Genres

Visitors Review

rolllx 2012-05-24 05:17:14

a sleeping pill

In my point of view this movie could have been done better. The storyfeltvery thin, i even took a little nap when i watched it. It isnt often amoviefrom that specific period of our history appears on the movie theatres. soat first, this film looked extremely exciting, a must see movie. And thegreat actor Russell Crowe plays the main character, must be a great movie!!! i thought,I can congratulate the "smart" movie company that hired RussellCrowe,only his name will boost the selling of tickets, to this poor thin sleepystory.You could have done this better.Rollx

veriplay 2012-05-23 19:25:18

Excellent movie - you really feel you are on board! *Slight spoilers*

I watched this movie on DVD because my husband kept wanting to see itand it was always out! Well I was very impressed. It is the firstseafaring movie where I felt that I was seeing the details of life onboard an 1800s UK Navy ship without too many of the usual cornyclichés. From what I have found out about the writer of the novel uponwhich it is based, he is an erudite man who has researched this area indetail - and has been compared to both Jane Austen and Homer. I am gladthat the movie makers brought that detail into the film. What impressedme the most was how incredible the tradesmen on board were - rebuildingthe ship after a hit whilst at sea - it made it all seem so possibleand so real - and making weapons. The age of some of the officers intraining was a surprise and I think that the boy who looses his arm wasexcellent! I am not a great fan of Crowe anymore - I knew he had 'It' when I firstsaw him in that silly movie about hearts set in South America with Ithink the lovely Bridget Fonda (what has happened to her?) butunfortunately despite his brilliance, he seems to know it too! But inthis role he is a warm and kind man, and even in his Aussy element ofall that machoism - he is very likable as the Captain and as usual damgood!Highly recommend this movie - you feel that you have learned somethingbeyond a good tale!

Tristram_ZX81 2012-05-22 20:30:06

should serve as a very realistic document of sea life at the time of the Napoleonic war

Looking at the piece of cinema that Peter Weir has here created, it is nowonder that Master & Commander received the critical lauding it did uponit's US release. It is because he remembers, like so many other directors ofblockbuster entertainment forget, that the best action sequences are dramaand not special effects spectacles. There is a brooding tension and keenattention to detail running all the way through, leaving one eager to knowjust how Russell Crowe's Captain Jack Aubrey will trump his (mainly) unseenenemy. Weir creates a sense of realism-within-action seen only recently (tomy memory) in the plane crash sequence in Robert Zemeckis' Cast Away. Weir,like Zemeckis, knows that the audience feels the threat of death more ifthey are only shown what the protagonists see. As such, there is no FrenchPOV of the H.M.S. Surprise being attacked in battle, just as in Cast Awaythere was no exterior shot of the FedEx plane crashing into the Pacific.Russell Crowe justifies any hype surrounding his performance based not onlyon his stellar performances of the past but also the critical reaction tohis acting in this film; he really is the modern day Brando 'Russ Le Roc'once admitted to aspiring to: naturally commanding, brash and continuallyproving to be the most versatile actor of his generation.It will remain to be seen whether this long, testing but never dull moviewill be one for repeat viewings, but what is definite is that Peter Weir's'Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World' is an excellently made movieof what life on board a British war boat in the Napoleonic War really feltlike, and no matter how well this costly movie does at the box office or atthe upcoming Academy Awards, this should serve as a very realistic documentof sea life at the time of this historic war.

bsinc 2012-05-22 02:51:09

Enrapturing and captivating

In the last few months I have been in a phase where good and great moviesjust came pouring in from countless places and it's been a wonderfulexperience. But "Master And Commander" tops the chart!Why? Because it was the most enjoyable and powerful of them all. Because it hadan impeccable cast that drove the movie all the way through.(Mr. Crowe beinghis usual self in the best possible way and the incredible Paul Bettany whogives the movie a Darwinistic and humane tone). Because it had an incredibleenseble working on its score, cinematography, costumes, editing andespecially detailed presentation of that time. Because it had dialogues thathad something, no, a lot to say. And because it was just so bloodybrilliant. My favorite moment: when Dr. Stephen Maturin stumbles upon his so-seeked outbird and catches the French ship closing in. With the surrounding music,camera and atmosphere it created one of the most perfect movie moments Ihave ever seen. The only flaw I can remember was the casting of Billy Boydwho should either had more screen time or either been replaced with anunknown actor.I more than understand people who will and have found "Master And Commander"tedious or perhaps arguably uneventful, because the people who will enjoy itthe most are people who know a little bit about naval customs and happeningsin those days and who will appreciate it especially for that. This movie ismore than just a regular revival of a seaman movie, it is an excellentdocumentary of days when British fleets fought with the French and it endsin such a manner. Perhaps unfinished to some, to me it wasperfect.Peter Weir, kudos to your directing skills, they have proven you to beHollywood's very own and true Master and Commander. 9/10

