Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) User Reviews

Beautiful Portrayal of life in a navy vessel in 1805

[brucedbennett · 8/10 · 2 May 2005]

I would like to start by saying Bravo! I liked the story, the execution of the story by the actors and the director. Russel Crowe really depicted the Captain well and I thought that the supporting cast were superb. The photography really enhanced the scope of the story, and I must take my hat off to the photographic skills of the photographic director.

One tends to forget that this story is not a high speed chase film with lots of blood and gore however it does have its share, although, the speed of the story is greatly paralleled by the speed at which a sea chase would have happened 200 years ago.

It is great to watch a movie that really gets to the heart of the emotions of the crew of a Man-Of-War vessel, not just making the crew look like the hardest SOB's around.

And to that I take my hat off to the Cast and Crew, as well as the writers and the director and producers of this production.

Intelligent High-Seas Adventure

[kjw379 · 8/10 · 25 January 2006]

There is a scene in MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD where the captain of a British Naval ship, circa 1805, debates the difference between duty and passion. Having passed on an opportunity to make wonderful new discoveries in favor of the pursuit of a massive French war ship, the scene manages to make a rather eloquent, yet subtle comment on the nature of man and his place within the world. The beauty of this film is that there are many such moments where the viewer is simultaneously bombarded with thematic musings, exciting action sequences, great acting and historical accuracy to the point where it becomes difficult to take it all in at once.

Those of you looking for something more like Pirates of the Caribbean will be disappointed as this film is short on action and long on character development. There are only two major battle sequences, separated by more than an hour and a half of time. And while they are great; violently realistic and dramatically involving, the real guts of this film lies in the human stories told along the way. The director, Peter Weir, highlights his ability to tell an intimate story amidst a grand backdrop much like he did in The Truman Show. We get to know these men, their strengths and weaknesses and we see how the long and hard voyage plays on their minds over the film's progression. In one scene, a young officer feels the pressure of his men's dismissive stares and decides to end matters in his own way, afraid of what may be in store for him should he stick it out. Weir does a good job at highlighting the many facets of seafaring life.

If you're looking for an intelligent and thought-provoking journey into the life of a 19th Century British Naval Vessell, look no further. Master and Commander has the depth of a good Discovery Channel show and the action worthy of almost any other high-seas adventure that comes to mind.

Seafare adventure plenty of action , character studio and spectacular maritime battles

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 17 October 2010]

This is a breathtaking and handsomely story adapted from two of Patrick O'Brian much successful seafaring novels . It starts in the year 1805 , when Europe has been vanquished by Napoleon, and only the British Navy stands in his way to total victory . Nearly the cost of South America, a new conflict is brewing. Captain Jack "Lucky Jack" Aubrey (Russell Crowe) of the Royal Navy commands the HMS Surprise , he fought with Admiral Nelson on Nile and is under orders of British staff to capture the three-masted French privateer Acheron, which has sunk several vessels . Crusing the coast of Brazil on the lookout for enemies and after various weeks of uneventful sailing , the fleeter French privateer lifts off in the fog and hits first under splintering fire , all but crippling the Surprise in an engagement in which Jack realizes his enemy's frigate is nautically superior to his own . Meantime the steadfast Jack Aubrey shares confidences and discussion with his cello-partner , close friend Stephan Maturin (Paul Bettany), a Darwinesque medic aboard . Aubrey is now faced with the choice of going back to Great Britain and admitting defeat or pursue the Acheron . Later on , they stop at Islands Galapagos where discover some extraordinary surprises .

This rousing adventure/war movie is packed with action , psychological studio with interesting human relations, thrills , and impressive maritime battles. The naval battle sequences are quite good , the movie is well developed because it gets to know the seamen who are locked aboard the narrow quarters of a three-masted frigate HMS and how they relationship everyday. The captain , lieutenant ,Midshipmen and sailors are well-known by the time the final battle takes place . Director Weir chose to build the yarn from an intelligent point of view , describing an enjoyable friendship among protagonists and hard conditions about naval way of life with authentic psychology of men at war . The story exudes actual naval life with military discipline, gunpowder , real battles full of heroism and tang of salt . Magnificent duo protagonist and complemented by a string of sterling players as Robert Pugh as the sailing master , James Dárcy as Lieutenant Tom , with special mention to Max Pirkis as the Midshipboy and Lee Ingleby as unfortunate officer . Wonderful cinematography by Russell Boyd reflecting magnificently the marvelous maritime exteriors and wooden interiors . Groundbreaking special effects during maritime storm with giant waves by designer William Sandell who also made the ¨ Perfect Storm¨ . Sensible score with some emotive song and including classic music by Boccerini when the starring are playing violin. The motion picture is stunningly directed by Australian director Peter Weir who achieved several hits (Witness, Gallipoli, The last wave) and some flop (Mosquito coast, The plumber). Rating : Better than average and well worth watching . This excellently mounted flick will appeal to Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany fans .

