Master and Commander reviews looking almost too good to be true
Posted by John Campeaon 14. 11. 2003in News Chat
The new Russell Crowe flick Master and Commander opens tonight, and I can’t wait to see it. I personally think Crowe is one of the best actors of our generation and the genre of the high seas seems to be a winner too. Yahoo Movies gives us this short look at what the critics are saying so far:
Critics Reviews Average Grade: A-
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Eleanor Ringel Gillespie
“Masterful and commanding.” B+Chicago Tribune, Michael Wilmington
“…probably the best movie of its kind ever made.” Afilmcritic.com, David Levine
“Master and Commander is a masterpiece.” AHollywood Reporter, Michael Rechtshaffen
“Masterful direction and commanding performances make this epic voyage highly see-worthy.” A
This post was written by :
John Campea who has written 6783 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
Sorry but this movie sucked BIG time, Russell crowe was good but i hated the ending and the the way if felt so un-original. What a load of shit this movie was. I would rather sit through Kill Bill or Matrix revolutions insteaad of this gladiator re-hash!!!
I saw this movie yesterday and i thought it was pretty amazing, the acting, sets and special effects were amazing. You know what i mean when i say special effects. But i found myself waiting patiently for the action but it seems that the trailers and campaigns have been advertising it as an action movie but it isn’t. So i fear this will not be a very big success with the viewers.
I saw this movie yesterday and i thought it was pretty amazing, the acting, sets and special effects were amazing. You know what i mean when i say special effects. But i found myself waiting patiently for the action but it seems that the trailers and campaigns have been advertising it as an action movie but it isn’t. So i fear this will not be a very big success with the viewers.
I saw this movie yesterday and i thought it was pretty amazing, the acting, sets and special effects were amazing. You know what i mean when i say special effects. But i found myself waiting patiently for the action but it seems that the trailers and campaigns have been advertising it as an action movie but it isn’t. So i fear this will not be a very big success with the viewers.
Sorry but my computer fucked up and know there are three posts, very sorry!!
It’s ok, the movie wasn’t that good anyway.
um…what was the name of that crappy pirate movie with the chick from Thelma and Louis? This movie smells like its inbred cousin.
Cuttthroat island, in fact it was on last night!!
It is perhaps too facile, too easy, to damn Russell Crowe’s latest exercise in retro masculinty with marine metaphors — waterlogged? soggy? adrift? — but sadly for Mr. Crowe and his legendary director Peter Weir (Fearless, The Truman Show), such descriptors are accurate of both the noble crewmen and the plodding state of MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD. Although visually beautiful, and artfully rendered, the film never grabs the gusto of a true swashbuckling adventure. Sure, there’s fighting aplenty, and lots of quaint seafaring jargon as well…but the mirthless atmosphere and laid-back narrative strip Crowe and his aquatic drama of any fun it could have had.
It should be noted that MASTER AND COMMANDER is by no means a disaster like Waterworld; if you’re looking for filmic comparisons, think Das Boot minus the gripping tension, or Mutiny on the Bounty minus the mutiny. Technically, Weir has delivered a glistening panoramic paean to British naval history. Based on the series of popular novels by Patrick O’Brian, Weir’s adapation revels in the fine details of shipboard life, a meticulous construction that is intoxicating in its thoroughness. Ultimately, however, the sea-picture it may be most compared to is the behemoth of the genre, Titanic — another historical piece that was long on technical wizardry and light on narrative. When sailing the seven seas, gentlemen, don’t forget to bring the script along.
As Captain Jack Aubrey, Crowe exhibits the brio, courage, foolhardiness and leadership that are the stuff of legend…and legendary characters. But Crowe’s natural coolness works against the genre here; instead of energetic nobility, we get smoldering rage. Crowe is undoubtedly a talented man, and with Aubrey, he doesn’t embarrass himself. Still, watching him, one gains a new appreciation for the effortless poise that Errol Flynn and Trevor Howard brought to similar roles in Captain Blood and the aforementioned Bounty. There’s just not enough zing to make for a ripping good yarn, a quality MASTER AND COMMANDER cries out for.
