Master and Commander

[Muzzy]

Saw this last night, was a fine movie. It's been gettin some very gracious reviews and rightfully so. Russel Crowe was fine as usual, but I think Paul Bettany was the real stand-out(He was Crowes 'room-mate' in A Beautiful Mind). He just has a great way of displaying emotions, and you would feel happy or sad if he was one or the other.

I'm not much on reviews, so maybe someone else could give it a go.

[Beale the Rippe]

I'll do one later...but I will say that this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I REALLY liked it. :)

[Caitlyn]

Glad you guys liked it... I'm really looking forward to seeing this one... :)

[Hondo333]

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World | 2003 | Weir | D+

This evening was the second time this year I have walked out of the cinema disappointed (The first due to Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines [2003]), Not that I had expected a lot from Master and Commander (the case with T3 was not so much expecting but wanting and hoping for a worthy sequel) but I had at least expected a decent film, Which was not delivered.

Before I start to go into way I didn’t like M & C I will express my view of Russell Crowe , I hate him as an actor and although I have never met him I hate him as person. I tried as hard as I could to not let this get in the way of this film… But in the end it did.

Maybe the projector was broke or something but to me the cinematography in this film was horrible, everything seemed out of focus, cramped and…… cheap. Looking through his IMDB profile I don’t think Russell Boyd was the best choice to shoot this film, I mean the only decent movie he has been involved in is Gallipoli [1981] and I cant remember how that looked.

I think that there was a (failed) attempt to transfer what was happening on the screen to affect the viewer. The storm was a good example of this, instead of feeling cold and “weathered”, I felt annoyed (If you have no idea what I am talking about see Barton Fink [1991] or Fargo [1996], The first makes you feel like your on fire and the second makes you feel frozen). This was also tried during the battle scenes (Especially the hand to hand combat part in the last one) and instead of getting a Saving Privet Ryan like effect I just felt plain confused and once again annoyed.

I also read somewhere that in the book the enemy ship is American working for the French, whereas in the film it is a French ship, If this has been changed because of current politics I am very disappointed. But I have not read the book so I am not sure if this is true.

There are a few reasons why this film didn’t get an F or even a low D, One is the weevil joke and another is Max Pirkis, This kid was amazing, Probably one of the first kid actors I could say I enjoyed watching. And the last was the one on one scenes between Bettany and Crowe, they really got me to sit up and pay attention.

[CandyFlick]

Good to see the British or should I say/type English in a good light for once in a Hollywood movie.

It shows England for the great country it once was http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/other/britain.gif

I hope this film paves the way for a new era of non Brit bashing films.

[Maniac]

Good to see the British or should I say/type English in a good light for once in a Hollywood movie.

It shows England for the great country it once was http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/other/britain.gif

I hope this film paves the way for a new era of non Brit bashing films.

To be honest I've never seen real British-bashing film come out of Hollywood.

Most of the films that come out like Patton (1970) and The Patriot (2000) etc.
Have been based on U.S. history. I dunno, our worlds aren't too different yet we each precieve something different I guess.:)

[mack]

I disliked this movie, not for failures of the plot line, but I really thought the acting was poorly done (specifically Russell Crowe), and the relationships a bit overly cliched. :rolleyes:

[uconjack]

I thought the movie was OK. I like historical movies. But I actually thought the Horatio Hornblower series that was on PBS (filmed in Britain) was as good or better.

[mack]

I think my problem with this movie was not with the idea, which was great, or with the cinematograhpy, which was a visual ecstasy, but more with the fact that I felt as though the movie was so presumptuous. That plot was supposed to be far more invovled and conflicting than I felt that it was. I assume, and perhaps wrongfully so, that different actors could have taken the same, seemingly shallow plotline and stole my heart.

I really felt as though they took basic cliches, rolled them up in a ball, and stuck in a big budget, pretty-looking film with a big-name actor, as though that, alone, is enough to make a good movie. A little acting, please? Anyone? Anyone? As a viewer, I felt a bit marginalized, and poopooed upon. Im sorry, I require even Russell Crowe to act when I pay to see him.

