User Reviews

Colorful but episodic in nature, this second version of the novel is well photographed but slow-moving and often empty in nature. It deals with Beau Bridges as the son of a famous General (Harry Andrews) who decides he doesn't want to serve in the Army in the war against the Sudan and is branded a coward. He ends up disguising himself as a Muslim, ends up in battle and is in prison, reunited with one of his old pals (Robert Powell), finally able to prove his courage. They makes it back home where they confronts the past ridicule for carrying a secret, one blind and the other dealing with his aging still embittered father.

Great color photography and beautiful costumes and a nice musical score makes this worth watching for the technical achievements, but the film is often slow and tedious, with a romantic subplot featuring Jane Seymour that really has no spark. The courage doesn't only come from standing for what he believes in, but taking the risks in private afterwards and eventually having the courage to face those who didn't respect him. These many elements of the story aren't always very clear, and the film is less emotionally exciting than it could have been with better development. A bigger version later on and the original version took difference steps with the story's themes, and they are all worth seeing 9f not classics.

Let me preface this by saying I'm not advocating a political position, just critiquing the events of this movie through the lens of effective storytelling and human nature. I found it hard to believe in or root for this Harry, who is both written and acted weakly.

Contrary to one other review, this is NOT the story of "a guy torn between love and duty". All Harry's loved ones (including the girl for whom he's ostensibly staying behind) are unanimously on the side of duty. He isn't a philosophical or religious pacifist, admirer of the native culture, or Muslim convert. He doesn't fail or chafe at soldier tasks; he excels at them (not just on the drillfield, but later when he kills without pause). Favorable reviewers make much of him getting out from under his father's thumb, though he has no discernable passion of his own (business, politics, charity) and seems quite content continuing to reap the bounty of his military-aristocratic family without working for it. In summary, there is no conflict - just a bowl-haired, self-indulgent Me Generation kid whining "But I don't wanna!" The closest he gets to voicing "his side" is when he snickers about "planting a flag for the Empire" - not a principled denunciation of imperialism, mind you, just the ridicule of a punk who thinks everything "They" teach was put on this Earth for his amusement. Very 70s, very "M.A.S.H." - but not the least bit believably Victorian.

He changes his mind overnight, reemphasizing that there's no principled stand and it's all because he's more scared of the feathers than he was of the war. That, and the fact that he shadows his own regiment, also makes the whole "gone native" plot to regain his honor (as opposed to just rejoining the Army) contrived and pointless - as opposed to other versions where he infiltrates the enemy, etc.

The battle scene is also contrived: Harry wants to warn the Brits, who are about to be ambushed. "But you'd have to ride through all the Dervishes!" Simply firing a shot before they closed their trap would have accomplished the same result, possibly also confusing the attackers, rather than pointlessly getting shot down immediately (albeit recovering a minute later, because he's the main character!).

Does Harry's shame at least inspire growth? He succeeds in his quest, mostly through the aid of faithful guide Abou Fatma (the real hero), who ends up accomplishing 90% of "Harry's" tasks. As if to emphasize Harry's unreformed spinelessness, he drifts in and out of consciousness after a few hours in prison, while Capt. Trench (who's "been standing up for seven months", starved and tortured) is lucid and sitting upright.

Love story? Jane Seymour hates herself for rejecting the man who scorned their supposedly shared values (though not because he had any of his own).

Period details vary from bogus to superb. Robert Powell excels (as always) as a somewhat complex character who wavers amid loss and temptation, but finds his honor in the end.

Anyone who has seen the 1939 version of "The Four Feathers" will be totally disappointed with this offering. The cast does try to instill some compassion for this story of a coward show redeems himself. Very poor performances by all involved. Jane Seymore is not in the same acting performance as June Dupree. And Beau Bridges is almost amusing as Harry Faversham. Very disappointing movie. The only thing worst than this is the 2001 release. That was awful! I remember seeing the 1939 version as a small boy growing up in Detroit. This was and has always been my all time favorite movie. The color was outstanding. The battle scenes were the finest ever filmed. The main characters showed why the English were the best when doing drama and romance.