Master and Commander

ThreadKiller · 20-11-2003 9:13am #1

Saw this last night...

I don't like Russel Crowe, however, credit where credit is due, he turns in a stunning performance as Captain Jack Aubrey. As far as the fim goes, it has absolutly stunning photography, direction & acting. The set pieces are big and bold & the sound is stunning (especially the scenes where you're "below deck" and you get to experience the ocean noises & creaking timbers...

Master & commander is going to be one of those "Classic" films that in 20 years time will be on (probably HD) TV every sunday.

However at 2 hours 20 minutes it's too long, they could have shaved that extra 20 minutes off it. There's three big battle scenes & with the rocking of the ships, the smoke & the handheld camera it's hard to tell who's who. I think this flick is going to be an oscar winner on performance & scope, however there's no actual conclusion to the storyline It just sort of ends... Basically three battle scenes strung together by a load of other scenes. Oh It's got "Gary Mallet" from Corination street in it too...

anthonymcg · 20-11-2003 11:53am

Jonathan Woss seemed really impressed with it as well. Might check this out early next week.

Giblet · 20-11-2003 1:55pm

The film is rubbish...

Memnoch · 21-11-2003 12:41am

well from watching the movie russel crowe looks a bit overweight in the movie. Maybe its me but I find it hard to picture an action hero with a wasit that size, despite the flattering cut of his outfits

deco · 21-11-2003 1:53am

I prefer Pirates of the Carribean TBH...just for the rompage

Fence · 21-11-2003 11:07pm

Originally posted by Memnoch
well from watching the movie russel crowe looks a bit overweight in the movie. Maybe its me but I find it hard to picture an action hero with a wasit that size, despite the flattering cut of his outfits

Well I haven't seen the film, but have read in sme review somewhere that fans of the novels were actually complaining that he wasn't round enough. Supposedly the Capt. is meant to be rather on the large side & his doc friend should be very very slim. But the director or someone didn't want to go that route at all because of worry about Laurel and Hardy images popping into people's heads.

Almarsáre · 01-12-2003 4:55pm

Apparantly Russell Crowe had actually put on loads of weight for the movie and then Peter Weir changed his mind, so he had to try and lose the weight again. i guess he didn't manage to get rid of it all.

I actually saw this yesterday and i wasn't that impressed. it dragged in alot of places.

SheroN · 01-12-2003 5:20pm

I thought it was very good. Well acted, good story. I didn't find it too long in the slightest. I agree with it becoming a sunday afternoon regular when it's reached TV.

BlitzKrieg · 01-12-2003 7:28pm

they changed the story to suit the american audience

He is meant to b according to the books (or my history teacher) fighting nasty americans in the 2nd British American war But of course you cant have that so lets pick on the french (cause they didnt support Bush)

wasabi · 01-12-2003 10:11pm

if that's true about changing the story then that's a bit of a copout alright.

was still a well directed and acted film though (even the kid), there wasn't much about it that actually overtly annoyed me which is rare enough in a mainstream hollywood film these days. at one point i thought it was going to get heavily into 19th century naval tactics and ship design, got disappointed there though, heh.

/nerd.

RicardoSmith · 01-12-2003 10:44pm

Obviously none of you have read ANY of the books. For pity sake. I loved Pirates of the Carribean but its different kind of a movie. M&C is more like on a period costume drama at sea. The captain is meant to be a fat bloke a little bit ungenteel (think meatloaf) and his pal the Dr is meant to part Irish/Catalonian (and involved with the Irish Rebels of the period). They are meant to fighting the French and the Spanish (at least in the first few books). Its not meant to be a hollywood blockbuster like Pearl Harbour or any of that tripe thank god. I haven't seen the movie yet but I was hoping they didn't dumb it down like they do for so many films.

For anyone who has actually read the books and enjoyed them. Then you might also like the Ramage books by Dudley Pope. Especially if you are into the old sailing ships and warfare of that period.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/authors/Dudley_Pope.htm

lodgepole · 02-12-2003 1:16am

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
They are meant to fighting the French and the Spanish (at least in the first few books).[/url]

The film is based on the 10th book, "The Far Side of the World" and the vessel they chase is American in the book.

Peter Weir said the reason was to capitalise on the drama involved with the war with France which would add depth to the story, which the American vessel wouldn't have.

