Video Sources 0 Views

  • Watch
  • Source 1123movies
  • Source 2123movies
  • Source 3123movies
The Four Feathers 2002 123movies

The Four Feathers 2002 123movies

Freedom. Country. Honor. Passion. To save his best friend, one man must risk everything he loves.Sep. 08, 2002132 Min.
Your rating: 0
6 1 vote


Watch: The Four Feathers 2002 123movies, Full Movie Online – Harry Feversham is a British Army officer. When his regiment is sent to fight in the Sudan, he resigns his commission. His three closest friends and fellow officers view him as a coward and each send him a white feather, a symbol of cowardice. His fiancée has the same view and does the same. Humiliated by this, Feversham sets off to the Sudan to redeem his honour..
Plot: The story, set in 1885, follows a British officer (Heath Ledger) who resigns his post when he learns of his regiment’s plan to ship out to the Sudan for the conflict with the Mahdi. His friends and fiancée send him four white feathers which symbolize cowardice. To redeem his honor he disguises himself as an Arab and secretly saves the lives of those who branded him a coward.
Smart Tags: #sudan #imperialism #male_nudity #nudity #epic #whipping #sex #fiance_fiancee_relationship #naked_dead_man #british_empire #blindness #locker_room #love_interest #bayonet_charge #bayonet_fight #anti_war #london_england #painted_hall_old_naval_college_greenwich_london #19th_century #epic_war #epic_romance

Find Alternative – The Four Feathers 2002, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day


6.5/10 Votes: 34,469
42% | RottenTomatoes
49/100 | MetaCritic
N/A Votes: 466 Popularity: 9.11 | TMDB


Highly Underrated
The Four Feathers was a film that didn’t receive much public interest or anticipation when released in 2002. I didn’t even hear of the film until it was being advertised on STARZ as a new release on the network. I decided to flick it on not expecting much but was pleasantly surprised by the film.

Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) is the son of a British war hero. Along with his friends, he is among the top officers being shipped to the Sudan where rebellion has broken out. Harry, unlike his friends, doesn’t want to be a soldier and resigns his post. After receiving four white feathers from his friends and fiancée he decides to head to the Sudan to help his doomed friends.

The acting is top notch with Wes Bentley, Heath Ledger, and Djimon Hounsou in leading roles. The setting of the deserts of the Sudan is brilliant used in the film. The battle scenes aren’t overdone and are emotionally charged. The film surprised me, with having such a great story, great acting, and great filming, I was disappointed to see it didn’t get better from the critics and public.

Take my word for it, The Four Feathers is a worth see adventure/drama.

The Four Feathers. Starring: Heath Ledger, Wes Bentley, Djimon Hounsou, and Kate Hudson.

3 1/2 out of 5 Stars.

Review By: mOVIemAN56
This director doesn’t know what a square is for – SOME SPOILERS
This movie should have had SO much going for it. A top rated if somewhat revisionistic director whose first big effort in the west, Elizabeth, certainly made me look up and take notice. A pair of strong male leads whose work in films like American Beauty and The Knights Tale certainly wasn’t shabby. Superb production values. And some research certainly went into it as shown by the introduction which references Sir Henry Newbolt’s famous poem of Victorian and Edwardian youth and manhood going into battle as if they were going to a football match.

Then, as they say in the Victorian army, ‘it all went ‘orribly wrong’.

SOME SPOILERS BELOW The history behind this director’s chosen period – the first Gordon relief expedition – certainly has more than enough adventure and drama to it, particularly when one considers that not only does Newbolt immortalize it in Vitai Lampada but so does Kipling with his ‘Fuzzy Wuzzy’ who, indeed, did nearly break the legendary British squares at the battles of Abu Klea and Tamai.

Someone, however, needs to explain to this director what a SQUARE FORMATION is and what it does. This is more than just a military nerd’s nitpicking it is – and one sees this at the party scene toward the start – a KEY ELEMENT in the narrative. The officers of the Royal Cumbrians ‘form square’ to create a nice little romantic space for the romantic leads but what’s never explained – probably because the director doesn’t get it – is that a square formation is key against both cavalry (as at Waterloo) and native warriors (as at Ulundi and the Sudan) because A SQUARE CANNOT BE FLANKED. You cannot ‘get behind’ a square and stab the hapless infantryman in the back because another face of the square is guarding the back. As such this formation, outdated on European battlefields where long-range rifle fire and more accurate cannons could mangle these squares at range, was key for fighting less technologically advanced or cavalry heavy enemies.

