rpm0494

(2012-04-29 14:46:06)

Rollicking Entertainment

I finally got a chance to see this movie and I was not disappointed! Iwas unfamiliar with the source material (Patrick O'Brian's novels) butit didn't matter much. This is a movie that takes you back to the daysof Captain Blood or the Sea Hawk. Finely made in every way (10 Oscarnominations), Russel Crowe is terrific in the part of Capt. Jack Aubreyand Paul Bettany is great as his friend and alter ego Dr. StephenMaturin. Kudos especially go to Max Pirkis in the role of the veryyoung midshipman Blakeney. This is not a movie with a message but onemade for entertainment's sake and it does that on a grand level. Highlyrecommended!!

(2012-04-29 01:01:17)

Much more than I expected

This film was so much more than I expected. I would have settled for a good swashbuckler and I got a lot more. This is a film where the characters are alive, they are real, complex people, with often contradictory feelings. The action advances the story, it impacts what the characters feel and do. I particularly loved the friendship between the captain and the ship's surgeon: one is an action man, the other an intellectual. Often they differ in their views, but the affection they have for each other is palpable. And they play the cello and the violin together, which results in some memorable moments. My favourite scene in the movie: the arrival to the Galapagos Islands and the doctor's awe at the new species. The DVD is perfect in its quality and the many extras are all super-interesting.

Roland E. Zwick

(2012-04-28 00:24:42)

mixed bag but much to recommend

The odd thing about `Master and Commander' is that its strengths and itsweaknesses both seem to derive from one and the same source: its subtlety. Based on the novels by Patrick O'Brian, `Master and Commander: The Far Sideof the World' is a seafaring adventure tale more notable, perhaps, for itsstraight-ahead action sequences than for its finer elements ofcharacterization and conflict. O'Brian has certainly given writer JohnCollee and writer/director Peter Weir plenty to work with here, startingwith an Ahab-type main character named Jack Aubrey, a British sea captain in1805 who becomes obsessed with overtaking and attacking a much larger Frenchman-of-war ship that defeated his vessel in battle off the coast of SouthAmerica. Aubrey, albeit a man of sensibility and compassion, oftenendangers the lives of his men in an effort to complete his `mission,' eventhough he is routinely challenged by cooler heads on the ship to acknowledgethe fruitlessness of the endeavor and to set sail for home an honorablydefeated man.Aubrey is nowhere near as neurotic and delusional as Ahab, and that perhapsis the biggest problem with the film. Aubrey, for all his bluster, isreally not all that interesting a character. Although we can see where thefilmmakers are trying to take us, they never seem able to crack openAubrey's mind to help us get inside and learn what really makes him tick. One thing about Ahab is that we always knew why the stakes were so personalfor him. With Aubrey we don't really understand why he is sosingle-mindedly set on getting his target. Perhaps the confrontations hehas with his crewmen are just a trifle too low-keyed and underplayed toreveal very much about his character. `Master and Commander' may be a morerealistic yarn than `Moby Dick' but, in this case at least, subtlety comeswith a hefty price. An adventure film set on the high seas needs to hitmore dramatic high points than `Master and Commander' is eventually able tomuster. Having said all that, it seems a bit perverse and paradoxical to now pointout that `Master and Commander' also draws its greatest strength from thefact that it doesn't rely on cheap melodramatics to achieve its power. Thanks to outstanding direction, set design and special effects, we reallyfeel as if we are on one of those early 19th Century sailing vessels, afeeling that is enhanced even more in the battle scenes which are executedwith a stunning eye for believability and detail. And there are manymoments of silent intensity particularly between Aubrey and Dr. StephenMaturin, the ship's surgeon and resident naturalist, obviously modeled onCharles Darwin (though 30 years earlier than Darwin), who can't understandwhy Aubrey has to go off fighting Bonaparte's forces when all Maturin wantsis to be able to go traipsing all over the Galapagos Islands in search ofnew and fascinating faunal specimens (at least Darwin didn't have to contendwith some pesky war when he was off developing his Theory of Evolution). The subtle interplay between these two characters provides for some of themost gripping moments in the film. Russell Crowe manages to convey bothauthority and compassion in his role of Aubrey, and Paul Bettany creates acompelling foil for him in Maturnin. Aubrey is also up against thesuperstitious nature of his disgruntled crew who attribute much of theirtroubled journey to the curse laid upon them by a vindictive god (vide `TheRime of the Ancient Mariner'). The filmmakers also do an effective jobexploring the internal decision-making process a person in authority oftenhas to go through in weighing the good of the group against the good of theindividual. The fact that Aubrey isn't a raving lunatic (like Ahab) lessensthe drama but heightens the verisimilitude of the piece.`Master and Commander' is a bit of a close call for me, but taken as awhole, its virtues ultimately outweigh its flaws.