The time is 1805, when the Napoleon-led French armies are making their grab for empire. Avoiding Europe altogether, MASTER AND COMMANDER instead focuses on the waters off of South America, where Aubrey and his command, the H.M.S. Surprise, has been ordered to keep the French from establishing a naval presence in the area — in particular, the sleek new French ship Acheron. Stronger, faster, and better armed, the Acheron has the ability to dominate the Surprise, and only the cleverness and cunning of the Brits will allow them to see victory. (Another comparison — classic underdog Rocky Balboa, only with boats. Okay, I’ll stop, I promise.)
The growing tensions of the tired, hungry and homesick crew make up the little character drama that exists in MASTER AND COMMANDER. It includes the expected concerns with seafaring superstitions (that find a focal point in a timid midshipman), but also a few surprising, if underexplored, turns. Paul Bettany (A Knight’s Tale) brings great pathos to his role of Maturin, the ship’s doctor, who is also a closet naturalist. The film’s most entertaining segment, in fact, is the Surprise’s stopover in the Galapagos Islands, where Maturin marvels at species and creatures never seen by Western eyes before. Max Pirkis labors mightily as a pre-teen midshipman who suffers early tragedy before coming to command men four times his age in battle. Historical accuracy aside, the cherubic waif Pirkis is simply miscast; his angelic femininity pushes the intriguing character toward implausibility.
Chasing each other across the open seas, the two ships are breaktakingly captured by cinematographer Russell Boyd, who instinctly grasps the need for scale; straining toward the epic, MASTER AND COMMANDER achieves grandeur through its languid, luxurious shots of man versus nature. The inevitable hurricane-level storms are well-executed, too, although one may wonder if Mark Wahlberg’s still-drowning character from A Perfect Storm may happen to be floating nearby. The score, cribbed from violin concertos by many of the classic masters, intrudes upon the action in a way that compositions specifically intended for film do not. The choice, in this case, is wrongheaded.
As our culture speeds up to caffeinated, video-game levels, one may welcome the arrival of a leisurely action picture; certainly the herky-jerky editing that typified so many actioners these days could use a break now and then. The feeling that is left by MASTER AND COMMANDER, though, is not one of peacefulness but turgidity; what should be pleasantly leisurely is instead just irritating slow. There’s no doubt that Russell Crowe is built for the Historical Hero wing of the Hollywood Hall of Fame; but even a marine matinee idol still needs to dry off and get moving.
All right, see that?
Yeah, the post right above this one?
I sit in awe.
Christine Russell not only paid attention in English class, but she’s a lot smarter than me.
I like elf but I don’t understand how it beat Master and Commander during opening weekend! What is our movie going public thinking?
Well, on that same note, when movies like “Urban Legend II” and “2 Fast 2 Furious” get the number one spot, I expect little from my movie-going public.
Has anyone else seen the change in the movie public????
In most cases, people dislike movie adaptations the better they know and like the book. I saw “Master and Commander” and loved it. Reading the reviews, I see that the better the reviewer knows the Patrick O’Brian series, the better he (and it’s nearly always “he”) liked the movie. As a passionate O’Brianite, that’s how I felt. Christine Russell is entitled to her opinion, but this movie is not meant to be “Captain Blood,” and Jack Aubrey is a professional naval officer with a wife and kids at home, and should not resemble Errol Flynn.
I suspect, thought, that for the O’Brianite half the thrill of the movie is seeing the world of the Royal Navy of two centuries ago brought to life in such finicky detail. Nobody does any work in “Captain Blood”; the brutal and incessant, but highly-skilled work carried out by small all-male company, a sort of village, is practically the theme of the books and of the movie. If the work, the preparations for battle and the repairs afterward are not carried out perfectly, they will die. The sea will kill them or the French will. But I will admit you have to have read a lot of O’Brian to understand what everyone is doing every minute.
Well, to each his own . . .
I thought the movie was quite a revealing and probably realistic portraiture of the grueling life of naval warfare (we’ve got it easy nowadays) and an interesting though somewhat contrived depiction of the relationship of Crowe and his foil, the doctor. Beautiful scenery and intense battle scenes. Slow pace (sort of a Forrest Gump-type meandering pace) but slow enough to let the film-goer appreciate the trials of life on sea.
One thing I didn’t understand (b/c I’m bad understanding British English): what happened at the end? I didn’t understand why Crowe changed course at the end. Someone PLEASE explain. Thank you.