sahatl 2012-05-19 12:44:33

terrible

This is one of the worst movies ever made. If you need to get some shuteyethen this is the movie for you. Castaway will be considered to be anactionpacked movie compared to this! I hope you enjoyed all the action you sawinthe previews for this movie because that's it folks.Whoever said that this is like Gladiator of the sea must have never seenGladiator. Whoever enjoyed this movie must love being bored. They couldhave wrapped this movie up in about 15-20 minutes. About 90% of this movieis mumbling and rambling dialogue that has nothing to do with the plot.Don't waste your time or money on this bomb. You're better off watchingGigli.

sealpoint 2012-05-18 21:10:55

Bring your life jacket

This was such a great movie, I'm in total shock. I had expected to fallasleep half way through since this isn't really my kind of movie. Do notexpect a boring battleship war movie with lots of talking. The fightingscenes captivated me right from the beginning and pulled me into the oceanwith the rest of the crew. The story was fun, the cast were personable,andthe directing was great.

tfrizzell 2012-05-17 18:11:54

The Lord of the Seas: The Two Ships.

Very strange piece from Australian director Peter Weir (who is bestknown for "Witness", "Dead Poets Society" and "The Truman Show") hasRussell Crowe leading a British Naval Fleet in 1805 during theNapoleonic Wars. The crew is very diverse to say the least as there arethose who are pre-teens and those who are very elderly and of courseevery age group in between. Some in the crew include doctor PaulBettany (Crowe's cohort in "A Beautiful Mind"), deck-hand Billy Boyd("The Lord of the Rings" fame) and odd-ball cook David Threlfall.Gloomy camera-work early on foreshadows a duel in the sea betweenCrowe's ship and a mysterious phantom fleet that has to be from theFrench military. As the movie moves along side-stories galore occur,but the constant is always the chess match at sea between the twoships. Situational whirlwinds make a showdown at the finale the onlylegitimate outcome, but what happens when everything is not quite whatit seems? "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" is one ofthose films that has been praised outrageously by critics, but in theend I found the movie to have quite a few big shortcomings. Thescreenplay by co-writer Weir never does really come to life. The battlesequences are impressive, but there is so much dead-time in thispicture that it feels like the film-makers had to have a minimum140-minute running time (which is really too long here) to get themovie made. Beautiful cinematography on the sea gives way to asickening claustrophobic feel deep in the bowels of the ship as thecamera literally seems to sway constantly along with the sea (this is aneat innovation, but you might need a motion sickness pill whileviewing). None of the characters are particularly interesting either asCrowe's part is really short-changed to make way for other crew memberswho turn out to be little more than pirate-styled caricatures. I reallyfelt no connection with the key players at any point. All in all thefilm is still not bad (especially considering the messes we have had tosit through in 2003), but I still had many reservations by the timethis set its final course. Definitely worth a look, but this is no"Lawrence of Arabia" on the water. "Gladiator" on the water? Perhaps."Gladiator" had lots of problems with it too. 4 stars out of 5.

2012-05-16 23:08:35

Almost Perfect

I (almost) never go to the theatre to see movies because I am offended by the ads I am expected to sit through after paying $$$ for the movie. But I happened to go to see Seabiscut last fall, and one of the many trailers was for "Master & Commander." Having gone the course of the entire Patrick O'Brien series three times (at last count) I knew immediately what it must be, especially when I saw Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe), almost exactly as I had pictured him.Even so, I was prepared to be disappointed, even though Peter Weir was directing.I am happy to say they got it right. Almost perfect.

theguys1 2012-05-14 04:19:51

the worst movie of the year!

There are many things wrong with this movie. First of all, a good storyshould take into the plot before the first hour rushes by, and therehas to be a meaning in a movie that will keep the audience begging formore; not falling asleep in their chairs and snoring louder than thesound of a bullet being shot from a gun. And the bottom line prettymuch is that SOMETHING HAS TO HAPPEN IN THE FRICKIN MOVIE!!!!!!!! Thereis not even 30 seconds of action one minute, and then it's just singingfolk songs on the ship and eating slop while celebrating. And worst ofall, they make jokes that aren't even funny! I'm sorry to say that tothe people that worked 3 years on this movie that it completely sucksand it was a complete waste of their valuable time. I'm not much of awar movie fan, but I know a bad movie when I see one, no matter whatgenre. I understand that this is a war movie telling a true story aboutactual people, but it's not worthy of being shown on the big screen.