NOYCH

(2012-04-27 11:50:19)

Boring, slow and lacking in plot.

This movie was pretty blah in my opinion. I waited the entire movie for itto pick up, and it just never did. Disappointing. My husband, however,likedit, so maybe this is just a man's movie. The acting was overall prettygood,but the plotline was not very developed and there was no real build-up orexcitement in what was marketed as an exciting adventurefilm.

ericjake

(2012-04-26 17:10:56)

Richly detailed, genuinely interesting historical fun

I saw "Master and Commander" last night with a friend, his cousin, and hiscousin's friend. I thought M&C was very good, my friend thought it was theworst movie ever (oh, come on now...) and the other two guys thought it was"pretty good". That being said, it really is a genuinely good film,definitely one of the best mainstream flicks of 2003.M&C is based on the Patrick O'Brien novels of the British Navy during theNapoleanic War. I'm told the novels focus more on the ship's doctor thanCaptain Aubrey, but I don't think that should disuade anyone from seeing thefilm. Lovingly crafted with lots of great details of the state ofshipbuilding, sailing, and naval life in 1805. Think guys with bad teeth whoare sorely in need of a bath. The officers of the ship seem to live prettygood though.It was good to see Russell Crowe portraying a character with an accentsomewhat similar to his native New Zealander. My only previous encounterwith him is in the very good "L.A. Confidential" in which he plays an LAcop. His American accent in that film is pretty much limited to "rmrmrrrmmmrrmrgrm mrgmlm" the entire movie.Anyways, although M&C did stretch a bit too long (Weir could have shaved 20or 30 minutes off) it's one of the more intellegent, better made movies ofrecent years. Highly recommended. 8/10

(2012-04-26 00:06:22)

There is not a moment to lose!

I strongly suspect that those of us who have read the entire Aubrey-Maturin series are going to think more highly of "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" than those landlubbers who have not worked their way through the two sea faring yarns written by Patrick O'Brian. That is because Peter Weir has effectively translated the original novel to the screen. By "original novel" I mean "The Far Side of the World," because that is clearly the basis for this film and not the first volume in the series, "Master and Commander." By "effectively translated" I fully take into account that the conflict is now between Jack Aubrey's H.M.S. Surprise and a French frigate during the Napoleonic War rather than with an American vessel during the War of 1812, that the entire subplot regarding Stephen Maturin's spy mission has been omitted, and that Stephen is suddenly a lot taller than Jack. The attention here is to the spirit of the novels rather than the letter. Given what Hollywood has so often done to beloved literary works, we are way ahead of the game with what we can only hope is the first in a series of films with these characters (at least until we get to my favorite scene in the series, when Jack is pilloried in "The Reverse of the Medal").The story of "The Far Side of the World" essentially begins after the start and ends before the ending, which is not unusual in a Patrick O'Brian novel. The Surprise is off of Brazil and we are privy to Aubrey's orders, which are to engage the French privateer Acheron and prevent the enemy vessel from sailing around Cape Horn and start raiding British whalers in the Pacific. The only problem is that the French ship is not only bigger and faster but has more guns that shoot farther, while the volleys from Surprise bounce off the Acheron's sides. The mismatch is proven in an initial engagement that is almost a complete disaster. Discretion might demand the Surprise limp back to England for repairs, but "Lucky" Jack has his orders. Jack insists it is the call of duty while Stephen dares to suggest it might be pride, but the result is the same.The result is that "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" is a chase film that runs over two hours (forget about looking at your watch and watch the movie). The pursuer and the pursued change at critical times in the film, and there are uncomfortable lulls when sailors and surgeons can take deep breaths, all the while keeping an eye on the horizon to spot enemy sails. But "Lucky" Jack Aubrey will bide his time to prove the maximum about lucky being the residue of hard work, such as gunnery practice, and inspiration provided by his particular friend and a young midshipman. My only serious complaint about the film has to do with the rampant jump cuts during the climactic battle, but still there are a couple of things you have never seen in a film about a naval engagement that are rather impressive when you realize that fact. Still, those of us who have read the O'Brian novels have the weather gage in this encounter, because the names of Killick, Padeen, Bonden, and Pullings all mean something to us and the richness of the supporting cast enhances the film even for the uninitiated. Crowe effortlessly embodies Aubrey, and if O'Brian had lived to see this film he would not have regretted that this film was not made in in the previous century when his ideal choice for the role, Charlton Heston, could have essayed the role. The choice of Paul Bettany will be the one that will trouble the purists, but it seems clear that Weir and co-writer John Collee wanted their Maturin to be more of a match for Aubrey. To this end he is no longer oblivious of what is happening on the ship and apparently gets from ship to shore and back again without falling into the ocean. Towards this same end there is a moment when readers of the novels expect Jack to dive into the ocean to save another able bodied seaman, but the film wants to make a very different point. It might not be gospel, but it rings true in the moment, which is the greatest testament this film could pay to O'Brian and his readers.

