I really wanted to love Peter Weir's MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD, based on the popular series of novels, and the way some critics have been raving about it (Roger Ebert gave it four stars), I assumed that would be the case. Unfortunately, the film is hampered by some very obvious flaws, although it's difficult to say what they are in a specific and precise manner. I suppose you could say I cared about the characters, but the problem is I didn't care nearly enough -- not for a film that's trying to be more about character than action or story.


In the starring role as Captain Jack Aubrey, Russell Crowe almost has enough screen presence and charisma to make up for the fact that the characters are ultimately superficial, but no actor is (or ever has been) good enough to overcome a story that is clearly lacking important traits. The truth is, I think Crowe saves the film from becoming completely dull. There was more life on board the ship featured in last summer's PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, nevermind that everyone under Geoffrey Rush's command was dead.

Okay, so I get that Peter Weir wanted to put the audience into the film and make us feel as though we were actually on a ship at sea in 1805 and not merely observing from the safety of our cushioned theater seats. I was hooked for the first thirty to forty-five minutes, and the opening five minutes are brilliant, but after some time I began to wonder if something else was ever going to happen. Frankly, I'd much rather not be a part of an exciting story than be right in the middle of a dull one that seems to be killing time between the two big battles that mark the beginning and end of the film. Isn't the whole point of storytelling to avoid the monotonous in-between stuff and cut to the chase? As Stanley Kubrick once said, "Realistic is good. Interesting is better."


Of course, MASTER AND COMMANDER has plenty of worthwhile moments -- more than its share to be honest -- it's just that they don't come together to create a cohesive and compelling whole. In the end, it's an excellent bad movie. It has all of the things you need to make a quality film, including great cinematography, realistic performances from the cast, a good score that doesn't push too hard, and an epic scope. And maybe this is enough for some people and perhaps explains why the film has received far more enthusiastic reviews than mixed or negative ones, but I need more in order to call a film great.

Posted November 14, 2003 | link