Masterly and Commanding

[Buckster69 · 9 December 2004]

Few films manage to capture the era in which the original work was set and often rely on clichés of the particular genre at the expense of the core story. This film manages to avoid these pitfalls but more importantly serves as a worthwhile historical document. Anyone who is new to this period of history will not go far wrong keeping a copy of this movie as the attention to detail is excellent and adds to the experience as a whole (teachers take note).

This movie manages to tread a fine line between gritty realism and Boy's Own, portraying the pursuit of an elite French warship by an older embattled British frigate. The production values are very high and the dialogue and length allow the director a better than average framework for character development. The predominantly unknown British supporting cast (some aged as young as 12) are expertly handled and provide a counter balance to the excellent performances of Crowe and Bettany. Crowe's delivery is very reminiscent of Richard Burton, exuding a measured screen presence without overpowering the dialogue.

It would have been easy for the director to read through the salty notes of previous period pieces and deliver the usual tale of ocean going brutality and scurvy encrusted woe but Peter Weir's version of order through respect and camaraderie is far more believable especially when you realize that the sailor's greatest enemy was the ocean itself.

I found little to dislike and much to admire. Highly recommended.

Impressive battles and great Russell Crowe performance

[SnoopyStyle · 9/10 · 19 July 2014]

In April 1805, Napoleon rules Europe. British frigate H.M.S. Surprise under the command of Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) is ordered to intercept French Privateer Acheron. In the first battle, Aubrey quickly discovers that Acheron is actually bigger, faster and more powerful skippered by a smart tactician. He escapes only through his skills and experience. After being soundly beaten, Aubrey decides to keep going instead of returning to base to refit. The ship's surgeon and Aubrey's friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany) clash with him more and more as the far ranging battle continues.

The action is exciting and more realistic than sail seafaring battle movies before it. The most compelling are the splinters that fly everywhere. It is the CGI that pushes the envelop on this action. Realism is everywhere. It is dirty, ugly, bloody, and horrifying. Russell Crowe delivers a solid performance to anchor this movie in reality. Then there are the everyday things that happen in between the battles. This has the epic scale conflicts but the human size struggle.

While the film lacks traditional thrills and pacing, it gets huge marks for replicating what life was like at sea.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 7 June 2012]

"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" is a very unusual film because the filmmakers obviously were not attempting to make yet another Hollywood style blockbuster. Instead, they seemed to be doing the impossible--make a film that tries very hard to replicate what life was like at sea back during the Napoleonic Wars. As a retired history teacher, this is the sort of stuff I love--even if in the original, the 'bad guys' were actually the Americans and it was set during the War of 1812! I assume they changed the enemy to the French to make the film more marketable. After all, it would be a hard sell in the large American market to get the audiences to root for the British Navy in this altercation! The story occurs around the beginning of the 19th century. The Brits and French have been fighting off and on for almost a decade (and would continue to do so until 1815). The action is set aboard a British Naval ship commanded by Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe). His ship has encountered a larger and faster French vessel and managed to escape. However, instead of running, Crowe plays a very determined man--and spends much of the film hunting down this ship. Along the way, there are lots of adventures--mostly of the variety you might actually have seen during the era. I could talk about them, but frankly this would spoil the suspense.

Overall, while this film is very slowly and deliberately paced (which will obviously turn off some viewers), the film is so expertly crafted that for a reasonably patient viewer, it should be a very engaging film. The film looks great--with a lot of attention to details and accuracy. It also has the best looking sea footage you can find in a period film--especially when the ship is rounding the Cape (it must have been amazing on the big screen). The acting is lovely as well--understated but quite realistic. Well done in every way and the director really deserves kudos for this one. While I love films from the same period as "Damn the Defiant", "Captain Horatio Hornblower", "Mutiny on the Bounty" and the like, clearly "Master and Commander" is superior when it comes to accurately portraying the life of a seaman.

Nicely Done.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 16 November 2004]

It opens with the most realistic sea engagement I've ever seen in a movie, helped immeasurably by the prudent use of CGIs. The performances are all pretty good -- and what a surprise to see such a straightforward adventure tale from Peter Weir, master and commander of the subliminally ominous.

For my taste, which may, admittedly, be a little warped, the movie doesn't give us quite enough of the exhilaration of being at sea. I mean that zesty feeling of being windswept on a weather deck in the middle of an empty sea with bright sunshine all around. The one thing all these sailors would have in 1805 is sun tans but they look pale and sweaty. The visuals are a bit dark and gloomy, which is okay during storms when you're trying to get around the Horn but not when you're anchored in the Galapagos.