Robert J. Maxwell

(2012-04-21 19:00:03)

Nicely Done.

The performances are all pretty good -- and what a surprise to see sucha straightforward adventure tale from Peter Weir, master and commanderof the subliminally ominous.For my taste, which may, admittedly, be a little warped, the moviedoesn't give us quite enough of the exhilaration of being at sea. Imean that zesty feeling of being windswept on a weather deck in themiddle of an empty sea with bright sunshine all around. The one thingall these sailors would have in 1805 is sun tans but they look pale andsweaty. The visuals are a bit dark and gloomy, which is okay duringstorms when you're trying to get around the Horn but not when you'reanchored in the Galapagos.Still, this is above average. Russel Crowe is neither Errol Flynn norCaptain Bligh. He's more like Horatio Hornblower but with more nearlyhuman quirks than just clearing his throat. As the captain, Crowe playsthe violin to the doctor's cello. Nice work too. And on happy occasionshe gets drunk with his fellow officers and makes lousy jokes. There isone astonishing shot of Crowe and a companion perched on thetiptoptoloftical peak of the mainmast, atop the topgallants orsomething, a million miles in the air. How did he get there? Was Crowedigitalized in? If not, they're not paying him enough.We have the British fighting against what are traditionally called"overwhelming odds," a French super frigate, the Acheron, which theyfinally take after a bloody battle.What a more interesting and less popular flick it would have been, hadthe foe of the original novel been retained, the Americans during theWar of 1812. No one would have gone to see it. The French in 1805 arean admirable substitute. The enemy is not "France", it's "Napoleon."The huge American audience feels less in common with France than withthe Brits. Also during Napoleon's attempt to conquer the world, therewas an opponent worth fighting, not to mention Jerry Lewis and bidets.But the War of 1812 -- well. Something about the Brits impressingAmerican seamen, wasn't it? As a casus belli, the concept is a littledifficult to grasp."Master and Commander" gives us heroes we can root for. We seeeverything from the point of view of the British sailors aboard theSurprise, just as we would in an Errol Flynn movie, although Crowe is afar more complex character. But suppose the Acheron HAD retained its American identity? What wouldour response, as Americans, have been? Would we still have beencheering for the Brits as eagerly as if it had been a soccer game?Would we have been tickled to see the Acheron blown apart? Such an added layer of complexity might have prompted us to think aboutthe nature of war. (Gosh -- it's not REALLY a football game.) It wouldhave challenged our loyalties. It might even have caused us to think alittle about the nature of human nature. Why does battle seem so tragiconly when OUR side suffers? Or -- worst of all -- what is it, burieddeep in my limbic system, that makes me want to shout YEAH when Croweoutwits the Frogs? Whatever the answers, they're not likely to turn outto have the same effect as bright sunshine on a windswept deck. As Isay, nobody would go to see it.There are three main conflicts, all handled deftly. The faceless enemyagainst the British, from "Horatio Hornblower" and "The Sea Hawk." Thesullen crew versus an officer, familiar to us from, oh, "Moby Dick" and"Damn the Defiant" and "Mutiny on the Bounty"; and a more interestingconflict of interests between the intellectual doctor who wants toexplore the Galapagos Islands thirty years before Darwin, and RusselCrowe's captain, who is determined to pursue and destroy the Acheron.We can see a similar disjunction between the egghead and the practicalman of common sense in "The Thing From Another World" and "Ball ofFire." It's the difference between the theoretical physicist and theengineer. In the movies, the engineer often shows up in uniform andalmost always wins the debate. The movie is worth catching. Lots of sea lore and tradition, almost anexercise in history. And with its innovative score and outstandingCGIs, it's a sensory feast too.