Thank God I rented it.

But, I ask too much of you as a reader. Seriously. I understand that I make these horrid claims about what is heralded as an Icon of Movies by the industry. (I cant believe they won awards for this crap. I cant believe I didnt know--I probably would have pitched a hissyfit at the time.) Have no fear! I shall tell you what pissed me off, in order:

1) Russell Crowe's platonic acting. Could he be more boring and un-emphatic? It was deplorable. I felt as though I was listening to a monotony, and I wasnt wrong!

2) Failed poignancy. Unlike Gladiator, this movie's long silence and meaningful looks fell short of the mark, I kept having to restrain the urge to giggle, or alternatively shout in dismay: "What?! Is this supposed to MEAN something?!" Of course it was. :rolleyes: Sarcasm intended.

3) Overtly Cliched Relationships. A little subtlety, anyone? Anyone? Please? Am I a child? Do I look stupid? The in-your-face cliches made me want to retch. Seriously. Do they think the viewing poplace is so stupid that we wouldnt get it, if toned down?? But before I digress into what would probably be a much enjoyed mindless rant session, let me point out a few badly done cliches:

(a) The Commander/Doctor friendship vs. ranking. The issue addressed in this relationship was abundantly clear. Oh, my heart bleeds! :rolleyes: The Commander is put in a conflict over his duties as Master of the Ship, and his friendship with the Doctor. Which comes first? Whose man is he? And so on, and so forth. Fine. I have no problem with the cliche, only that it required a little ACTING to be played out right! Russell Crowe came across as standoffish and aloof (read: unable to act the role), and the Doctor? What can I say other than that I am disappointed? He did a good job displaying flair in A Knight's Tale, but in this role, even as they attempted to play him as the poor, aggrieved friend, he came across as childish, whining, sniveling and petulant. Seriously. It pissed me off, because, I felt that that role had such great possibilities! There are real conflicts between friends when one is an subordinate! And although they were trying to address those issues, I found that there was no nobility in the Doctor's actions. It was pathetic, and he grated on my nerves. Look at me. Ive ranted. Back on topic.

(b) The Dude Who Killed Himself and the crew. Um? No. Not played well at all. I understood the essence of what they were trying to capture in that aspect of the film, but please! I found that part of the film uninspiring, largely due to the fact that it was played so badly. The Commander never took a real interest in teaching his officers how to be officers--thus, he didnt really engender their respect. How then are they supposed to know how to get respect from their men? I found that part of the story flawed in great respect. They couldve have explored that relationship to such a degree that they made his death a horror. I almost thought that was what they were trying to do. Nah. By the time he had jumped I was so sick of the bad acting, and uninterested in the outcome (by this time I just wanted the movie to be over), that I was cheering him on, like "Jump, loser!" Why linger on this cliche? There are more.

(c) The Boy-Child and the Commander. This part of the film was obviously underappreciated by the director. :rolleyes: I suppose they meant for our hearts to swoon over the dashing Commander, and his obvious honorable-ness in taking in the son. Excuse me while I shed tears of worship and adoration. :rolleyes: Not. He was unavailable, aloof, and rarely gave the boy a moments notice. The kid was obviously baggage to his character, although the movie played them as though he wasnt! :eek: Whaaaat?

Lest I take too much joy out of bashing this atrocity, I will admit that there were some good actors/parts:

1) The Boys. Those boys played their parts to the letter. I give them a resounding hurrah for the poignancy and nobility their characters displayed, and they obviously put in the effort to act out.

2) The French The Director of this movie must be a France Publicist! :D This movie had me rooting for the French. Seriously. They came across as cool, sleek, deadly, and cunning. Smart as whips, fearsome, and a people to be reckoned with. My one highlight of the movie was when Russell Crowe discovered that the Master of the French ship had escaped. Whoo hoo! (Im American, what can I say?)

3) The Visual Scenes.[/b] There is only one word that can describe the beauty of this movie: WOW!