Still, this is above average. Russel Crowe is neither Errol Flynn nor Captain Bligh. He's more like Horatio Hornblower but with more nearly human quirks than just clearing his throat. As the captain, Crowe plays a lively tune by Boccherini on the violin to the doctor's cello. Nice work too. And on happy occasions he gets drunk with his fellow officers and makes lousy jokes. There is one astonishing shot of Crowe and a companion perched on the tiptoptoloftical peak of the mainmast, atop the topgallants or something, a million miles in the air. How did he get there? Was Crowe digitalized in? If not, they're not paying him enough.

We have the British fighting against what are traditionally called "overwhelming odds," a French super frigate, the Acheron, which they finally take after a bloody battle.

What a more interesting and less popular flick it would have been, had the foe of the original novel been retained, the Americans during the War of 1812. No one would have gone to see it. The French in 1805 are an admirable substitute. The enemy is not "France", it's "Napoleon." The huge American audience feels less in common with France than with the Brits. Also during Napoleon's attempt to conquer the world, there was an opponent worth fighting, not to mention Jerry Lewis and bidets. But the War of 1812 -- well. Something about the Brits impressing American seamen, wasn't it? As a casus belli, the concept is a little difficult to grasp. And it proved to be a thoroughly bad idea by President Madison.

"Master and Commander" gives us heroes we can root for. We see everything from the point of view of the British sailors aboard the Surprise, just as we would in an Errol Flynn movie, although Crowe is a far more complex character.

But suppose the Acheron HAD retained its American identity? What would our response, as Americans, have been? Would we still have been cheering for the Brits as eagerly as if it had been a soccer game? Would we have been tickled to see the Acheron blown apart?

Such an added layer of complexity might have prompted us to think about the nature of war. (Gosh -- it's not REALLY a football game.) It would have challenged our loyalties. It might even have caused us to think a little about the nature of human nature. Why does battle seem so tragic only when OUR side suffers? Or -- worst of all -- what is it, buried deep in my limbic system, that makes me want to shout YEAH when Crowe outwits the Frogs? Whatever the answers, they're not likely to turn out to have the same effect as bright sunshine on a windswept deck. As I say, nobody would go to see it.

There are three main conflicts, all handled deftly. The faceless enemy against the British, from "Horatio Hornblower" and "The Sea Hawk." The sullen crew versus an officer, familiar to us from, oh, "Moby Dick" and "Damn the Defiant" and "Mutiny on the Bounty"; and a more interesting conflict of interests between the intellectual doctor who wants to explore the Galapagos Islands thirty years before Darwin, and Russel Crowe's captain, who is determined to pursue and destroy the Acheron. We can see a similar disjunction between the egghead and the practical man of common sense in "The Thing From Another World" and "Ball of Fire." It's the difference between the theoretical physicist and the engineer. In the movies, the engineer often shows up in uniform and almost always wins the debate.

The movie is worth catching. Lots of sea lore and tradition, almost an exercise in history. And with its innovative score and outstanding CGIs, it's a sensory feast too.

Absolutely underrated masterpiece

[Camoo · 10/10 · 14 November 2014]

I've watched this film probably close to ten times now since I first saw it in the cinema for a double header that included Tom Cruise's dreadful 'The Last Samourai'. I remember the impression it made on me. I also remember feeling embarrassed as a teenager buying a ticket for a movie with such a florid title as 'Master and Commander: Far Side of the World' and Russell Crowe on the poster looking like a butch sailor with an unbuttoned uniform staring wistfully off into the future. I cringed.

How wrong I was. Here is a film told with great precision and mastery by one of the great chameleon filmmakers Peter Weir; I say chameleon because he is a director who always puts his story and characters ahead of himself - his craft is efficient, with the goal being to remove all traces of there being a hand behind the wheel. Everything you need is there, in service to the film.

I've never had the adventure/buccaneer/sailor fantasy growing up, but this film certainly instilled it in me. It's a tremendous adventure, with sweeping battle sequences but is also unusually smart and literate for such a large scale picture. Despite its swashbuckling pretenses, the film allows all of the characters to breathe and come to life over the course of a strangely moving and evocative narrative. Each viewing of the film brings out more details under the surface.

It's a shame it didn't have a chance at a sequel, it deserved one so badly. Meanwhile Pirates of the Caribbean 9: coming to a theater near you…. Seek this one out instead.

Good but not great

[farne · 7/10 · 18 December 2004]

After the rave reviews and good word of mouth I was looking forward to seeing Master and Commander. It had a big budget with a respected director and a reasonable leading man, a convincing recreation of an interesting historical era, and word of mouth that suggested it was more than just a knockabout action film.