2012-05-13 15:56:22

exciting sea adventure

Peter Weir directs this high seas adventure with skill and a great eye; the film received an Academy Award for cinematography, and the action and effects are terrific. Russell Crowe stars as Lucky Jack Aubrey and Paul Bettany is his friend and ship's surgeon as the ship battles a French phantom ship in this adaptation of Patrick O'Brian's series of books. Some liberties are taken with the books, probably wisely; for instance, the protagonists battle the French during the Napoleonic wars rather than fighting the Americans in 1812. Max Pirkis is excellent as a young seaman, and Billy Boyd does well in a small part as the crew fights for, and admires, their inspirational captain. Sometimes the language is difficult to understand, so it helps to watch with the subtitles on. There is some gore in the battle scenes and aftermath, but there is humor as well. The film can be heard in English, French or Spanish, with optional English or Spanish subtitles.

anagan728 2012-05-12 15:12:20

One of the best ever.

Inspired me read all 20 of the books. This is one of the best series ofbooks ever written, made into one of the best movies possible. I have seenit numerous times and have encouraged everyone I know to check it out. Itook my 10 year-old grandson to see it. He found it to be exciting and agreat example of what kids used to live like.

2012-05-12 12:50:40

Entertaining tale about Men at war on the sea

Russell Crowe does a solid job as the British captain ordered to hunt down a French ship. His crew includes some interesting characters, but the main focus is on how the captain handles the multitude of situations he faces. For example, at one point the captain must decide between saving one of his crew vs. endangering the rest of them in the rescue attempt. Pretty heavy stuff. I rather enjoyed this leadership aspect of the film because it forces the viewer to think through "what would I do in that situation".One thing I did not like was the Darwin like sub-plot that involves the ship's doctor and his desire to explore the Galapogos islands. Some might find this interesting stuff, but I thought it was rather distracting and took away from the momentum during the second half of the film.I am a big fan of military history, but usually prefer ground combat to naval engagements. Having said that, Master and Commander is very entertaining, and gives what I consider to be an accurate portrayal of naval warfare in the early 1800s. Most of the sailor's time is spent in mundane tasks (like daily maintenance of the vessel), with occasions of great excitement during combat engagements. The director does a great job with the fighting scenes. He captures the chaos involved that leaders faced, and the courage required of the crew to gain victory. I recommend this film to anyone interested in how naval combat was fought during this time period. If you are a Russell Crowe fan, you will also enjoy it, although it is not his best.

bfklar 2012-05-12 02:37:18

Well acted, well written, well directed

Everything about this film was enjoyable. The acting was top notch, withsome "unknowns" in it was a joy to see. Max Pirkis as the youngmidshipmanhad a lot of focus paid him; what a fine young actor who portrayed theroleperfectly. Many films with the "young" sailor portray them with almostsappy or cute style; M&C did not. The writing of the script left no badfeelings on my part; a great story told effectively. The directing wasperfect; it would easily had botched this movie if a different directorhadbeen chosen.The music was one of my favorite parts; some "period" music mixed withmorecontemporary British music helped me accept the characters into theirroleswith ease.I plan on getting a DVD as soon as it's out!

xaggurat 2012-05-11 19:05:02

I wish they'd make a dozen of sequels

Peter Weir has directed a bunch of will-be-Oscar-nominated movies. Forme, this is not a merit for a filmmaker, since Oscar-dramas are usually95% of entertainment, which by itself isn't interesting. His style isvery compromising and clean, you are not surprised by originality, butyou can enjoy the professional touch he has in his work.Another Australian, Russell Crowe is also a professional, but has someweak points in his acting, mainly caused by certain machismo hedesperately tries to maintain in all his characters.Rest of the cast was unfamiliar to me and I had not read any PatrickO'Brian books. But the sea itself, tall ships and the Napoleonic Warsare of course great elements to base the story on, especially for aamateur war historian and summertime sailor like me.I was surprised, how truly good Master and Commander was. A trueadventure! I enjoyed the whole film and could not find anything Iwouldn't like. Things were different in back then and Master andCommander presents its version of the Napoleonic Era. It looks veryrich and detailed. Undoubtedly O'Brian novels form a fine backgroundfor the excellent screenplay. Soundtrack is very well done too, andmusical scenes with Aubrey and Maturin playing duet with violin andcello ties their friendship. One of the best things in Master andCommander is the heartwarming friendship between these two characters.It's like Weir and Crowe were born and trained to do this movie. Andobviously I have born to watch it, since I've seen it five times sofar. A perfect jewel of its kind. Oh, how I wish they'd make a dozen ofsequels, especially since the end was sort of open and had a sense ofcontinuation. If I had watched this movie when I was 12 I probablywould have had a career in the navy...

