The Four Feathers 2002

Glenn Lovell, San Jose Mercury News: Nicely sidesteps the book's musty perspective as it weaves a rousing good action saga that, in stretches, almost matches the scope and grandeur of Zulu and the acclaimed 1939 British Four Feathers. Read more

Ty Burr, Boston Globe: As moth-eaten as a Bengal tiger rug on the floor of a London men's club. Read more

Terry Lawson, Detroit Free Press: Every bit as enthralling, exciting and inspiring as Korda's film -- and maybe even better. Read more

Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: What The Four Feathers lacks is genuine sweep or feeling or even a character worth caring about. Read more

Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper: Ledger does a great job in the action sequences and the more tender scenes. Read more

Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: It's beautifully done, but there's not much of a point to it. Read more

Susan Stark, Detroit News: There's no denying the physically spectacular qualities of the film ... or the emotional integrity of the performances. Read more

Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: Director Kapur is a filmmaker with a real flair for epic landscapes and adventure, and this is a better film than his earlier English-language movie, the overpraised Elizabeth. Read more

Elvis Mitchell, New York Times: The picture's wheezing fussiness and devotion to the British empire and its minor nods to questioning unthinking loyalty to an ideal make The Four Feathers a possible first of a kind: a movie that's halfhearted about ambivalence. Read more

Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Just take it for what it is -- action-filled, saber-rattling escapism. Read more

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: Director Shekhar Kapur and screenwriters Michael Schiffer and Hossein Amini have tried hard to modernize and reconceptualize things, but the barriers finally prove to be too great. Read more

Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader: Read more

Bruce Westbrook, Houston Chronicle: The Four Feathers has rewards, from the exoticism of its seas of sand to the fierce grandeur of its sweeping battle scenes. Read more

Paul Clinton (CNN.com), CNN.com: Unfortunately, this epic saga, so grounded in Victorian manners, has not aged well. Read more

Steven Rosen, Denver Post: Weighted down with slow, uninvolving storytelling and flat acting. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Starts out well, but then it seems to restart, over and over again. Read more

Rick Groen, Globe and Mail: What a featherweight epic this is, the kind of uniformed period piece where the watchword is pretty. Pretty costumes, pretty soldiers, pretty battles; pretty silly. Read more

Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News: Its battle scenes are dynamic, its pageantry spectacular and its characters appealing. Read more

Chuck Wilson, L.A. Weekly: Adrift, Bentley and Hudson stare and sniffle, respectively, as Ledger attempts, in vain, to prove that movie-star intensity can overcome bad hair design. Read more

John Anderson, Newsday: It's an essentially stupid movie. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: The story fails to build and drive forward the way it should. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: The characters are so feckless, the coincidences so blatant and the movie so innocent of any doubts about the White Man's Burden that Kipling could have written it. Read more

Charles Taylor, Salon.com: For all of the contemporary post-colonialist consciousness that Kapur tries to bring to The Four Feathers, the oddest thing about the movie is how it winds up affirming the same damn moldy values the material has always held dear. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: A spectacular-looking film, but its ambivalent story and viewpoint ultimately drag it down. Read more

Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune: Read more

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Read more

Peter Howell, Toronto Star: What's missing, crucially, is the passion required to make this unlikely tale work. Read more

Time Out: Read more