tigerandpoo

(2012-04-21 07:22:49)

A masterful movie from top to bottom.

Master and Commander is a good film and the cinematography is amazing foramovie of its scoop. I thought Russell Crowe does such a great job and therest of the cast follows him like well-trained soldiers. The movie neededtopick up some speed during the first half, but the movie does delivertowardsthe second, and what a fine second half it is. I know that this is basedonthe first book of a series, and I would not mind a bit that this movie hasasequel or two in the future.

worldfest

(2012-04-15 02:43:28)

Superb Sea Tale, totally NOT either book! A misrepresentation.

This is a wonderful and salty sea tale. It is superbly made. But it isnot,simply not either Master and Commander or The Far Side of The World. Theseare two great books and the director and writer borrowed liberally fromboth, but not even enough to make it even close to the excellence ofO'Brien's original works. If you have not read the books, then it is afinefilm, but if you are looking for traces of these brilliant novels, youwillonly find tiny tidbits, lifted from the books. This film was made fromwholecloth, and the book titles were used simply for commercial purposes as notthat many viewers have read the books. A lot of the scenes in the filmneverhappened in either book and so very much was either distorted or left out.(I have read them all, some twice, "Far Side" is one of my favorites) IfTheLord of The Rings series had done the same thing, there would have beenriots at the theaters... the Ring makers stuck to the stories as much astime would allow, Weir and company simply made a fine sea epic and stolethebook titles, although I did enjoy the film totally, it was not even closetowhat the books were. Go see it for its classic elegance as a "real oldtimemovie" but not to see the stories as written. The CGI battle and oceanstormscenes were superb, the texture and the mood were quite realistic (an oldCoast Guard officer speaking here) but it simply was not either book, apaleimitation... Also the casting of Capt. Jack Aubrey was way off base, noteven close to the real thing - Russell Crowe is a superb actor, but he isnot Jack Aubrey... and Stephen Maturin was totally wrong... in the book heis a small, short, dark, unattractive man, and totally unlike the actorPaulBettany that was selected for the role. All the other roles were superblycast, however, but I do have worries about Killick. Read the books. Orevenbetter, get the Books on Tape read by British Actor Patrick Tull. They arefar better than the movie. Ah, Hollywood!

(2012-04-14 15:57:45)

Best Movie of 2003-2004

This film is the only accurate depiction of life aboard a wooden fighting vessel ever produced. In all ways, it should have taken all the Oscars. Author, Patrick O'Brian, may be the greatest historical novelist of the 20th century. Russell Crowe's portrayal of Captain Jack Aubrey greatly exceeded my expectations. I fervently hope that the remaining 18 O'Brian books in the series will be made into film with Crowe at the helm.

kahfay

(2012-04-05 21:53:46)

Surprised

My husband and I use IMDB to see what real viewers think of films. Wenevergo see anything with lower than a 7 rating. I was not really lookingforwardto Master and Commander but the majority of those who had seen it liked itso off we went. I am glad I did. I am not a big Russell Crowe fan butsometimes he surprises me. He did an excellent job. He played the role ofLucky Jack with the reserved emotion as needed. I knew nothing about whatthe film covered. My husband briefed me quickly about the war and I wasset.The film was beautifully done. The acting, costuming, and story tellingwereall great(expect to see Oscar with this one). The attention to detail wasamazing. I left feeling that I had been on ship and in the time period.Whenyou see this film take your mind and let it absorb all that is the Masterand Commander.

