivotal scene, in which Harry Faversham (Feversham in the book)rescues Jack Durrance, who is blind. The 1939 film's scenes with C. Aubrey Smith as General Burroughs, Ethne Burroughs' father, are wholly invented for the film; in the book she was Ethne Eustace, from Ireland, and her father was not a military man. The book is a psychological study of relationships and the development of self-knowledge in the characters, not a blood-and-thunder adventure story, and the new film apparently draws much more on Mason's novel than the 1939 Korda film did.
I can't wait to see it (not that I don't love the hokey old 1939 film). -
Kirasjeri — 23 years ago(September 23, 2002 03:00 AM)
. . .The book is a psychological study of relationships and the development of self-knowledge in the characters, not a blood-and-thunder adventure story, and the new film apparently draws much more on Mason's novel than the 1939 Korda film did.. . <<
Ah ha! Interesting.
Seems like Mason wrote a nice novel - and the Kordas knew exactly how to turn it into a cinema classic. Too bad the 2002 version wasn't more faithful to the Kordas than Mason.
Still, a nice movie this 2002 version. But little idiocies such as not firing your artillery until the enemy is just yards away is too dumb for words.
I'll submit a review today. -
Blinkiegirl — 23 years ago(September 25, 2002 11:59 PM)
After reading your post, curmudgeon0, I was curious about the book. Being a lover of the '39 version, I was interested to hear that it didn't really follow the bookthat being the case, the '02 version isn't really a remake of the old movie, but a new treatment of the book. I found the novel online at http://www.blackmask.com/books33c/fourfeathers.htm#1_0_13 (sorry, I don't know how to do it so it's a link, and my son who is my 'puter teacher is asleep!). Anyway, I just finished ityeah, yeah, yeah, it IS 2:52AM and I DO have to be at work at 8:30AMIt's excellent, and you are correct. It's much less focused on the military aspect and is, I think, equally about the spiritual and emotional journeys of both Harry and Jack. Thanks for the info!
-
Nergon — 23 years ago(October 08, 2002 02:26 PM)
I just wanted to put my 2 cents inI've read everyone's comments here in IMDB on the movie and found them to be educational. I have not seen the 1939 film version of the story nor have I read the book. I am a generation X'er who has recently developed a great respect for old, classic movies and an addiction to the Turner Classic Movies channel.
Classics such has Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Roman Holiday, and many others which I would have quickly shunned as boring ten years ago have become some of my favorite movies and it saddens me that a good majority of modern movies lack the personality, charm, and intelligence that these classics are so rich with. Instead Hollywood generates billions every year with what I have seen referred to as "Hollywood fast food."
The Four Feathers was a rare exception in my opinion. It had the charm and personality that makes a movie dear to someone. As a man who has never served in the military or had to face the surely terminal prospect of going to war, I found this story to be very moving. I was excited to see it on opening day and saddened to see that it did not open at #1 in the box office that weekend. Up to now it's only made 15 million dollars, of course an unreal amount of money, but not in terms of movies these days. Red Dragon opened at more than twice this amount in it's first weekend and is sure to make much more than this film.
So, if there are any other Gen X'ers (or younger) out there, give this movie a shot and take a long look at the content of movies that are popular blockbusters these days. It seems the studios have ALMOST forgotten how to make a classic. -
NCErinT — 23 years ago(January 09, 2003 09:03 PM)
To "Blinkiegirl," Thanks for the link blackmask looks like a really cool site. Do you know if that is the whole version of the book or if it is edited? It looks a little too short to be the whole book, but what do I know? I haven't seen the '39 or '02 version of the film OR found a copy of the book. I have just been wanting to read this story and was excited to see that it was online. Thanks again.
-
RyDawg — 22 years ago(December 20, 2003 02:33 AM)
this film lacks alot compared to the 1939 version. In this version, u dont feel he is betrayed and outcast by his friends as you do in the first. Mainly because he is cowardly in this version, he is scared of war.
also, he doesnt do a great job of saving people in this one, and when he returns u dont feel he has earned any respect or that his friends realise just how wrong they were.