Hudson Movie Reviews

Add a star for Freddy Douglas, whose squinty-eyed, edgy performance as jaded ex-British officer Guy is entertaining to watch. Romantic co-star Aurelie Meriel is ravishingly beautiful and easy on the eyes, but unfortunately, her performance is somewhat one-note. It's nice to see a take-charge kind of action heroine, but as Loulou, Meriel is stuck with a kind of grim determination throughout the movie which wears thin by the end.

The plot is messy, with the "AAU" subplot taking over the main plot very quickly, but unsatisfactorily resolved (how easy was it for them to find the bomb? ). The beginning and the end are this movie's weakest points, with the beginning conveying no sense of reality for the Alfred-Anna relationship (so the boys' mad dash to make the delivery has a pretty low emotional stake). There's so much sterility and so little screen time between Fedja van Huet (a bumbling, acceptable performance as Alfred) and Esmee de la Bretonniere (completely colourless, with about 20 lines in the whole movie) that we hardly care whether anything happens to Anna. It's also in the beginning when Reine's music-video stylings run wild, unengaging burps trying to be cool editing but only coming off as cinematic incompetence. However, the middle picks up steam when sexual tension between Meriel and Douglas begins to mount, and when the sense of danger builds to a good level. The ending is a cheap cop-out, however -- won't give it away here, but rest assured, it's as "easy" as they come, hugely unsatisfying.

So this movie has a pretty big share of problems. However, at least it kept me watching until the end, and most of the action sequences (when Reine doesn't try out his hackneyed slow-mo, jump-cutting, manic-movement techniques) are pretty gripping. And some small moments -- the two guys and a girl's teasing lakeside bath, Guy and Alfred's on-the-grovel second fight -- are actually very enjoyable.

Of course it helps to have such a drop dead gorgeous actress as Aurélie Meriel in a movie. Oh the accent!

Even so, ROCK HUDSON'S HOME MOVIES did make me appreciate the sheer number and variety of films Hudson made (westerns, war, Douglas Sirk melodramas, as well as the familiar, fluffy technicolor sex comedies with Doris Day). Not the best actor America ever produced, but certainly one the camera loved.

The remake is even more pathetic given the availability of the technical advances in movie-making since the 1939 version, but possibly not advances in actors. As for the actors themselves, there wasn't much there and Kate Hudson was almost embarrassing to watch with her phony accent and complete inability to act.

Contributing the movie's failure could also be Kapur's long-winded style of directing.

I highly recommend the original, The Four Feathers (1939).

Ledger stars as Harry Faversham, a British soldier in his majesty's army in the 19th century. Jack (Wes Bentley) is his best friend, a brave soldier who envies Harry because of his lovely fiancee, Ethne (Kate Hudson). All seems well for the happy couple, until war is declared in the Sudan against the zealous Mahdi. Harry, after a long night of deep thought, elects to resign his commission and unsurprisingly, is deemed a complete coward by his own friends, who send him four feathers as a symbol of his disgrace (the fourth is sent by Ethne, Jack chooses not to believe he's a coward).

Distraught over the feathers, Harry decides to tag along and help his comrades in any way he can. Naturally, he's a bit in over his head and has to be saved time and again by a desert warrior named About Fatma (Djimon Honsou), who has taken it upon himself to protect Faversham, for reasons that are never made explicitly clear. Does Harry get a chance to prove his mettle in combat? Do I even have to ask?

The fundamental premise at work sounds great, but a quick glance informs us of a barrage of head-spinning plot holes. We're never really told what to think of Harry, except that he might not be the brightest guy in England. Put it this way, he actually spends an entire night chewing over his decision to resign and not for a moment did he actually seem to consider the fact that resigning right after war has been declared might, oh, deem him a coward. Should he really have been surprised by those feathers he was sent?

Then there's his decision to sneak into the Sudan. In one of the movie's more jarring edits, we're never shown how he got there; he's just there in one scene. In a period piece adventure, it's my firm belief as much detail as possible should be given. Anyway, his plan makes no sense; he decides he'll try and help, but what exactly can he do that a heavily-armed and well-trained army couldn't do without him? When all is said and done, I'm not even sure what point the film's trying to make, that personal honor and reputation is more important than holding firm to your beliefs (not that the movie ever established Harry as a pacifist, otherwise I doubt he'd ever have joined the army, even with his father as an officer)?

Ambiguity is evident in the Kate Hudson character, and not in an intriguing manner, either. Are we supposed to assume that she cares more about her "image" than Harry? Then when she displays regret over sending the feather, are we supposed to gather that she's truly changed or just in need of a suitor? On the other end of the spectrum, there's Jack, whose dedication to both Harry and Ethne is actually rather touching.

And thus leads to the love triangle, which I could have done without. Actually, I'll give a spoiler warning here because I mean to reveal the ending. Ethne obviously will return to Harry, leaving poor Jack blinded and only with his honor to comfort him. If you ask me, she chose the wrong guy.