However, the story is really quite a simple one, and doesn't offer many surprises. A British warship, HMS Surprise, runs into a superior French ship, the Acheron, and narrowly escapes. The Captain (Russell Crowe) then spends the rest of the film pursuing and attempting to defeat the French ship. Meanwhile his confidante, the ship's surgeon (Paul Bettany), questions his stubborn decision to continue the pursuit.

There's no doubt that Master and Commander is a handsome film (beautifully photographed by Russell Boyd) and a great deal of effort has gone into faithfully recreating 19th century shipboard life. It also recreates ship-to-ship battles, storms and various other hazards with some style, and it's technical Oscar wins were obviously well-deserved.

Many people have suggested that this faithful recreation of the period is Master and Commander's real strength. However, if like me you've already seen the excellent British TV series Hornblower, none of this will seem all that new to you at all. In fact, a lot of it will be very familiar. With the exception of the occasional gory operation scene, Master and Commander doesn't really offer much that British television viewers won't have already seen relatively recently.

This is why I felt some disappointment in seeing the film, because without the novelty of experiencing an unfamiliar historical environment, Master and Commander doesn't have that much more to offer. The characters aren't particularly well-drawn or developed, and the plot is pretty basic stuff. The two leads are both capable actors but Crowe in particular isn't really given much to work with, and has to be content to play the strong, silent, heroic type. Paul Bettany meanwhile, in this film looking and sounding eerily like Patrick Malahide, has the more interesting part, and makes a decent stab at it. There are a few other British character actors in the cast, including David Threlfall, James d'Arcy and Billy Boyd, and I was pleased to see Robert Pugh (excellent in the little-known film The Tichborne Claimant) among the ships crew as well.

But Master and Commander doesn't really deliver enough that's new. The plot is a little too predictable, the characters a bit too underdeveloped, and the action scenes (although satisfyingly noisy), a bit too confusing and uninvolving. More than once I lost track of which Frenchie was being bayoneted or shot by which Englishman.

I certainly wouldn't write-off Master & Commander, as it's a pretty decent, if unsurprising film. It's well-made and is certainly better than a lot of the dross that's produced these days. However, if you do enjoy it, and find the subject matter interesting I would urge you to seek out the Hornblower TV series.

"We have Surprise on our side..."

[marques_palma · 9/10 · 3 December 2004]

And surprised I was. After hearing a friend rant endlessly about it, and having nothing to do one Friday night, I rented Master and Commander. The marketing staff should be cackling in glee, that a female in her 20's, would love this movie. It's an amazing movie. Russell Crowe is a force of nature, and all the other actors from Paul Bettany to Billy Boyd give wonderful performances. I especially enjoyed the details of life at sea, though most would call them boring. The day after my 5-day rental, I had to run to the nearest shop and buy the DVD, and have since re-watched it endlessly. I've never seen a more beautifully adapted, filmed and acted movie. Five stars out of five.

Not Too Bad Since I Like Both MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY's

[kandy5001 · 6/10 · 26 December 2003]

I noticed in MASTER AND COMMANDER that a lot of camera shots and angles resembled ones from MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY 1935 and 1962. Consequently, I worked myself right into enjoying the film completely.

Russell Crowe keeps convincing me that he can play any role put in front of him. After LA CONFIDENTIAL, GLADIATOR, and A BEAUTIFUL MIND, I believe that he can even tackle the ultimate macho role: 007 (Move over, Pierce).

The most pleasant surpise that I found throughout the film occurred within the reunion between Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany (Dr. Stephen Maturin) as they played the two main characters. The chemistry that they displayed in A BEAUTIFUL MIND created a genuine friendship between them that spilled over seemlessly into this movie; they really care about each other in it.

I can't wait for the next one...and I plan to read a few of Patrick O'Brien's books to see what everyone keeps praising so much within them.

Enjoy the ride

[b1ggesmalz · 10/10 · 2 December 2004]

Master and Commander succeeds not so much in the fact that it has an exceptional plot, but in the fact that it carries the viewer along on its voyage exceptionally. It follows the voyage of Captain "Lucky Jack" Aubrey sailing for the English empire while being chased by a French vessel during the Napoleonic Wars. It's not an entirely innovative or original plot, but it's the experience rather than the plot that drives this movie. The chemistry between the characters and strong performances by all is what make it an exceptional movie. Rather than casting good-looking Hollywood types as crew members, Peter Weir went after people who look like believable seamen who are also great actors in their own right. The cast even had a sort of boot camp training so that everyone knew how to make the ship function. It is this attention to detail that make the movie so believable and enjoyable. Rather than indulging itself in melodrama and Hollywood type moral-based clichés, this film pulls no punches about how it perceives the workings of a British Naval ship to function in the early 19th century. It simply bleeds authenticity at every corner. Excellent performances by Crowe and his doctor right-hand-man played by Paul Bettany only add to the thrill.