Now a square is ridiculously vulnerable to fire – logically a shot that hits one guy at one face of the square will hit someone on the opposite face. Infantry cannot stand in square for long as ranged fire will cut them down until there are too few men standing to maintain the formation. Thus the next thing that the director doesn’t get comes into play – COMBINED ARMS. A square can stand IF it has artillery – sometimes outside as at Waterloo, sometimes at the corners as at Ulundi and the Sudan to shoot up attackers at range. And the British infantry had a wonderful new piece of artillery with them in the Sudan – the Machine Gun. When speaking of the colonial wars, one British politico remarked, “Whatever happens, we’ve got the Maxim gun and they don’t”.

Problem is, after referencing the Newbolt poem the director FORGETS the central stanza with its reference to ‘The Gatling’s Jammed and the Colonel’s Dead’. This was one reason why the Brit squares were nearly broken on occasion by the fanatical Dervishes – the machine guns would sometimes jam, if fired too fast or if it got too hot or sand got into the mechanism, etc.

Toward the end of the battle the surviving British officer orders the soldiers to break formation and retreat. This totally ruined it for me. NO British officer in their right mind would be so stupid – sheer logic dictates that one REMAIN in formation as long as possible as a retreat, every man for himself, would lead to the utter destruction of the unit. Even the surrounded British companys at Isandhlwana fought back to back until they were utterly overwhelmed. By rights the entire regiment should have been eliminated to a man.

Well, that’s the military side of things.

The actors are way too politically correct. Like it or not Victorians WERE racist in their attitudes to ‘lesser breeds without the law’ and no British officer would have hesitated to shoot a man who fired on his troops – the sharpshooter would have been shot down like a dog without a second thought. No explanation is really given for the political situation and one gets the impression that these are transplanted American GI’s in Fallujah trying to win hearts and minds rather than British redcoats in the Sudan.

The speech of Durrance at the end was ludicrous and long and given the lack of emotion throughout the movie, never had a snowball’s chance in hell of stirring up emotion for the man on the right (or left).

The editing was choppy – particularly toward the end when the couple are walking out of the barracks. The soldiers drilling in the background jump-cut all over the place.

The film, for all the redcoats and ‘jolly good old boy’ accents NEVER invokes the Victorian era in manners or morals. The director just does NOT get the heart of the film that at this time courage, honour and all those things which we consider effete and stupid today were actually cherished – at least until the carnage of WW1 showed them to be idols with feet of clay.


As a film it’s overblown, revisionist and Kate Hudson is horribly miscast. There are many fine British and Commonwealth actresses – why Kate? Just because Almost Famous made her flavour of the month? This film was about as Victorian as Shanghai Knights. No Gunga Din, Zulu or Man Who Would Be King, this one. Spare yourself the agony and expense and watch one of the above three instead of this rotten egg of a picture.

Review By: teacher_tom516

Other Information:

Original Title The Four Feathers
Release Date 2002-09-08
Release Year 2002

Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 12 min (132 min), 2 hr 5 min (125 min) (Toronto International) (Canada)
Budget 35000000
Revenue 29882645
Status Released
Rated PG-13
Genre Action, Adventure, Drama
Director Shekhar Kapur
Writer A.E.W. Mason, Michael Schiffer, Hossein Amini
Actors Heath Ledger, Wes Bentley, Kate Hudson
Country United Kingdom, United States
Awards N/A
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix DTS, Dolby Digital
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Panavision E-Series Lenses, Panavision Panastar, Panavision E-Series Lenses
Laboratory DeLuxe, Hollywood (CA), USA
Film Length 3,601 m (Sweden)
Negative Format 35 mm (Eastman EXR 50D 5245, EXR 100T 5248, Kodak Vision 320T 5277, EXR 200T 5293, EXR 500T 5298)
Cinematographic Process Panavision (anamorphic)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision 2383)

The Four Feathers 2002 123movies
The Four Feathers 2002 123movies
The Four Feathers 2002 123movies
The Four Feathers 2002 123movies
The Four Feathers 2002 123movies
The Four Feathers 2002 123movies
The Four Feathers 2002 123movies
Original title The Four Feathers
TMDb Rating 6.594 466 votes

Similar titles

The King’s Daughter 2022 123movies
Threesome 1994 123movies
Out of Bounds 2011 123movies
Jurassic School 2017 123movies
Captain America: The First Avenger 2011 123movies
The Tenant 2011 123movies
My Foolish Heart 2018 123movies
Almost Holy 2015 123movies
Get the Girl 2017 123movies
Like Water for Chocolate 1992 123movies
Dinner in America 2022 123movies
Glass 2019 123movies 123movies