The action/adventure aspects of the movie are pulled off just as poorly. What should have been a rip-roaring epic is instead very badly edited, scenes cutting from one to another without a sense of timing or pacing, almost as if though whole chunks were lifted from the film entirely. The film's big battle sequence is a clunker, with a few well-staged and well-shot moments (loved Ledger's leap onto the horse), but is mostly unexciting and frustratingly dull. The director fails to capture the odds the army was up against, gives us little of the much needed hand-to-hand combat and overdoses on the slow motion.

The Four Feathers was directed by Shekhar Kapur, who has shown talent with Elizabeth, but you'd think the man who crafted this had no discernable skills. True, the movie boasts the occasional bit of lovely cinematography, but come on, we know that's due more to the stunning locations than the camerawork. There are a few bright spots, Honsou and Bentley deliver fine performances, but I think I have the right to expect better from an eighty-million dollar production of a classic story.

The remake is even more pathetic given the availability of the technical advances in movie-making since the 1939 version, but possibly not advances in actors. As for the actors themselves, there wasn't much there and Kate Hudson was almost embarrassing to watch with her phony accent and complete inability to act.

Contributing the movie's failure could also be Kapur's long-winded style of directing.

I highly recommend the original, The Four Feathers (1939).

Ledger stars as Harry Faversham, a British soldier in his majesty's army in the 19th century. Jack (Wes Bentley) is his best friend, a brave soldier who envies Harry because of his lovely fiancee, Ethne (Kate Hudson). All seems well for the happy couple, until war is declared in the Sudan against the zealous Mahdi. Harry, after a long night of deep thought, elects to resign his commission and unsurprisingly, is deemed a complete coward by his own friends, who send him four feathers as a symbol of his disgrace (the fourth is sent by Ethne, Jack chooses not to believe he's a coward).

Distraught over the feathers, Harry decides to tag along and help his comrades in any way he can. Naturally, he's a bit in over his head and has to be saved time and again by a desert warrior named About Fatma (Djimon Honsou), who has taken it upon himself to protect Faversham, for reasons that are never made explicitly clear. Does Harry get a chance to prove his mettle in combat? Do I even have to ask?

The fundamental premise at work sounds great, but a quick glance informs us of a barrage of head-spinning plot holes. We're never really told what to think of Harry, except that he might not be the brightest guy in England. Put it this way, he actually spends an entire night chewing over his decision to resign and not for a moment did he actually seem to consider the fact that resigning right after war has been declared might, oh, deem him a coward. Should he really have been surprised by those feathers he was sent?

Then there's his decision to sneak into the Sudan. In one of the movie's more jarring edits, we're never shown how he got there; he's just there in one scene. In a period piece adventure, it's my firm belief as much detail as possible should be given. Anyway, his plan makes no sense; he decides he'll try and help, but what exactly can he do that a heavily-armed and well-trained army couldn't do without him? When all is said and done, I'm not even sure what point the film's trying to make, that personal honor and reputation is more important than holding firm to your beliefs (not that the movie ever established Harry as a pacifist, otherwise I doubt he'd ever have joined the army, even with his father as an officer)?

Ambiguity is evident in the Kate Hudson character, and not in an intriguing manner, either. Are we supposed to assume that she cares more about her "image" than Harry? Then when she displays regret over sending the feather, are we supposed to gather that she's truly changed or just in need of a suitor? On the other end of the spectrum, there's Jack, whose dedication to both Harry and Ethne is actually rather touching.

And thus leads to the love triangle, which I could have done without. Actually, I'll give a spoiler warning here because I mean to reveal the ending. Ethne obviously will return to Harry, leaving poor Jack blinded and only with his honor to comfort him. If you ask me, she chose the wrong guy.

The action/adventure aspects of the movie are pulled off just as poorly. What should have been a rip-roaring epic is instead very badly edited, scenes cutting from one to another without a sense of timing or pacing, almost as if though whole chunks were lifted from the film entirely. The film's big battle sequence is a clunker, with a few well-staged and well-shot moments (loved Ledger's leap onto the horse), but is mostly unexciting and frustratingly dull. The director fails to capture the odds the army was up against, gives us little of the much needed hand-to-hand combat and overdoses on the slow motion.

The Four Feathers was directed by Shekhar Kapur, who has shown talent with Elizabeth, but you'd think the man who crafted this had no discernable skills. True, the movie boasts the occasional bit of lovely cinematography, but come on, we know that's due more to the stunning locations than the camerawork. There are a few bright spots, Honsou and Bentley deliver fine performances, but I think I have the right to expect better from an eighty-million dollar production of a classic story.