Here’s what I think happened. Russell Crowe gets the sword from the French “doctor” right? Then his doctor/naturalist guy tells him at the end that the French doctor had died a while ago. So I think that the guy who gives Crowe the sword is actually the French ship’s captain and the “captain” who was supposedly dead laying on the table when Crowe walked into that room on the French ship was actually the dead doctor or another dead French sailor. Crowe decided to escort the ship home because he probably wanted to talk to the French captain guy.
Or maybe, due to too many months at sea, he hallucinated that crazy monkeys had hijacked the French ship and he had to rescue the princess or something.
Who knows.
At last, a movie for adults that doesn’t do gratuitous violence to historical accuracy. Most directors, possessing enormous egos, cannot resist the temptation to turn historical flicks into some sort of baby-boomer drama, replete with characters whose motivation, outlook and character is right off a college campus in 1969. By the way, midshipmen as young as twelve did command men in battle, they were to become officers when fullt grown, after all.
Waited and waited, but it never got me. I think Russell Crowe was the wrong man for the job. Like some others above, I wanted a more charismatic performance from the captain. I was expecting a swashbuckler, as it seemed to have been advertised, I left feeling jaded - lots of hype… as they say all mouth and no trousers. As usual, visually stunning, but somehow the story never reached me and I’m sure it was a good one!
Re: “Master and Commander/ The Far Side of the World” I cannot take it any longer. How can it be that a film which misses the mark of the novels so completely and utterly should arouse such critical acclaim leads me to believe that I am living not on the “Far Side of the World” but in Gary Larsen’s comic strip:”The Far Side.” First of all: the film is boring. On my first attempt, I walked out after an hour, disgusted by how totally Peter Weir (One of my favorite directors, oh horrible irony!) completely missed the characterization of Aubrey and Maturin. The plotting, where there was any, was hopelessly predictable and jejune. The music missed the point entirely. A & M are amateur musicians! It was thrilling to hear LA’s best free-lancers perform so brilliantly, but really…. some humanity, please. But there was no humanity. On my second attempt, I fell asleep after forty minutes, but woke up in time for Maturin’s self-operation. All I can do is growl in disgust at how completely off the mark Mr. Weir was. The scene comes from “HMS Surpise” in which the Doctor is severely wounded in a duel over a spectacular woman. (Maturin kills his man, though he had only planned to wing him. Maturin, far different than the travesty of Maturin found on screen, is a cold-blooded killer and frequent duellist, as well as a master spy). Movie-goers, listen…. in the book, the Doctor actually cuts the bullet out of himself!!! He is amply dosed with laudanum, but Jack merely assists by pressing down on his stomach, and feels ill because, in his own words, “Christ, Bonden, he opened himself slowly, with his own hands, right to the heart. I saw it beating there.” But the true horror is….in the novel, Maturin undergoes a long convalescence in which he is alternately delirious and unpleasant….while in this idiotic movie he is traipsing around on the Galapagos mere days later!!! As a lover of great literature, I have never been this offended by a Hollywood adaptation. Am I alone in the horror that I feel? Are all mainstream film critics as moronic as they sound as they fall over themselves in praise of this truly reprehensible movie? Is this the twilight zone?
WORST ENDING EVER
the ending ruined the whole damn movie
I liked it…very much.
It’s war, you can’t expect it to be funny or to have always “action”…
You people are idiots, you forget that the whole reason for making movies is to make money, you will never be able to find anything and i emphasize anything that portrays history the way it actually happened, until you find a time machine, go back, and experience history first hand you have no right or foundation to complain about historical accuracy or charachter recreations. movies are to make money and to entertain. if you want knowledge watch a documentary. plus most of the movies you think are so great are hated by many. and likewise the movies they like are hated by others.
I found the ending confusing, too. Perhaps that was intentional; it leads nicely into the follow-up movie. I knew a ruse had been perpetrated but was unclear exactly what had happened. My guess is that Sven is right and that the captain of the Acheron is alive and well and with the help of his crewmates will probably wrest control from the crew of the Surprise that had been sent aboard to navigate the ship back to England. So my guess is that the follow-up movie (and I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a follow-up) will pick up right where this one left off and I’ll finally have my answer. I’ve read a lot of reviews of the movie on the net and no one has even mentioned the ending.
I so loooooooooovvvvvvveeee this movie, I saw it for the first time on DVD last night and would like to watch it again. It appears a sequel might be in the offing.