The film also has a great original and non-original score which makes it flow perfectly. The interaction between the ship members is what makes it a success. Though 2+hours may seem like a long time to spend with an all-male cast inside a ship, I was never once bored. Instead, you truly feel like you are in the ship with them and at the end you feel like you would want to follow Russel Crowe's "Captain Jack" virtually anywhere he would lead.

Above average seafaring adventure

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 26 August 2016]

Despite the unwieldy title, this film is an unexpected pleasure – an actor's film, which is a rare thing nowadays in Hollywood. It's certainly not an action film – there are only two major sequences and they bookend the movie – but instead it focuses on characters as they develop through action and reaction. As such it's a surprisingly mature piece of work, featuring some excellent performances from the likes in particular of Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany, playing the ship's captain and doctor respectively. There's no showiness here, just strong, subtle work, and it's hard to choose who gives the best performance between the two of them because they're both great.

This is an adaptation of a novel by Patrick O'Brian, which I haven't read as yet, although I believe it's a loose version of the story. Whatever the origins, it looks great, with often breathtaking shots of scenery – the Galapagos Islands, for instance. The ships are models for the most part, yet it's impossible to tell this, as the effects are very good indeed. I really liked the strong undercurrent of humour running through the film – such as the "lesser of two weevils" joke – and the surprisingly touching moments of humanity, like the boy who loses an arm and yet goes on to become a hero.

What happens on screen might be familiar – there's the usual catalogue of ship-bound perils like droughts, deserted islands, wrecks, storms, cannon battles and a particularly well-handled "Jonah" – but this is about a hundred times better than PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN which came out around the same time. It's no surprise that the latter production, a bloated Disney cartoon, was the more successful of the two and the one that went on to spawn sequels...

Historically accurate, but Weir forgot to sign it

[Atavisten · 5/10 · 5 March 2006]

For a great technical achievement this is at least worth renting. For the unsurprising story however one may look elsewhere. Russel Crowe turns out much better than feared, actually he fit quite well. The other was all quite characterless, except for the doctor who was OK, but maybe too "reasonable" for this voyage. I can easily understand his motivation for the "Darwin voyage" to the Galapagos, but he didn't go quite well as the warrior. As a pacifist, why would he enroll on a war ship?

The ship was cramped and dirty, and it had a realistic atmosphere. So was the chaos during the sieges realistically shown. We get to see things exclusively from the ships viewpoint often impressively photographed. But as this is a Peter Weir I would want more in terms of inventiveness and character.

Masterfully Done

[divaclv · 17 December 2003]

"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" is half swashbuckling action movie, half detailed examination of life in the 19th-century British navy, and all entertaining. Director Peter Weir has created an intriguing film that nicely balances fierce battle sequences with quiet, intimate scenes.

Nearly all of the film takes place aboard the HMS Surprise, under the command of Captain "Lucky" Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe). The captain's orders: to intercept and disable the French privateer Acheron, which is troubling British vessels off the coast of South America. The two ships clash early on, and the Surprise is thoroughly routed--the Acheron is larger, faster, and more modern. But Aubrey, with a determination that might not entirely be due to his sense of duty, is not one to give up, and the Surprise chases the Acheron--and/or vice versa--down the Brazilian coast, around Cape Horn, and to the Gallapagos Islands.

That's the action part. The intimate part involves Aubrey's relationship with the ship's surgeon, Stephan Marutin (Paul Bettany). Stephan is a quiet intellectual and devout naturallist, whose train of thought is foraying into the territory that would make Darwin a household name later in the century. He's also the only one among the crew who's either willing or able to call Aubrey's decisions into question. He provides a grounding force for the captain, and the friendship between these two dissimilar men is the emotional heart of the story.

I've yet to read any of the Patrick O'Brian series upon which "Master and Commander" is based, but the movie shows every evidence of being derived from a painstakingly and meticulously detailed work, one which has gone to great lengths to re-create the world and environment of these men. The details on screen are wonderful, depicting the sort of harsh conditions that make the contestants on those "reality" series look like the overglorified wimps they are. The crew of the Surprise (many of them not older than twenty) lives in claustrophobic and none-too-clean quarters--at times it seems as if every inch of the screen is crammed full--and sleep in hammocks that may very well end up serving as their shrouds. Battles are chaotic, with cannon fire ripping huge holes in the ship and sending shrapnel in every direction. The weather seems to exist only in extremes: still heat, raging tempests, even snow as they drift down near the Antarctic circle. Good service is rewarded with extra rations of grog and brandy, insubordination is punished by the whip. It's a place where both close friendships and deep resentments can grow, and the tension in the air at times feels like a living presence.