chouar

(2012-04-05 15:18:54)

From Patrick O'Brian's Norfolk to Acheron

It has been common practice under some regimes to re-write politicallyincorrect History or Fiction. Fiction may not be that important.Still, the real name of Acheron is known. This will make some of yourpoliticians happy and the whole world think again.

eldoktor

(2012-04-03 19:07:05)

A fine adaptation

As a fan of the Aubrey/Maturin novels, I have to say that this is anamazing adaptation. Crowe isn't big enough for Aubrey, Bettany is toogood looking to play Maturin, and Billy Boyd is far too small forBarrett Bonden... but they all work very well in the roles.Much of the charm of the novels is that there is much that goes unsaid- actions must be inferred from future events. Translating this to thescreen is not easy, but here it works out well. Because the film takesbits from all of the books (or many of them, at least), it's chock fullof tasty bits of O'Brian. The preeminent pun of the series, regardingdog-watches, is oddly absent, but others are there.If you like the novels, you will like the film. It captures the feel ofthe books. The flavor of Nelson's navy is retained. Had I not seen themovie, I would complain about the casting. Having seen it, I have nocomplaints.

(2012-04-03 01:04:08)

The Greatest sea-going movie I have EVER seen

4-stars overall, but it is easily one of the best directed movies of the year. It really did gather the tight spaced feel of a warship during the 1800's. The dialogue was annoying, so don't watch for the screenplay. But the set designs, the sound, the editing, and the acting are pretty good. I had some problems with the middle of the film which went a little slow (but so did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and that was IMO the best picture of 2000). But it picks up at the end with a great battle scene. This isn't a fast paced movie. It takes time to enjoy but its well worth it. 4-stars for the movie. 5-stars for director Peter Weir.

Lee Bartholomew

(2012-03-28 05:55:23)

Very technical and fun to watch.

(spoilers)Okay, the story is fictional. Was a bit easier to figure that out thanTheLast Samurai. I was stuck with a choice. Watch this movie at the theateror Samurai. I watched Samurai. I'm glad I did too. That one isemotionally charged. And perhaps not entirely cool towatch.Master & Commander was simply a delight though. One of the best seafaringfilms I've since since The Bounty. (mind you I only saw The Bounty -thegibson version- a few months ago) Hopefully we'll see more of these. AndI'm not talking Pirates of the Caribbean. That one is pure entertainment,without much in way of seriousness.The action begins right off the bat , and with the occational breaks.doesn't stop. If LOTR wasn't on the clock, either this movie or lastsamurai woulda made a decent showing. (though I think I still would havebeen pulling for Whale Rider)I do have 3 known complaints.Camera work. Some of the camera work is lousy. Probably from the crampedquarters in which some of the scenes were shot. My favourite error is asthey are going around the table during a dinner meeting, the cameraobviously bumps someone and you can actually hear the mistake.o_OThe ending. It gives the possibility of a sequel. Or does it. I knowthatthis is part of a book series. (note the word series.... more than one)Finally. Marketing. Someone in the marketing department should betortured, hung from the side arm and whipped. They released this barebonesedition, without a shred of special features in it. I'd seen ads of a 2disc set with that picture on the front. So I bought it from Blockbuster.Where I found the bad news back home. 1 disc. Having seen the othercoverat dvdempire I informed Blockbuster they sold me the wrong one and Iwantedthe 2 disc. They told me it doesn't exist. After much persistence. Theysaid Best Buy has a 2 disc set and to buy it there. I'd say the managerwasprobably so confused he didn't know his limb from limb. Since the 2 discison the blockbuster webpage. I ended up with a 3 disc set.So imagine this.Now we have the bare bones edition in widescreen and pan/scan.And now we also have the Collectors Edition in 2 disc sets and 3 discsets.We've got 4 different versions to watch out for. So bloodyannoying.9/10Quality: 7/10Entertainment: 15/10 (that is not a typo)Replayable: 10/10

kwozziegirl

(2012-03-27 21:39:28)

"Aubrey, may I trouble you for the salt?"