A Concessions: I can admit that this movie got a strong, almost visceral reaction from me. It takes quite a bit for a movie to do that for me. So, it did succeed on some level! :D

[Tazz]

If you Like Pirates of the Caribbean you will probably like master and Commander

[mack]

hey! :D I liked Pirates of the Caribbean!

[jrs]

Me too! :D

[nebbit]

1) Russell Crowe's platonic acting. Could he be more boring and un-emphatic? It was deplorable. I felt as though I was listening to a monotony, and I wasnt wrong! :D

Agreed :yup:

[mott hamble]

Master and Commander had NOTHING over Pirates of the Carribean. I couldn't make it through MaC, it made me sea sick! :(

[Moviez&Dvdz4life]

True stuff mott_hamble, good saying! Pirates of the Carribean was more entertaining and more fun than Master and Commander. I just loved POTC and we all know that MAC just made all of us seasick (like you qouted mott_homble)

Later!

[AboveTheClouds]

Twas a decent film.... Not Crowe's best.. but FAR from his worst.

[RYS]

I want to raise up an old topic again :) . It's quite surprising to see that many people dislike this movie. Actually, I really enjoy the movie. The acting is good from all casts and you should read the book first before judging the characters in the movie.

Russell and Paul balance each other perfectly as portrayed in the book. The book also explains that their friendship is very deep. In one story, Jack Aubrey (Russell) has risked everything to save his best friend.

The title is missleading though. Actually, the movie takes the story not only from the Far Side of the World book, but from various books in the Aubrey-Maturin series.

Some situations in the movie is also not real and I believe impossible to happen in the real world at that time. For example, the explanation of Jonah that brings bad luck in the ship. The crews seem surprise to hear the explanation. In reality, this is common belief during that time.

The last part of the movie, Aubrey promotes his lieutenant to be a captain. This can't happen because only admiral can do the promotion. Moreover, newly promote captains can't directly lead a big ship like that. They should become a commander first and lead a no-rate ship (sloop / brig class).

I suppose these scenes are essential to create explanation for the audience and to create a nice feeling.

Anyway, I still think that this is a good movie with strong performance from all casts. I give 8/10.

[Thursday Next]

Well I thought the book was awful, which doesn't always mean it will be a bad film (I liked the film, but not the book of Perfume) but nothing I have read in this thread tempts me to try the film.

[emir]

I see it as a very entertaining and an old-fashioned film. Weir has managed to make pretty dull books into a fairly enjoyable adventure flick. I think that its main problem is polarized audience: half of them expect another Pirates of the Caribbean action adventure comedy, and get serious and realistic approach, and those expecting a masterpiece get one-dimensional characters and clichéd relationships. I say old-fashioned, because not many directors still make such movies: walking on a line between art and entertainment.

Master and Commander: Far Side of The World’s(admittedly, not the best title in the world, sounds like a sixth sequel to a videogame) character’s lack of depth is well-hidden by great performances (most notably Bettany, but Crowe is pretty convincing as well, people often forget that he is an actor, other than an obnoxious celebrity), and it’s got quite a few exciting scenes.

You might not like Weir’s direction (it is pretty conventional), but you have to respect him for always making different movies. Other directors would still be stuck making Dead Poets Society or Truman Show all over again, but not Weir. He’s not afraid of risking, and that’s one of the reasons I love his movies.

I’m not a historian, so I’m not annoyed with inaccuracies in the movie’s depiction of 19th century British Navy ranks. If errors in movies aren’t too obvious or insulting to intelligence, then they don’t ruin overall quality of the film.

[mark f]

I don't have that much to add. I think it's a good film. I liked both the characters and the action, plus I was impressed that we got to see the Galapagos Islands. I would give it 3.5

http://www.abc.net.au/gippsland/stories/Master_and_m792564.jpg http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/11561/54485/t/323958-Bartolom-island-1.jpg

[Powdered Water]

I think its a great film...

Probably stems for my thing for ferry boats.:p