Crowe dominates the production, once again proving himself one of the best leading men working in movies. In his hands, Jack Aubrey is a natural leader of men: clever, courageous, determined, and capable of what nowadays is called "thinking outside the box." He is frequently confronted with difficult choices, but takes his responsibilities and the consequences of his actions unflinchingly. Bettany turns in an equally good performance as Aubrey's emotional and ideological opposite; the two men play wonderfully off of each other. Most of the rest of the crew tends to blur together (the exceptions include a young officer who's right arm gets amputated early on, and later takes command of the ship), but "Lord of the Rings" fans will be amused to notice Billy Boyd among the ranks.

The combination of action and introspection in "Master and Commander" at times seems like an odd mix, but the film succeeds on both levels. Definitely a voyage worth taking.

Great story with powerful performances. Sweeps you away to 1805.

[marcoloco-1 · 10/10 · 25 December 2004]

A very complete tale, interwoven with beautiful cinematography, powerful performances (Russel Crowe, especially), masterful score (Bach, Motzart...to name two),and a truly believable storyline with many twists. At the heart of which is the conflict inside Capt. "Lucky" Jack Aubry (Russel Crowe) who balances his duty to the British Empire and his personal relationships with friends and crew members on board the HMS Surprise. All this while playing cat and mouse with a french enemy vessel that is twice his ship's size and double her strength. The conclusion is a great blending of commonality of human cause and duty. All in all, this is one of the most well rounded stories I've ever seen on the motion picture screen.

I wish they'd make a dozen of sequels

[xaggurat · 10/10 · 19 May 2005]

Peter Weir has directed a bunch of will-be-Oscar-nominated movies. For me, this is not a merit for a filmmaker, since Oscar-dramas are usually 95% of entertainment, which by itself isn't interesting. His style is very compromising and clean, you are not surprised by originality, but you can enjoy the professional touch he has in his work.

Another Australian, Russell Crowe is also a professional, but has some weak points in his acting, mainly caused by certain machismo he desperately tries to maintain in all his characters.

Rest of the cast was unfamiliar to me and I had not read any Patrick O'Brian books. But the sea itself, tall ships and the Napoleonic Wars are of course great elements to base the story on, especially for a amateur war historian and summertime sailor like me.

I was surprised, how truly good Master and Commander was. A true adventure! I enjoyed the whole film and could not find anything I wouldn't like. Things were different in back then and Master and Commander presents its version of the Napoleonic Era. It looks very rich and detailed. Undoubtedly O'Brian novels form a fine background for the excellent screenplay. Soundtrack is very well done too, and musical scenes with Aubrey and Maturin playing duet with violin and cello ties their friendship. One of the best things in Master and Commander is the heartwarming friendship between these two characters.

It's like Weir and Crowe were born and trained to do this movie. And obviously I have born to watch it, since I've seen it five times so far. A perfect jewel of its kind. Oh, how I wish they'd make a dozen of sequels, especially since the end was sort of open and had a sense of continuation. If I had watched this movie when I was 12 I probably would have had a career in the navy...

Action of Captain

[kloader · 7/10 · 15 May 2005]

This is an extremely good movie, successfully recreating the atmosphere of the era. The special effects depicting battle scenes and adverse weather conditions are especially good. So, too, are the costumes and make-up.

I have, however, one criticism to make. Captain Jack Aubrey (Crowe) is shown on more than one occasion aloft in the rigging while the ship is sailing along. I am pretty confident that no Royal Navy captain would adopt this pose. The concept of sailing along in the rigging is more reminiscent of Kevin Costner in "Waterworld"! Apart from this one small breach of etiquette, a thoroughly enjoyable film.

"This Ship Is Our Home, This Ship Is England"

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 7 June 2008]

For those who like action and adventure from a more romantic age you can't beat Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World for your needs. As a film it rates right up there with Captain Horatio Hornblower which starred Gregory Peck and Damn the Defiant with Alec Guinness, a couple of films I liked very much.

Russell Crowe completely fits my conception of Patrick O'Brian's Napoleonic naval hero 'Lucky Jack Aubrey'. He's a worthy successor to C.S. Forrester's Horatio Hornblower. The books have been best sellers for years and this is Jack Aubrey's first screen appearance.

The film opens with Crowe in command of a ship that's just seen a lot of action and it's not in the best of shape. Orders from the Admiralty come to him. There's a French frigate who's quite a bit bigger than Crowe's ship, nevertheless she's the only one near her in those southern latitudes so it's a search and destroy mission. One that can't be accomplished until necessary repairs are made.