De Niro is Mitch, a streetwise cop who lives in the real world and takes pride in doing his job and the fact that he has never had to choose between cutting the red wire or the green wire. Murphy is Trey, a patrolman who likes being a cop but would also like to play a cop on TV. Rene Russo is the television executive, sort of a second grade Faye Dunaway "Network" type, who takes the opportunity to bring these two together when Mitch makes the mistake of blowing away a television camera during a shootout (his partner has been shot, there is a guy out there with the biggest gun you have ever seen, and for some reason Mitch does not like a bright light being shined on them in the dark of night). To avoid a multi-million dollar law suit Mitch is ordered to play ball with the television people, even if that means constantly being followed by cameras as he tries to do his job and putting Trey in the seat next to him. While Chase waits for Mitch to explode on camera, we wait for him to bond with Trey.

That is the premise of "Showtime," and the biggest irony is that the best scenes involve setting up the premise rather than the plot that keeps intruding on the fun. The only thing better than Eddie Murphy teaching Robert De Niro how to act is when William Shatner shows up and the pair have T.J. Hooker show them how it is done. Perhaps not since the Marx Brothers ran rampant has the screen had three such divergent approaches to acting in a single scene, which Shatner steals from the other two. The best line in the film is when Shatner informs Chase that Mitch is the worst actor he has ever seen. Unfortunately the rest of the film does not match the levels of humor at work during this training sequence and you have to give credit to the actors who can make a simple scene such as Mitch watching Trey watching Shatner hysterical.

The film is directed by Tom Dey, who did "Shanghai Noon" and apparently is content to find a niche as a buddy film director. Then again, if you get De Niro and Murphy should you be complaining about being typed as a director? This is an action comedy where the action gets in the way of the comedy and once Shatner disappears the movie shifts into a different gear. Yes, there is a point where comedies like this have serious moments and we realize that underneath the banter and animosity there are feelings of affection and mutual respect, but with "Showtime" you just get the feeling they are pouring on the cliches they spent so much time ridiculing in the first half of the film.

Tim Curry--oh, you should be so ashamed at how awful you are in this movie. The accent is like Boris Badenov! Tsk, tsk...
Ernie Hudson---looked like a thin man's version of Barry White, and even affected at times a British accent. I still remember you from "Ghostbusters" and the delightfully hammy "Hand That Rocks the Cradle."
Joe Don Baker--still "Walking Tall" after all these years. Never accused of being an actor, he is still a presence.
"Evil Dead's" Bruce Campbell gets a brief cameo in the beginning, and manages to come across as the stultified hero once again. Watch for Joe Pantoliano and John Hawkes in brief roles.
The music by Jerry Goldsmith is beautiful as is the African vistas.
It's not a great movie, but is a fun one. My favorite scene: Dylan Walsh wakes up and finds something on his body and goes out and asks someone to take it off. It's a leech, and when Lauras Linney volunteers, you can see that boyish naivete come to fore!
Fun.

"Domestic Disturbance" overloads our repulsion at this situation by having Rick repeatedly threaten Danny, so not only do we have to do with the injustice of the cops being incompetent and/or apathetic, but we have a child in danger as well. At least his mother turns out not to be a total idiot, which is a good thing, but then it provides additional irritation during the climatic fight scene (this is not a spoiler: if Frank is going to have to take matters into his own hands this is going to involve physical violence). My problem is that people in movies do not know how to fight. Everybody has something that they want a nickle for every time they seen it in a movie: I want mine for situations in which a person in peril takes a whack at the bad guy and then drops the implement (skillet, bat, artificial leg, etc.) and runs away giving the villain a chance to recover. This is why I literally stood up and applauded while watching "24" this season when Jack made his daughter shoot the guy trying to kill her not once but twice. Get the job done.

Ultimately my complaints are more about the plot than the actors, since Travolta and Vaughn are fine as the heroes and villains. "Domestic Disturbance" is a formula film put together with bits and pieces of things we have seen before and seen done better. The result is not "great" (five stars) or "good" (four stars), but "okay" (three stars).

Oh, and if ever happen to be fighting for your life and you are on top of the person trying to kill you, instead of hitting them in the face with your fist (which is going to hurt you) grab their head by the hair and bang it on concrete. Do not do this once, but keep apply the treatment as necessary, and never, ever, whatever you do, take lessons on how to fight from actors in movies like this one.

I first saw this movie in the theater when I was 16 years old and I liked it back then, but I have a new and better apreciation for it now that Im older and wiser. At the age of 16 I would describe this movie as strange and scary. At the current age of 24, I would describe the movie as well casted, strange, scary, deeply thought provoking, excellent cinematography and written to the T!! A better and more scary soundtrack definetly could have enhanced this film, but its still great!

The deep meaning I got out of the film is this... We are born into a world that is not perfect and sometimes unfair. We can revolt against this unperfect world and self destruct our own lives, or we can play by the rules and strive for peace.

The idea of crossing animals with humans to create something more perfect is an interesting idea. We could get something more sinister and brutal then humans, but we could also get something more passionate, faithful and understanding. This movie plays on both of those possibilities very well...

If your looking for a very twisted version of a "Lord of the flies" type movie, then check this out!