From start to finish, this movie had me feeling every emotion, excepthate. I found the brotherhood outstanding, the witty dialog at timesnear on side splitting, for e.g. When Aubrey suckered Maturin into theWeevil analysis. Maturin's response was equally as funny, but thenBettany has the ability to rise to the occasion in practically everyrole I have seen him in. Crowie, once again, Brings a fictionalCharacter to life, and if you didn't know any better, you would thinkthe story was based off a real life account. Killick, he kills me, "Killick" yells Aubrey for the Albermarle, " I'm already ere in-nit I "I have watched this flick now about 10 times, and I just don't tire ofit, because each time something else catches my eye. I wish I couldjust climb aboard that vessel and experience the sea-dog life, as I ama sailor from way back. All the Actors in this movie, collaborate tomake it a memorable epic. Weir When are you doing another? If you do,get Crowie and Bettany back, and Killick please. Loved it.

Ben Yong

(2012-03-19 10:50:39)

Russell Crowe mumbles his way to the far side of the world

I appreciate that a great deal of research and effort went into theproduction of this movie, and that if you are a genuine navy buff thenyou will find such an astonishing level of detail a delight (as otherpeople have commented here). If like me however you are not such aglutton for authentic early 19th century naval warfare then you mayfind this movie a tad dull. Yes the production values are excellent,yes the movie is well shot but as for the quality of the script I haveno idea. Not because I wasn't paying attention, but because I basicallycouldn't hear a word of dialogue. Russell Crowe is a great actor(should have beaten Denzel to the best actor Oscar for a BeautifulMind) but for some reason his acting in this film consists entirely oftalking gruffly under his breath. Jack Aubrey may have been the mostinspirational character to grace the screen in the past 50 years, butall I could think was 'speak up you mumbling idiot!' Not for the hardof hearing.

carla811

(2012-03-19 05:16:45)

OUTSTANDING

i did not get to see Master and Commander in the theatre, but finallydid see it on hbo on demand.. well, it is simply the most awesome ,engrossing , stunningly beautiful movie i have ever seen! the story,the cast, the cinematography, the characters... usually i like romanticcomedies, but this work of art, had me enchanted and spellbound frombeginning to end. i have since watched it over and over and overnumerous times. of course, Russell Crowe is outstanding in hisperformance, but it seems the entire cast was fantastic and sobelievable! i especially loved James D'arcy as the 1st Lieutenant TomPullings. i loved the scenes at the dinner table, singing songs,drinking, and joking and laughing! these personalities seem bigger thanlife! also,i loved a lot of the cinematography, of how the camera wouldpull back and show the two ships...and the ocean...with that beautifulmusic playing in the background. i bought the cd of master andcommander because i also loved the music too so much! i cant say enoughabout this film..it is one i will watch over and over again, never tireof...i love the interaction of the characters, and the depth which thefilm reveals of each one. thank you Peter Weir... i also loved yourother film Witness..that is another one i watch and never tire of.MASTER AND COMMANDER...THE BEST FROM THIS SIDE OF THE WORLD! WITH LOVEAND APPRECIATION, CARLA

svensson-2

(2012-03-18 04:47:38)

Interesting environment

I enjoyed this film because I recently read about Darwin and captain FitzRoyon board of the Beagle (some decades later). I found it interesting to see thisenvironment realistically presented in a movie, and the controversies between Darwin andFitzRoy were similar as in the movie.

Noel Purdon

(2012-03-17 14:51:23)

Superb combination of direction and performance with stunning effects

Peter Weir's genius for creating enclosed universes is breathtakinglydisplayed in this powerful expansion of his talents into the epic. Oneverylevel,from that of popular entertainment to those of thoughtfulhistoricaland psychological investigation,this is a gripping piece of work. RussellCrowe uses his genuine charm and humour to create a character who is notsimply heroic but complex. The remaining cast are perfect in every nuanceofauthentic shipboard life in 1805. The spectator becomes so immersed intheaction that the state of the art special effects never intrude simply fortheir own sake. One of this year's best movies.