The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
22nd February 2004	The four feathers By James Garland Last year there was quite a lot of talk on this site about the remake of "The four feathers", since then I have heard nothing. Has it been released at the cinema yet? If not, does anyone know when it is due for release.
Date	Replies
22nd February 2004	John Young James, It is available as a rental dvd/video, goes on sale as of next month, I believe. I played a little game called spot the "Diehard", when I watched it. Just to add to the viewing! John Y.
22nd February 2004	Alex Rossiter Does anyone know why the uk cinema release was delayed so much?, it was released all over the world about a year before it was released over here :-( Regards
22nd February 2004	Barry Iacoppi N.Z. It made the cinemas here months ago. I am pleased that I did not pay good money to see it on the big screen. A few short spectacular battles sequences but the film just did not impress me. With the money spent it should have been a winner.
22nd February 2004	Ian James, It was at the cinema here last year, it was on restricted release & only lasted a few weeks. The delayed release may have been because of the Iraq situation. The battle scenes are spectacular, but as always are not long enough! As John says the added fun is spot the Diehard, a few of us were lucky enough to get out to the Sahara for the filming. We trained the extras drill of the period & had an excellent time! The days were long, from 3am to 6pm, 6 days a week, but the hotel beer in Erfoud did floweth over!!
22nd February 2004	James Garland Thanks everyone for the prompt replies. I will buy it as soon as it is out on DVD next month. I've seen an old version of the film and loved it so I hope the new version is as entertaining. James
23rd February 2004	Robert Jones James, The D.V.D. is available on Amazon---price $13.49. Hope that helps. Regards, Robert
23rd February 2004	Robert Jones I,m sorry, James---it seems this is the one made around 2002 but if you leave your e-mail address Amazon will let you know when the 1939 version is released on D.V.D. All the best, Robert
23rd February 2004	Sheldon Hall The delay in the UK release of the 2002 remake was mainly due to its commercial failure in the US. For a long time it appeared likely to go straight to video. If anyone cares, I thought it the worst film I saw at the cinema last year (oh, alright - after CHARLIE'S ANGELS: FULL THROTTLE, though I walked out of that after 45 minutes...) and by far the worst version of the story that I've seen - a complete travesty, I'd say. The 1939 version is already available as a reasonably priced Region 2 DVD from Carlton.
23rd February 2004	jim Sheldon,I agree with you entirely. The battle scenes are good,but the characters are plastic. By far the best is the 1939 version. Lets hope if there is a remake of Zulu,that it's not made by these people.
23rd February 2004	John Young Sheldon, Even worst than the Beau Bridges' version? Come on! John Y.
23rd February 2004	AMB I quite concur: the 1939 version is far better. The actors being far more real. The 2002 version was excellent to look at, but the actors were a mockery of those book/earlier film versions. It is a shame, as the story has so much potential. AMB
24th February 2004	Steven Sass I believe the 2002 version suffers from a bad case of the "new sensibilities." The story is set in the 1880's rather than in the 1890's right after Gordon's isolation at Khartoum. This allows the focus to be put on the battle of Abou Clea and all of the symbolism that arises out of the "breaking of the square." Don't expect any British triumph at Omdurman. Sorry if I've given too much away but I felt a warning was in order to place hopes in perspective. However I do agree it was cinematically beautiful, and of course the Diehards made the action spectacular. Steven
24th February 2004	John Young Steven, I would not expect to see any British triumph at Omdurman, if the film followed A.E.W. Mason's book. The time-span for the book runs from 1869 to 1888. The Korda classic this the one which is wrong. I was also confused that Abu Klea became Abou Clea, as I spelt it phonetically to the adviser who for some reason picked on me for a battle name from the Gordon Relief campaign. John Y.
24th February 2004	Peter Ewart John Regarding the spelling of Abu Klea, perhaps he'd already asked "the schoolboy" but had found he was too busy "rallying the ranks", what with the Colonel dead & the Gatling jammed ... Don't suppose the film shows him, by any chance? Legend has it that the hallowed seat of learning referred to was Clifton College. Peter
24th February 2004	John Young "...A bumping pitch and a blinding light, An hour to play, and the last man in. ..." Ah but have you read what Newbolt wrote about Horace Lockwood Smith-Dorrien? John Y.