There's surprisingly little combat action in this film until the very end. It concentrates on character and goes into the most minute of detail the life on board a British ship of the line during the Napoleonic Wars. The action takes place in 1805 right after the Battle of Trafalgar and the United Kingdom is still keeping a lot of ships close to home.

Crowe is nothing short of outstanding as Aubrey the charismatic captain of this vessel. He gets good support from the rest of the cast, my favorites being ship's surgeon Paul Bettany and Max Pirkis as the young midshipman who Crowe takes a fatherly interest in.

In a sense the character's nickname of 'Lucky' is a misnomer. What you get Crowe's Jack Aubrey is a man of skill and daring and experience who knows how to take advantage of breaks and make his own luck. Never more so when he has that final encounter with the French ship.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World gives you a real feeling for the Napoleonic era. I do hope that Russell Crowe gets another chance to bring 'Lucky Jack Aubrey' back to the screen again.

Could have been so much more...

[Jose Guilherme · 7/10 · 2 February 2004]

The film had everything epics need... great scenery... brave leaders... some fighting and a big budget. Still somehow the film fails to deliver. Scenes where you should feel suspense and/or tension... are a bit slow and a bit boring. The action scenes are few and far between.

I liked the movie... but I gave it a 7 in 10. I know a bit about Naval Warfare and History and so my interest was bigger than the average male moviegoer.

Good points ? Beautiful ships. Really nice work there. Crowe seems a bit awkward as a british captain at first... but convinces us as the movie rolls on. Some of the secondary characters are neat too. The story has its good points... the acting is medium mostly. The battle scenes are a treat too.

With a bit better pacing, acting and story this would have been a great movie. All the right ingredients... but a bit overcooked perhaps ?

One of the best movies ever

[numenorsniper-66396 · 10/10 · 28 February 2022]

I still vividly remember first seeing this epic masterpiece in the cinema in 2003 with my dad. It awestruck me then, and has remained one of my most favourite movies. It never gets old, and even gets better with each viewing. The acting and casting is perfect, the music is amazing, and the cinematography is spectacular.

I really thought there would have been a sequel, given the colon in the title and the cliff-hanger ending. Sadly we never got one.

This should have won Best Picture of its year (if it weren't for Lord of the Rings of course), as it blows the rest of the competition out of the water, pun intended.

Huzzah for everyone involved with this beautiful film!

Come aboard on the HMS Surprise

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 20 March 2013]

The Surprise has just been ordered to pursue the French privateer Acheron at any cost during the sea battles of the Napoleonic Wars. The Acheron has been preying on Britain's whaling fleet and only Captain 'Lucky' Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and his crew can stop them. The movie is based on three novels in author Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey and Maturin series. The series based on Jack Aubrey's real life career has a total of twenty novels. Most of this story plot comes from the book, Far Side of the World. However, in the film version, the action takes during the Napoleonic wars, instead of during the War of 1812. The producers wished to avoid offending American audiences. In consequence, the fictional opponent was changed from the USS Norfolk to the French privateer frigate Acheron. I find this to be very disappointing as the film is not loyal to the source material and that the fact that having a movie about the Angelo and American conflict would be so much interesting since there isn't so many of them out there rather than another Napoleonic piece. Other than that, most of the film tries to stay true to the books. Other scenes are taken out from Patrick O'Brian novel's Desolation Island and the book, Master and Commander. Great efforts were made to reproduce the authentic look and feel of life aboard an early nineteenth century man of war by director Peter Weir. Rather than sporting computer graphic illusions, the film filmed on the reproduction of the eighteen century post ship Rose. All of the actors were given a thorough grounding in the naval life of the period in order to make their performances as authentic as possible. The characters are so well developed to the point, it makes you feel you are there with them. So realistic. The script was great in its character development and direction. The acting by Russell Crowe is outstanding. The cinematography is great as I love the shots at Galapagos with Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany) studying the animals and plants on the island. The music is pretty amazing. Great work by Christopher Gordon, Richard Tognetti and Iva Davies, lead singer of the Australian band Icehouse. Safe and sound at home again. Let the waters roar, Jack! Lyrics to the sea shanty, 'Don't Forget Your Old Shipmate' is one of the best things about the film. It's just nice to hear these long forgotten sea hymns. Spanish Ladies and The British Tars which was set to tune of Bonnie Ship the Diamond is also interesting to listen. The truest depiction of life aboard an eighteen century Man O' War on film since Mutiny on the Bounty. I have to admit I was slightly disappointed about the ending. It's such an annoying cliff hanger. It's made worst to the fact that there will probably not going to be a sequel to the film, any time soon. The movie can be a bit boring to some, as it had a very slow pace to it. The movie felt like a documentary movie, rather than a good historical action movie. It didn't keep me on the edge of my seat. Having a ship chasing after a superior ship could have been an Ahab hunt of the white whale type of a story that would make the story so much interesting, but the movie is lost without a sense of depth with pointless scenes at Galapagos Island. I think most people came to this film to see two battleships duke it out. If I wanted a natural geographic special. I'd have watched Jaques Cousteau or Charles Darwin instead. It was devoid of charm, humor and anything resembling amusement. Hollywood's attempt at being cerebral was just not working for me. I give it props, it was so so, but anyone with a short attention span, this movie isn't for them. Check out, HMS Defiant, a British adventure film released in 1962 if you like these types of movies. In my opinion, that movie is better than this. Still, if you watching this, just make sure you don't fall asleep on the helm.