2012-05-11 16:57:07

A masterful package, missing the core...

I came to M&C as a die-hard O'Brian fan - all 20 books, multiple audio editions, etc. - very excited to see the story on-screen, but wondering how Weir could do them justice. In contrast to two recent favorite blockbuster-books-to-movies, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, both of which are filled with action and visual imagery, the Aubrey-Maturin books are mostly interior: Aubrey muses on the wind, weather, tide, or enemy strategy, and Maturin on the politics of Catalonia, the classification of birds, or the psychology of seamen - all with a wealth of impressively-researched detail, and in a style close to Jane Austen. The screenwriters managed to render as much of the story in action as possible, a change really required by the medium, and to do so handsomely. The balance of characters, however, was a catastrophe. The books are called "the Aubrey-Maturin series" because they revolve around the double-star of these two characters, whose strengths and failings interlock like yin and yang. Maturin is, if anything, the more fully-realized, being closer to the author's own personality and voice. In reshaping the story as a (single) star vehicle for Russell Crowe, Aubrey's more humanizing foibles were cast adrift. For example, in the book, Aubrey shares the anecdote of Nelson asking him to "pass the salt" with blatant hero-worship untouched by any trace of irony; in the film, he is sardonic & self-mocking, "in on the joke" in a way that naturally belongs to Maturin, not himself. The problem is compounded by the unfortunate casting of Paul Bettany as Maturin. He is a fine actor, but far too suave, handsome, and socially poised for the role, which wants a strong personality and an actor willing to be unattractive (...). The fact that Crowe and Bettany got along well on an earlier project may have made for smoother filming, but a clash of more-equally-sized personalities might have made a stronger movie.

2012-05-11 03:15:46

MORE THAN I HAD EXPECTED

When I saw the previews I thought that this appeared to be a beautifully filmed movie worth seeing. I was not prepared for the magnificent sweep of the action and the intimate details of the personal relationships. For such a long movie, it flies by and catches you up in the lives of the sailors and the tension of the chase. This is my first Russell Crowe movie and I must say he is indeed a magnificent actor. I liked it so much that now I have to own a copy.

Dark Hellion 2012-05-10 06:17:24

Tried to do too much

I wish I could say I loved this film.As it is, the scenes on board the ship are second-to-none. The sense ofhistorical accuracy is always there, and the absolutely fascinatingglimpseof how a ship in Nelson's fleet might have operated two centuries ago isjust breathtaking. And the performances are top-notch, from Crowe to BillyBoyd (go Pippin!) to the young Max Pirkis, who I'll definitely be keepinganeye open for in the future.But it's just so *boring*!To be fair, I haven't read the books, and I really would like to now, justto compare them to the film and to see what's been included and what'sbeenleft out. But there is so much extraneous crap in thisfilm.Being an aspiring author, I once received two valuable pieces of advice. Ithink they apply equally to any form of fiction, whether book, film, orsomething else entirely:Firstly, every word should earn its place on the page. Gramatically,thematically, and otherwise.Secondly, every scene shall accomplish at least two things, and one ofthoseshall be to advance the plot. The other may be characterisation,worldbuilding, thematics, whatever. But there shall be no scenes that failto pull their weight--if there are, that's where the reader's attention isgoing to wander.**MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD**In that case, why on earth are we forced to sit through the interminabledrudgery of Hollom's story? Hollom is a young officer who has lost therespect and goodwill of his men. He struggles to control the men, andstruggles to be the man he ought to be if he is to serve in His Majesty'sNavy. Captain Aubrey too, has his own struggle about the man he ought tobe:the captain of his ship and a man of the Navy, or a friend to the ship'ssurgeon Steven Maturin with whom he shares a long history of friendship.There is a definite resonance between Hollom and Aubrey and the decisionsthey make. Hollom's presence on the ship and his actions do dictate largechunks of the story. However, Hollom, his story, and all the characterswhorelied upon him for depth could so easily have been cut.Hollom, in the film, is nothing more than a distraction from the real meatof the film--chasing a ship that has you outgunned and outpaced thousandsofmiles and trying to hold a crew together while you're doing it. Thenauticalchallenges would have been enough without Aubrey having to deal withHollomand his effects on the crew.Alternatively, Weir could have chosen to actually strengthen theconnectionbetween Aubrey and Hollom, and actually foreshadow it from earlier in thefilm, in order for Hollom to actually have an impact on Aubrey's decisionsand the plot of the film. As it is, the film's resolution is reduced to ahackneyed series of events that only occur thanks to sheer chance thatcouldbe seen coming from a (nautical) mile off.Not to mention the auctorial choice of resolution to the Hollom situation,in my eyes, left much to be desired.Or Weir could have placed the focus much more squarely on Blakeney'sjourneyand created more parallels between his character and Aubrey's.I do hope Master and Commander wins Oscars. I just hope it doesn't winBestFilm or Best Screenplay, because there are other films out there far moredeserving.

