MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Four Feathers’ needs more fly
This self-proclaimed next “Lawrence of Arabia” could not match the original’s tenacity and presence, but “The Four Feathers” had a sweeping grandeur and simple story that attempts to make it an epic in its own right.
It almost succeeded, but got too caught up in its own teenage sex appeal to really soar.
The story follows Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) as a soldier in the British army who resigns when his regiment is called to go to war in the Sudan. Three of his friends each give him a white feather – a sign of cowardice. His fiancée, Ethne (Kate Hudson), gives him another, and Faversham decides to travel to the Sudan incognito in an attempt to recover his lost self-worth by helping his friends. Wes Bentley plays Lt. Jack Durrance, Faversham’s best friend who falls in love with the estranged Ethne.
The story is one that travels the road of self-redemption, but it also addresses the questions of cultural clashes, imperialism and the things people will do to maintain their place as part of the status quo. Faversham ran from his fears in an attempt to avoid them. In the end he had to not only face those fears, but the ones he had never dreamed of in his quest to prove his courage to the “friends” who branded him a coward.
Ledger fit the part as a pampered Englishman unsure of his place in life living in the shadow of his father. Hudson is just the opposite, an actress making a place for herself in the world. Sure she is Goldie Hawn’s daughter, but the “Almost Famous” star holds her own in this film. However, it is very obvious they were both cast to try and bring in the younger audience to this often re-filmed story (four times now to
be exact).
This is a good story, and with some depth to it, would have been a good film. As it was, the shallow storytelling and sacrifice of high-quality actors for high-profile “names” was a bad choice. We never really get to understand or sympathize with Bentley’s character, which is too bad considering he was the best actor in the film. His talents were mainly wasted here.
Don’t get me wrong, this wasn’t an awful movie by any means. It was a beautifully designed film, and the story of self-worth lost and regained is a familiar one. The film itself is worth seeing, if only for a greater appreciation of what England’s imperialistic nature cost them and those they tried to subject. Just don’t expect the depth and scope of “Lawrence of Arabia” or you’ll find yourself in the desert of cinematic disappointment thirsting for a good flick.
Jared Sterzer is a senior majoring in business information systems. Comments can be sent to jwsterz@cc.usu.edu.