24th February 2004	Neil Aspinshaw Saw the film last year on the plane to SA, look out for the bit where the lone arab rides up to the square, after three 20 man volleys they finally slot him, missing the camel!, was our shooting that bad!, no wonder we were outdone at Isandlwana!. Neil
24th February 2004	neil P.S Blockbusters have it in. neil
24th February 2004	Sheldon Hall I agree with Steven that the filmmakers were overtaken by PC-consciousness. They are clearly out of sympathy with the whole ethos of the story, and changing it in the way they have done destroys whatever it had going for it in the first place. Even considered purely as cinematic storytelling, it's hopelessly incompetent, with no sense of narrative economy whatever - the pace is like wading through treacle and it takes about 15 minutes to tie up all the loose ends back in England. (There was apparently an even longer director's cut which accounts for some of the gaps in continuity, especially at the beginning - though the release version was quite long enough.) In the matter of adaptation however, changing the original source (Mason's novel) is not necessarily "wrong" as John implies - not if the story still works, as it clearly does in the excellent 1939 version. The problem is that the 2002 version's changes make nonsense of the story on every level. Unlike everyone else, apparently, I also think that the new film looks horribly ugly - all big close-ups and shallow-focus long shots which render the images flat and hazy. ZULU DAWN suffers at times from the same problem - as do about 99% of recent (post-70s) Hollywood movies. Compare the depth of field of the the cinematography in ZULU - on a big screen in a good print it has an almost three-dimensional clarity.
24th February 2004	Ian Sheldon, I agree with a lot of your points, the film says more about the director than anything else. Nothing could ever beat the 1939 version it's real boy's own stuff! In slight defence of the film the Victorian drill is correct!!
24th February 2004	John Young Sheldon, I'm merely stating as a fact that there's no Battle of Omdurman in Mason's original novel, as it was fought ten years after his story ends. I've got no problem with changing the original sources to suit, if they work. I cite as an example the freely-adapted version of 'The Last of the Mohicans'. Steven, because of what he has seen in the Korda version, feels that the action should be in the 1898 campaign, I merely pointing that is 'wrong', as the action should start as it does in 'Khartoum' with the defeat of Hicks Pasha. I notice you haven't picked up on my remark about the Lew Grade version, which in my opinion was far worst than the lastest version. Ian, The drill was nearly as good as the march back to camp after the dinner! John Y.
24th February 2004	Sheldon Hall John, I take your point, but your use of the word "wrong" was in relation to the film ("The Korda classic this the one which is wrong"), not to Steven's perception of it, and I take the word to mean that it (the film) is at fault. A matter of terminology, I think, rather than principle! I did mean to take up your point about the 1977 version, which I haven't seen for quite a while but don't recall being anywhere near as bad - dull it may have been, at least it didn't leave my blood boiling, as the recent remake did. Oddly enough, in the early 80s a coincidence of TV scheduling meant that the 1955 version, STORM OVER THE NILE, and the 1977 version were shown on the same Sunday (one on BBC1 in the afternoon, the other on ITV in the evening), which allowed for a direct comparison in my pre-video household. I recall my Mum saying that the later version was "even worse" than the 1955 version. The latter, incidentally, incorporates actual footage from the 1939 version and is a very close remake indeed, even down to using the same camera positions for reshot scenes. The 1977 version is also a direct remake of the 1939 version - the 2002 version is the first since 1929 to go back, more or less, to the book (and look what it does with it!). Has anyone seen the 1929 version - an early sound epic starring Richard Arlen, William Powell, Clive Brook and Fay Wray (later of KING KONG fame)?
24th February 2004	Ian John, indeed it was & what a fine night it was!
24th February 2004	Steven Sass John, It was with great trepidation that I used the spelling of Abu Klea (Abou Clea) from the film. I actually picked up my DVD box to make sure that's actually how they spelled it. As it was the film I was referring to I felt it most appropriate to use their version. With all the multiple accepted spellings from the AZW I wasn't sure if this was just another such example. Steven
24th February 2004	John Young Steven, Don't worry, but pity the man who called me who actually suggested Tel-el-Kebir, I think his ear was still hurting him by the time he reached Morocco. Sheldon, I noticed the faux pas I'd made with my typing, when I saw it again, and I can now understand your concern, the problem with only have the one hand to type with at present! The brain thinks too quickly for it to cope! Normal service will be returned in about 12 weeks, if all goes to plan. John Y.
24th February 2004	Peter Ewart John "He saved us .. simply by being himself." Now you're impressed! (You needn't be, I didn't really know - I cribbed it from your own posting of Nov 2002!!!) I simply couldn't pretend. After all ... "It's not for the sake of a ribboned coat, Or the selfish hope of a season's fame, But his captain's hand on his shoulder smote ..." so I had to play the game & remember Abu Klea. Peter P.S. Smithers' daughter lent me S-D's memoirs today (which I've never acquired) & I left the blooming thing on my desk. Frustrating!