skytomm 2012-05-09 15:55:17

Good enough if you haven't read the books

(AHOY there, matey! Spoilers and much ambivalence deadahead.)Being a Patrick O'Brian fan (two of whose twenty-book series wereconflatedto make this screenplay), my expectations were cautiously high. Story-andcharacter-wise, I was disappointed. Jack Aubrey, (Crowe) isn't nearly theebullient figure of the books, Steven Maturin (Bettany) is simply allwrong;much too "touchy-feely" personable and nowhere near as self-absorbed astheO'Brian character. (You'd have to know the books to understand that last.)The other characters are much too superficial (except for Ingleby'sHollum);but then Weir didn't have twenty book-lengths in which to developthem.Failures of detail involve a shot of the Surprise from above and behind inwhich she's making 4-5 knots, and the sails are dead flat; Jack Aubrey'sfavorite saying, "There's not a moment to be lost" replaced by Crowe's"There's not a moment to lose" (picky-picky! ); and Capt.Aubrey'stwo gold epaulets instead of the one he should have been wearing (hewasn'tyet of Post Captain (two-epaulet) rank).Given all this above, the attention to details of ship's life among thecrewand officers, the ship itself and its rigging, sailing depictions anddetails, battle action, damage, weapons, etc., were EXCELLENT; I foundmyself visually absorbed in every exterior scene. Sound (effects) wasincredibly believable without ever getting in the way (having never beenina sea battle situation, I cannot comment upon accuracy), although themusical soundtrack pretty-much sucked. The use of Vaughan-Williams'Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis for every "dead and dying, orburial-at-sea" scene was inappropriate as the scenes were more maudlinthanthe accompanying music which is simply gorgeous and not quite elegiacenoughfor the scenes in which it was employed.For those unfamiliar with the O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin series (who won't beaspersnickety as us "swabbies") the film is a good enough sea-goingswashbuckler that they will feel entertained to a "good value" level, andwill prolly recommend it to their friends.For me, the deus-ex-machina at the very end which discloses the ruseplayedupon Aubrey by the French captain (the French ship's surgeon had diedmonthsago - how did Maturin know this?) was ridiculous in itself, and cheapenedthe film by leaving a too-often-seen cliffhanger of sorts upon which Weirorothers will base a series of sequelae.I have to wonder what Patrick O'Brian himslef would think of this effort.Ihave a feeling that he's spinning dizzily in his coffin.

dossboss 2012-05-04 12:02:23

nice idea - wrong books

an interest in the "era of fighting sail" would lead a reader throughseveral nautical series including c. s. forester (horatio hornblower),alexander kent (richard bolitho), dudley pope (nicholas ramage), deweylambdin (alan lewrie), and eventually patrick o'brian (jack aubrey).to anyone who has read these series, the o'brian books are hands-down themost boring and least accurate (historically or technically) of the lot.whypeter weir and miramax dumped $150M into such pathetic storytelling isbeyond me.committed to one of patrick o'brian's banal efforts, we now have a filmguaranteed to be trite, dull, and frequently nonsensical. i will give fullpoints to the cinematography, however. the sailing scenes werebreathtakingand worth nearly any degree of idiocy to watch.i was glad that i had seen this film, but will not buy a copy of it.pity.maybe if weir had read alexander kent instead...

doudera 2012-05-03 18:34:31

Great

Loved the clip of the movie. This movie is just fantastic, inthetradition of those movies from the Golden age of Hollywood, in the modeofCaptain Horatio Hornblower with Gregory Peck.Mr. Crowe continues with another great performance, this should, gethimanother Oscar nomination, he wears period clothing well. Ohthankgoodness not another Freddie or Jason, no blood or guts(modernhorrorgore.) I give this film 10 stars, Hooray modern Hollywood,returnsto it's roots!!!!!!!!!