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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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!
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!
Reply to Topic