I've never read any of the books, so I didn't mind the casting of the two leads, in fact I thought they were both superb. Like the film. Excellent stuff.

RicardoSmith · 02-12-2003 1:50am

Originally posted by Lodgepole
The film is based on the 10th book, "The Far Side of the World" and the vessel they chase is American in the book.

Peter Weir said the reason was to capitalise on the drama involved with the war with France which would add depth to the story, which the American vessel wouldn't have.

I've never read any of the books, so I didn't mind the casting of the two leads, in fact I thought they were both superb. Like the film. Excellent stuff.

Ah I didn't know that. I have only read about half of the books and had been purposely staying away from stuff about the film until I saw it. As the title is Master and Commander (same as the 1st book) I didn't realise it was about the 10th book. Teach me to assume anything eh?

lodgepole · 02-12-2003 10:46am

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Ah I didn't know that. I have only read about half of the books and had been purposely staying away from stuff about the film until I saw it. As the title is Master and Commander (same as the 1st book) I didn't realise it was about the 10th book. Teach me to assume anything eh?

Yeah, they took a handful of elements from Book One, but the bulk of the plot was from the tenth one.

It was the studio who decided it should take the name of the first book, the director wanted it to be called The Far Side of the World.

Kalina · 02-12-2003 11:39am

Originally posted by wasabi
if that's true about changing the story then that's a bit of a copout alright.

Too right, it's crap if they changed the story to suit modern politics.
Looking forward to seeing it all the same.

SheroN · 02-12-2003 1:40pm

the nationality of the ship they are chasing matters little. It's mainly about the crew on board the brithish ship and how the whole situation effects them etc etc.

Kalina · 02-12-2003 2:02pm

SheroN, are you just being argmentative for the sake of it!! :mad:

SheroN · 02-12-2003 2:33pm

Nah i'm not, I really enjoyed this movie. It is a bit sad if they did change the ship from american to french. However it doesn't take away from the movie. The movie is about captain jack, the doctor and the other crew members and how they react to the circumstances of being stalked/chasing this "phantom ship"(french, american whatever it doesn't matter, if this is the reason why someone didn't like the film, it went way over their heads imo

).

BlitzKrieg · 02-12-2003 2:53pm

the funny thing does anyone actually know anything about the 2nd american british war. Cause the excuse the studio execs have is that cause no one in america knows about it they dont want to waste 20mins of the film explaining it. My opinion is it cheapens the film for fans of the book (not me) just nice bit of trivia BUT a m8 of mine doing history with me is offended at them changing history to suit a audiance...But the story itself i assume is fiction so i feel he's unjustified.

Terminator · 02-12-2003 8:12pm

It was an above average film. No surprises in it though. The lighting was poor in parts. You could hardly see them in some shots.

spanner · 03-12-2003 1:50pm

i think it did a fantastic job of recreating the period in time. not only did i read master and commander but also lots of hornblowers books and felt that the cinematography was very good in it. books turned into films, its very hard to get it exactly like the book. are rearly as good as the book itself but unlike other people i think its a great thing to do because people get a visual experience of there favourite book, e.g. LOTR its not as good as the films but its still pretty damn good.

however i did feel the master and commander was a little drawn out and the ending was terrible

lodgepole · 03-12-2003 2:10pm

Originally posted by spanner
the ending was terrible

You didn't like the ending? What was it you didn't like? I thought it was a brilliant way to end...

jArgHA · 05-12-2003 12:23pm

Originally posted by spanner
.. e.g. LOTR its not as good as the films but its still pretty damn good...

i take it that should be LOTR not as good as the books ?

Stake · 05-12-2003 8:16pm

I thought it was an absolute cracker of a film.
And how great was it to see an Irish character that is not only an academic that shies away from the drunken feasts and singsongs, but actually suggests that the alcohol be thrown overboard? Fantastic!
Not your typical Hollywood fare, the whole way throughout. Very enjoyable.

spanner · 09-12-2003 1:42pm

Originally posted by jArgHA
i take it that should be LOTR not as good as the books ?

yea thats what i mean

sionnach · 09-12-2003 11:25pm

Originally posted by spanner
yea thats what i mean

whew, lucky u said that in time,

/me drops the noose and tells the lynch mob to go home

btw i found master and commander to be a very enjoyable movie and i never had a problem with the lighting, i also thought it ended rather well.

Master and Commander

Comments