6/10
Probably watered down, but ends up affirming "empire"
23 June 2003
I was looking forward to seeing this film, but was quite disappointed in the end. What starts out as "why should the queen of England care about a desert" (not an actual quote), ends up as "it turns out we didn't go to war for queen and country, we went there to be with our friends". Now, call me a stickler, but football seems a better way to bond than slaughtering those who fight to get the colonials out of their homeland.

The Four Feathers attempts to show that Africans aren't savages and that colonisation in the name of God was the slaughter of the innocent, unjustified and racist, but this message came across so strongly that a woman in my cinema applauded when the main character killed an African man whose entire family had been killed by the British. The one African who is portrayed as a hero is characterised as being an acception to the Muslims who, in fighting the British, were justifiably killed.

It shows that the British were out of their league when fighting the war against the Sudanese, but there is no line or action toward the end that shows the English soldiers being dissillusioned about fighting. I accept that to keep the authenticity the English army can't turn around and become pacifists because colonial wars are unjust, but you'd think the message that the Sudanese were fighting for homeland would come across to counter-balance the celebration of empire.

The scenery is absolutely beautiful and the contrasts drawn between Sudan and England are well done. The acting is good enough, but I feel sorry for Djimon Hounsou, who gets called on to appear in movies like Amistad, Gladiator and the Four Feathers whenever a "true black" is needed. He's a very good actor, so it's a shame that he is typecast, and also that roles for him appear so rarely.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed