"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" (2022) Review

 

"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" (2022) Review

Following the success of his 2019 murder mystery, "KNIVES OUT"; writer-director Rian Johnson created a standalone sequel called "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY". The movie starred Daniel Craig, who reprised his role as the Louisiana-born master detective, Benoit Blanc.

Set during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" . . . or "GLASS ONION" . . . featured Blanc solving a case that revolved around a tech billionaire named Miles Bron, owner and co-founder of the Alpha tech company, and his closest "friends" at the billionaire's private Greek island. The movie began with several of Bron's friends each receiving a wooden puzzle box to decipher to find an invitation inside - an invitation to a murder mystery game. The friends travel to Miles's island, along with companions for two of the guests. Famous detective Benoit Blanc joins them. Miles claimed he did not invite Blanc, but he allowed the latter to stay, assuming another guest sent him an invitation as a joke. Among those invited include:

*Alpha head scientist Lionel Toussaint
*Connecticut governor Claire Debell
*Controversial fashion designer and model Birdie Jay
*Birdie's personal assistant Peg
*Men's rights streamer Duke Cody
*Whiskey, Duke's girlfriend and Twitch channel assistant
*Ousted Alpha co-founder Cassandra "Andi" Brand

Not long after their arrival and before dinner, Miles showed off his valuable glass sculptures, as well as the Mona Lisa, which he has on loan from the Louvre to his guests. Miles also revealed that his mansion is powered by "Klear", a hydrogen-based alternative fuel that Alpha will launch imminently, despite Lionel and Claire's concerns that it is untested and dangerous. Blanc managed to solve Miles's murder mystery game immediately before it could barely start. But he privately warned Miles that his guests have motives to kill him. Before the first day could end, a murder occurred inside the mansion.

Once again, Rian Johnson utilized a social issue as a theme for his second murder mystery. In the case of "GLASS ONION", one would think the issue revolved around Birdie's casual racism or Duke's sexism. But the real issue seemed to be the character of Miles Bron. It did not take me long to realize that Johnson had based Miles on tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page. But many have claimed that the Miles Bron bore the strongest resemblance to the most publicized tech mogul - Elon Musk. This movie seemed more focused on condemning the tech mogul types and probably the Internet celebrities than simply focusing on the usual social issues. I am not criticizing Johnson for this, especially since many of these tech moguls have proven to be influential on society today. Perhaps too influential . . . and for better or worse. In the case of Miles Bron, the worse seemed more obvious.

Miles' impact on the major characters seemed to be more personal than political. Both Lionel and Claire find themselves being forced by Miles to endorse his new alternative fuel, Klear; despite their fears that is untested and dangerous. Such endorsement would endanger their reputations and careers. Birdie needs Miles' financial support for her fashion line following the revelation that her factories were basically sweatshops. And Duke hopes Miles will give him a show on the latter's Alpha News network. Unfortunately, Miles has developed a sexual interest in Whiskey, Duke's girlfriend. However, Johnson's screenplay seemed more interested in the negative portrayal of Miles as the typical tech billionaire than his connections to the movie's other major characters. And this emphasis on tech moguls like Miles Bron, despite being genuinely interesting and entertaining, seemed to have a less powerful message than the one used in 2019's "KNIVES OUT".

"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" featured some very interesting characters, who almost struck me as borderline cartoonish. Mind you, I thought some of the characters managed to avoid this slight cartoonish taint - especially Benoit, Andi Brand, Claire Debella and Lionel Toussaint. But I found some of the other characters slightly exaggerated, yet at the same time, entertaining. Whether I found their characters exaggerated or not, I cannot deny that this movie featured some first-rate performances. I did not have an issue with one performance in this film. Kathryn Hahn, Leslie Odom, Jr., Kate Hudson, Jessica Henwick, Madelyn Cline and Noah Segan all gave first-rate performances. The movie also featured entertaining cameos from the likes of Hugh Grant, Angela Landsbury, Ethan Hawke, Stephen Sondheim, Natasha Lyonne, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jake Tapper and Serena Williams. The movie even featured images of Jeremy Renner and Jared Leto on appear on bottles of hot sauce and kombucha. But there were performances that impressed just a bit more than others.

One of those performances came from Dave Baustista, who was not only surprisingly effective as the sexist Duke, but also managed to convey more layers behind what could have easily been a cartoonish character in the hands of a less talented actor. I realize many would find this hard to believe but I did find the Miles Bron character a bit exaggerated at times. But Edward Norton gave such a fabulous performance as the arrogant and self-involved Miles that his exaggeration almost seemed natural to me. Janelle Monáe managed to attract a great deal of positive reviews for her performance as "Andi" Brand. And I can see why. She gave a phenomenal performance as co-founder of Alpha, who seemed embittered by Miles' ouster of her, following her refusal to support his new alternative fuel, Klear. More importantly, Monáe did an excellent job in conveying her character's edgy and intense personality, which kept everyone else on edge . . . and wondering if she had changed. Not surprisingly, Daniel Craig gave a perfect performance in his second outing as the New Orleans-born private detective Benoit Blanc. Not only did he managed to tone down his Foghorn Leghorn routine from the first film, I found myself entertained by his conveyance of Blanc's reactions to the lunacy and shallowness of Miles and most of his fellow guests.

But as much as I had enjoyed the movie's narrative, I had a few issues. Once, since this movie was set in May 2020, were audiences really supposed to accept Miles' quickie COVID-19 cure as effective? Considering Blanc's opinion of the billionaire, I rather doubt it. I suspect that Blanc, Miles and the latter's guests were forced to monitor their health, following their departure from the island. When the party's first real victim dropped dead, I immediately knew the killer's identity. This aspect of "GLASS ONION" bore a strong resemblance to one or two of Agatha Christie's novels. Also, I had a problem with the movie's revelation scene after Blanc exposed the real killer. I wish I could go into details about why I found the writing for that scene very contrived, but I do not want to spoil the movie. Oh well. At least I was impressed by Bob Ducsay's editing, especially in the film's revelation scene; and Steve Yedlin's colorful photography of the Greek locations, especially in the movie's first twenty minutes or so.

Despite my few issues regarding "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY", I must admit that I still managed to enjoy it very much. The film benefited from Rian Johnson's screenplay and direction, along with first-rate performances from a cast led by Daniel Craig. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie very much. But I still believe "KNIVES OUT" was the superior film.

"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" (2022) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY", the 2022 sequel to the 2019 mystery film. Written and directed by Rian Johnson, the movie starred Daniel Craig:




"GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY" (2022) Photo Gallery

"MARSHALL" (2017) Review

“MARSHALL” (2017) Review

I have a confession. I had no interest in seeing the recent movie, “MARSHALL”, when I first heard about it. I thought it would turn out to be one of those solemn biography flicks about some “great man in history” and his struggles to become successful in his endeavors. But when I learned about the movie’s plot, I changed my mind and decided to see it. 

Directed by Reginald Hudlin, “MARSHALL” was about a “great man in history” – none other than the first African-American to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. However, this film focused on his position as a defense counselor for and director of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and his role in the 1941 case of “the State of Connecticut v. Joseph Spell”.

Following the successful end of a case in Oklahoma in 1941, NAACP defense attorney Thurgood Marshall returns to New York City for a rest. However, his rest and reunion with his wife, Vivien “Buster” Burey, is short-lived when NAACP Director Walter Francis White sends him to Bridgeport, Connecticut to defend Joseph Spell, a chauffeur accused of rape by his white employer, Eleanor Strubing. In order to get Marshall admitted to the local bar and defend Spell, a local member of the Bridgeport NAACP office tries to recruit an insurance attorney named Sam Friedman to help. However, Friedman is more interested in keeping his distance from the controversial case, until his brother Irwin coerces him into getting involved. Judge Foster a family friend of prosecutor Lorin Willis, agrees to admit Marshall to the local bar. But he forbids Marshall from speaking during the trial. This act forces Friedman to act as Spell’s lead counsel, while Marshall guides the former through the jury selection process and the actual trial. Judge Foster’s refusal to allow Marshall to speak proves to be the first of several stumbling blocks in his and Friedman’s efforts to defend Spell.

Despite the movie’s narrative, “MARSHALL” could have remained one of those stately biopics that usually ends up boring me senseless. Thanks to Reginald Hudlin’s direction and the screenplay written by Michael and Jacob Koskoff, the movie proved to be a lot different. Instead, “MARSHALL” proved to be a very interesting re-creation of the 1941 controversial case in which a black man is accused of raping a white woman. Stories or real life incidents involving interracial rape – especially that of white women – have been around for decades. Stories about racism in the U.S. South have been around for a long time, as well. However, I have also noticed that in recent years, Hollywood has turned its eye upon Northern racism, especially in the Northeast. In its portrayal of the “the State of Connecticut v. Joseph Spell” case, “MARSHALL”turned out to be one of those movies that exposed Northern racism.

I was also impressed by how the Koskoff brothers treated the Spell case as a legal mystery. Ironically, the movie did not begin with scenes that led to Joseph Spell’s arrest. I must admit that I had expected “MARSHALL” to begin with a sequence featuring vague details of the crime. Instead, it began with Thurgood Marshall finishing a case in Oklahoma. The audience learned about the Spell case around the same time Walter White assigned him to defend Joseph Spell. This led me to realize that the entire movie was told from the viewpoint of two people – Marshall and Sam Friedman. Some have criticized the movie for including Friedman as a leading character in the film. They believed this situation robbed the Thurgood Marshall character some of his agency as the film’s leading character, by having Friedman as a co-lead. Personally, I did not mind occasionally watching the film from Friedman’s point-of-view. I found it interesting. And to be honest, history itself set up this situation, due to the trial’s presiding judge refusing to recognize Marshall as Spell’s primary attorney.

However, dealing with a potentially hostile judge and a patronizing prosecutor, and being regulated to secondary attorney for the defense seemed to be a walk in the park for Marshall. He also has to deal with Bridgeport’s racially hostile citizens; pressure from the N.A.A.C.P. to successfully defend Spell; and Friedman, who turned out to be a reluctant and wary co-defender, worried about how his defense of Spell would affect his practice. Marshall also has to deal with Friedman’s lack of experience in criminal law. But the biggest roadblock proves to be Marshall’s growing suspicion that his client is lying about the latter’s relationship with the alleged victim. And I thought the movie did an excellent job keeping these aspects of the story balance, due to the Koskoffs’ screenplay and Hudlin’s direction.

I have a minor quibble regarding the movie. Although the movie made it plain that the N.A.A.C.P. regarded Marshall’s successful defense of Spell as a means to lure more donations for the agency, I believed that it ignored an even more important topic. A part of me wished that the movie had also touched upon Northern blacks’ feelings of being ignored by the agency and the latter’s illusion that most of American racism was focused in the South. Another reason why a “not guilty” for Spell was so important was to convey the message that confronting racism from the North and other parts of the country was just as important as confronting as Southern racism. But I get the feeling that the movie’s producers, writers and director were wary of approaching, let alone exploring this topic.

Considering that “MARSHALL” is not what one would consider a large budget film, I was impressed by its production values. Now I cannot say that any of the film’s technical details blew my mind. Well . . . perhaps two of them did. I found Newton Thomas Sigel’s cinematography colorful, sharp and lovely to look at. This seemed especially apparent in the film’s exterior shots. I also enjoyed Ruth E. Carter’s costume designs. Not only did I find them to be a close representation of fashion for both men and women in 1941, but they also seemed to be good representations of the major characters’ economic class. As for Richard Hoover’s production designs, Kara Lindstrom’s set decorations and Jeff Schoen’s art direction; I found satisfying, but not particularly memorable.

“MARSHALL” featured solid performances from supporting cast members like Jeffrey DeMunn, John Magaro, Zanete Shadwick, Derrick Baskin, Barrett Doss, Keesha Sharp, Rozanda Sharp, and Jeremy Bobb. Jussie Smollett gave a brief, yet subtle performance as the famous poet, Langston Hughes. And Roger Guenveur Smith was effectively commanding as N.A.A.C.P. director Walter White. Dan Stevens did an excellent job in conveying the patronizing and self-privileged prosecutor Loren Willis. James Cromwell gave a very interesting performance as Judge Foster. Although Cromwell managed to convey his character’s obvious bigotry, it seemed that some of his character’s decisions – including a willingness to allow Marshall to act as second chair for the defense – seemed to express the latter’s unwillingness to put Northern racism on display for the world to see. Kate Hudson’s portrayal of the alleged victim, Eleanor Strubing struck me as effectively ambiguous. Hudson did an excellent job in conveying mixed signals over her character. I felt anger over her character’s charges of rape against the defendant. Yet at the same time, I felt pity toward the character being an obvious victim of spousal abuse. Ironically, Sterling K. Brown also managed to effectively convey the ambiguity of his character, the defendant Joseph Spell. Now, one might wonder why I would regard Spell as an ambiguous character. Brown did an excellent job in expressing his character’s innocence. And yet, the actor also managed to convey the air that his character was lying to Marshall on a certain level.

I have seen Chadwick Boseman in three other films before “MARSHALL”. And I was impressed. But I felt a lot more impressed by his portrayal of Thurgood Marshall in this film. The actor did a superb job in conveying the different aspects of Marshall’s personality – his charisma, witty sense of humor, intelligence and more importantly, a slight perverse streak in his nature. Boseman was very subtle in expressing Marshall’s arrogance and slight tendency of needling . . . especially with Langston Hughes and Sam Friedman. Another first-rate performance came from Josh Gad, who portrayed Friedman, the man forced to act as Spell’s primary defender. I noticed that although Friedman seemed friendly with the head of Bridgeport’s N.A.A.C.P. office, he seemed very wary of helping Marshall with defending Spell. I understood this. He was worried how his participation in the case would look with his own clients and Bridgeport’s Jewish community. But I realized that if Friedman had truly been that racially tolerant at the time, he would not care . . . like his brother. This is why I found it very satisfying to watch Gad develop into that openly tolerant man who no longer cared about how others would regard his views on race and especially African-Americans.

I would never regard “MARSHALL” as one of the best movies of 2017. To be honest, I do not believe in any “best movies of the year” list. But I enjoyed “MARSHALL” so much that in the end, it became one of my favorite movies of that year. And I can thank director Reginald Hudlin, screenwriters Jacob and Michael Koskoff and an excellent cast led by the always talented Chadwick Boseman for making this film so enjoyable and fascinating for me.

"MARSHALL" (2017) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "MARSHALL", the 2017 biopic about an early legal case in the career of Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall. Directed by Reginald Hudlin, the movie stars Chadwick Boseman: 


"MARSHALL" (2017) Photo Gallery

"THE FOUR FEATHERS" (2002) Review

"THE FOUR FEATHERS" (2002) Review

To my knowledge, there have been seven cinematic versions of A.E.W. Mason’s 1902 adventure story, "THE FOUR FEATHERS". The first version was released in 1915 as a black-and-white silent film. The most famous and highly revered version was produced by legendary producer Alexander Korda in 1939. And the latest version – the focus of this review – was released in 2002. Heath Ledger, Kate Hudson and Wes Bentley starred in the film. And it was directed by Shekhar Kapur.

"THE FOUR FEATHERS" began with Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger), a young British officer of the Royal Cumbrians infantry regiment and the son of a stern British general, celebrating his recent engagement to the beautiful young Ethne (Kate Hudson) in a lavish ball with his fellow officers and his father in attendance. When the regimental colonel announced that the regiment is being dispatched to Egyptian-ruled Sudan to rescue the British general Charles "Chinese" Gordon (who was being besieged in Khartoum by Islamic rebels of The Mahdi), young Faversham became nervous and resigned his commission. After resigning his commission, Harry’s charmed life began to fall apart. Despite his claims that his decision to in order to stay in England with new fiancée because he would never "go to war for anyone or anything", three of his fellow officers – Tom Willoughby (Rupert Penry-Jones), Edward Castleton (Kris Marshall) and William Trench (Michael Sheen) censured Harry by delivery three white feathers (signs of cowardice). Ethne ended their engagement and presented him with a fourth feather. And both Harry’s best friend, Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley) and his father, General Faversham (Tim Piggott-Smith) disavowed him. With his former comrades already en route to the conflict, the young Faversham questioned his own true motives, and resolved to redeem himself through combat in Sudan. Disguised as an Arab laborer, he accompanied a French slave trader to take him deep into the Sudanese desert. Faversham is left alone in the vast sands when the slave trader is killed by his own Sudanese slaves. Eventually a lone black Sudanese warrior named Abou Fatma (Djimon Hounsou), who is against the Mahdists' rebellion, came to Harry’s aid and helped the latter redeem himself through combat against the Mahdists.

In the beginning, "THE FOUR FEATHERS" bore a strong resemblance to the 1902 novel it is based upon and the 1939 movie. Granted, in this version, General Faversham is a living and somewhat stern parent, and not some dead military hero in whose shadow Harry is forced to live. And Ethne’s father is dead. The most important aspect of this version of the story is the fact that the British presence in the Sudan is not portrayed in a sympathetic light. Following Colonel Hamilton’s (Alex Jennings) announcement of the Royal Cumbrians being deployed to the Sudan, Harry made this comment to Jack:

"What does a godforsaken desert, in the middle of nowhere, have to do with Her Majesty the Queen?"

Mind you, I did not take Harry’s question as a commentary against British Imperialism. I suspect that Harry’s question had more to do with him dreading the idea of going to war than any anti-Imperialist sympathies. But once the story shifted toward the Sudan, the anti-British Imperialism messages came across in the following scenes:

*The Royal Cumbrians’ encounter with a Sudanese sniper
*Harry’s travels with the French slave trader and the latter’s "merchandise"
*Abou Fatma’s attempt to warn the Royal Cumbrians of an impending attack and his treatment at their hands
*Ethne’s regret over her rejection of Harry
*Harry and Abou’s conversations about the differences between Eastern and Western culture

Surprisingly, the European characters are not the only ones shown to be capable of bigotry. Abou Fatma has to deal with the Sudanese Arab soldiers who seemed offended by his presence, due to his kinship with the tribe that had served as slaves for the soldiers’ families and ancestors. Also, both Harry and Trench, along with other British and anti-Mahdist prisoners have to deal with the malevolent commander of the prison camp at Omdurman, Idris-Es-Saier, whose hatred toward them stemmed from the death of his family by British artillery.

As I had stated earlier, the 1939 version (which starred John Clements, June Duprez and Ralph Richardson) is considered to be the best version of Mason’s novel. I have seen the 1939 version and I must admit that I found it pretty damn enjoyable. As much as I found the 1939 version entertaining, I must admit that this latest version – directed by Shekhar Kapur – happens to be my favorite. Like the other versions of this tale, it is filled with exciting action and does an excellent job of recapturing both British and the Sudanese societies in the late nineteenth century, thanks to Allan Cameron’s production design, Ahmed Abounouom and Zack Grobler’s art direction and Robert Richardson’s photography. But for me, the movie proved to be more than simply a costumed adventure film. Thanks to the "political correctness" slant provided by screenwriters Michael Schiffer and Hossein Amini and especially Shekhar Kapur’s direction; this version of "THE FOUR FEATHERS" seemed to have more emotional depth and ambiguity than other versions. Not only did Kapur and the two writers challenge the positive view on the British Empire, but also Western views on masculinity and Islamic cultures.

One of the biggest criticisms directed at this version of "THE FOUR FEATHERS" centered around the movie’s major action sequence – namely the Battle of Abu Klea. During the actual historical battle, which had been fought between January 16-18, 1885, the famous British square had been briefly broken by the Mahdists before it closed, forcing the latter to retreat. In the movie, the square formed by the Royal Cumbrians was permanently broken, resulting in the regiment’s retreat, Castleton’s death and Trench’s capture by Mahdists. In other words, the movie received criticism for not being historically accurate. The charge of historical inaccuracy does have validity. But I do find the critics’ accusations rather hypocritical, considering that hardly no one paid attention to the historical inaccuracy of another Kapur movie, namely the 1998 Academy Award nominated film, "ELIZABETH". I can only assume that it is easier to criticize a film that challenged Western culture for historical inaccuracy and ignore the same flaw in a film that celebrated a famous Western monarch.

Before I end this review, I want to say something about the performances. "THE FOUR FEATHERS" possessed an excellent supporting cast that featured an entertaining Michael Sheen as the witty and extroverted William Trench, a competent Rupert Penry-Jones as the regiment’s finicky and slightly narrow-minded Tom Willoughby, and an excellent Deobia Oparei who portrayed the intimidating Idris-Es-Saier. Kris Marshall’s performance as the religious Edward "Vicar" Willoughby seemed pretty solid, but there were moments when I found it slightly overwrought. Wes Bentley portrayed Jack Durrance, Harry’s reserved best friend who was also in love with Ethne. I must admit that I found myself very impressed by Bentley’s performance. He did an excellent job of portraying a very intense character whose emotions were conveyed through his eyes and expressions. And as far as I am concerned, Djimon Hounsou could do no wrong in this movie. His portrayal of the enigmatic Abou Fatma was spot on. His performance could have easily become another example of one of those "Magical Negro" roles in which a non-white character dispensed wisdom and comfort to the main white character. Yes, Fatma offered some advice and assistance to Harry Faversham. But thanks to Schiffer and Amini’s script and Hounson’s performance, Fatma became a more complicated character that ended up undergoing his own journey in becoming acquainted with someone from another culture.

Kate Hudson did an excellent job in portraying the spirited Ethne, Harry’s fiancée and the object of Jack’s desire. Hudson’s portrayal of Ethne was interesting and a little unexpected. I had expected her to react with anger over Harry’s lies about his resignation from the Army and fear over the opinions of society. I had expected her to form a closer friendship with Jack – a friendship that eventually led to their engagement. What I had not expected was for Ethne to express regret over her rejection of Harry. In this movie, Harry did not have to earn back her love through heroic acts in the Sudan. Interestingly, Ethne felt both guilt and self-disgust for worrying about how the rest of society would view Harry’s resignation and her association with him. I realize this is another example of the "political correctness" found in the movie’s script. Frankly, I welcomed it. This slant made Ethne’s character a lot more interesting to me. And Hudson did a hell of a job with what was given to her.

We finally come to Heath Ledger’s performance as Harry Faversham, the disgraced Army officer who tried to find redemption in the Sudanese desert. The interesting thing about Harry’s character was that he truly was guilty of cowardice. Some of his cowardice centered on his lie to Ethne about his reason for leaving the Army. But for me, Harry’s worst act of cowardice had occurred before the movie began. He buckled under pressure from society and especially his father, General Faversham, and joined the Royal Cumbrians as an officer. He allowed society, Ethne and his father to pressure him into assuming a life filled with lies. I suspect that Harry believed that as long as his regiment remained in England, he would have no problems maintaining the lie. But he could no longer maintain the lie when Colonel Hamilton announced the regiment’s deployment to the Sudan. The most interesting aspect about Harry’s journey was that he did not reach the nadir of his emotional journey until late into the film. The nadir did not happen when he received the white feathers from his friends and Ethne. Nor did it happened when he found himself stranded in the desert with nothing but a camel, when he discovered via Jack’s letters that the latter and Ethne had formed a deeper bond, or when he found himself in the Omdurman prison camp with Trench. No, Harry’s nadir finally arrived when he stripped away any civil façade of himself and he killed Idris-Es-Saier. At that moment, Harry’s true animal self – something that all human beings possessed - was finally revealed. I must admit that I am curious over Ledger’s reputation as an actor before he did "BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN" (2005). I would be very surprised if it took his role as Ennis de Mar for critics to take his skills as an actor seriously. Quite frankly, I was very impressed by his performance as Harry Faversham. Both the script and Kapur’s direction gave Ledger the opportunity to reveal the full length of his character’s journey – from the self-satisfied, yet cowardly Army officer to the private gentleman who is not only more sure of himself, but more honest as well.

I wish I could say that Kapur’s version of "THE FOUR FEATHERS" is for everyone. But I suspect that it is not. If I must be brutally honest, I suspect that a good number of fans of the Mason’s story would be put off by the so-called "revisionist" take on the story. They would probably prefer a version in which Harry Faversham learns to find his capacity for physical or military courage. Or a version in which the British victory over the Mahdist rebels are celebrated and the Empire appreciated. But as much as I like this version of Mason’s story – especially embodied in the 1939 film – I must admit that I much prefer this latest version directed by Shekhar Kapur. Not only did I find myself impressed by the cast’s performances, I found the movie more emotionally deep and complex. More importantly, it questioned the ideals and beliefs that had been the bulwark of 19th century and still harbor some influence upon many societies today.

"THE FOUR FEATHERS" (2002) Photo Gallery

Below are photos from "THE FOUR FEATHERS", Shekhar Kapur's 2002 adaptation of A.E.W. Mason's 1902 novel. The movie starred Heath Ledger, Kate Hudson, Wes Bentley and Djimon Hounsou:


"THE FOUR FEATHERS" (2002) Photo Gallery