Masterful (and Commanderful)

[babygeniusesvseightcrazynights · 10/10 · 28 December 2004]

Interestingly, Russell Crowe helps rather than hinders the picture. It's hard to believe that he's such a jerk when out of character, because his acting as the captain is totally believable. His character is great because he's smart, very stern, but very caring of his crew. While they fear him, they look up to and idolize him too.

The presumably accurate historical details really piqued my interest, from the little 12 and 13-year-old kids on the crew (and taking part in battle--viciously!), to the intricate chain of command, to the sheer power of the battle scenes. Splintering wood shrapnel, how often have we seen that in movies? Some of my favorite scenes are when Crowe is playing his cello in his quarters. His room—I never would have guessed a ship like that would have such a nice and fancy décor hidden within it. I mean the captain's room resembled a room out of "Clue" (The Study? The Library? I cannot say…) Anyway, the visual details are great. Lots of money was spent on this movie and it was spent on things that really mattered, like recreating interiors and antiques. The guns and cannons look like artifacts to the modern viewer, but they're also well-kept and shiny.

The dialog is fantastic, too…I can't remember exact quotes, but when Crowe gave some of his powerful, rallying speeches to the crew, I was ready to climb the mast myself.

This movie is an incredible addition to the action/adventure/historical genre. It's also very much a man's movie. I'm not sure there's a chick in the whole thing.

great movie but not very exciting, needed more action

[cdaddy · 7/10 · 25 November 2003]

Let me first say that this movie was done very well. The acting was great, I really believed that the cast was out at sea a long time ago on these huge ships propelled by the wind. Russel Crowe was great and there was a real conflict that was depicted. I have talked to friends that really like this movie. For me it was very slow and boring. I was in the Navy for 10 years and let me tell you watching sailors at sea is not very enjoyable or interesting to watch. Like I said the movie was done well and the acting was great. If history is your thing and you are into boating or Naval history then check it out. For the rest of us, skip it. I was begging my wife to leave, she wanted to see the end. There is not much action, its in the end and beginning of the movie.

Tedious and forgettable

[mnpollio · 4/10 · 28 December 2006]

I have never read the series of books upon which this film is inspired, but hopefully they are infinitely more rousing than what translates to the screen in this endeavor. The film opens well enough and nicely establishes the rigors and hardships of life at sea on a British vessel during the Napoleonic Wars. Unfortunately, it does not go anywhere after that establishment. The remainder of the film is basically a drawn-out cat-and-mouse game in trying to avoid/confront an enemy vessel while navigating around South America. With the exception of three characters, all of the British seamen blend together and have no distinctive personalities. I swore the character played by Billy Boyd was killed at least three times only to pop up later unharmed making this viewer realize that it was just someone similar and equally forgettable who met their tragic end. Max Perkis stands out as young boy who loses his arm in the opening battle. Russell Crowe packed on substantial weight to take on the role of Captain Jack Aubrey, but one wonders at the effort since the role is a relatively straightforward one of a stiff-upper-lip British sea captain essayed as well, if not better, in a least a dozen superior films. Paul Bettany is exceptional as the boat's surgeon and the film really becomes interesting whenever he is on screen. His side trip to explore the indigenous life on the Galapagos Islands is a nice passage. The remainder of the crew are instantly forgettable and at large unsympathetic. A subplot where the superstitious crew hounds a young crewmen to his death because they blame him for the bad luck and weather plaguing them makes them even less appealing. The fact that the captain seems to support their stand is probably believable, but hardly inspires confidence in his abilities. Even worse, the movie seems to halfway buy into the superstitious stance, which is reprehensible. After the initial battle, the few remaining battle sequences become increasingly repetitious and boring. We learn little to nothing about the enemy vessel, and with a horde of unsympathetic seadogs on the British vessel, it is difficult to become emotionally involved in the outcome. Film is entirely too long and flaccidly paced. It actually concludes in the middle of a pursuit, but it seems unlikely anyone will care about the ultimate outcome. It incredibly received a number of Oscar nominations, but no major wins. To its credit, it does convey one major aspect of life at sea to the viewer – unending torpor.