Master and Commander
It’s a bad sign when I start writing my weblog review of a movie while I’m watching it. That happened with “Master and Commander” because I was insanely bored during the first half, a naval combat drama set almost entirely at night, with photography that made you strain to even see what’s going on.
The second half, set mostly amid the climactic battle between Russell Crowe’s damaged English vessel and the evil (and much larger and more heavily armed) French ship, is basically a cinematic essay on “What It Means To Be A Man.” I actually thought while I was sitting there, “Kim du Toit is going to love this movie.” It’s so reactionary I think it actually took the audience back in time with it.
This male morality play spools out like a live-action version of Kim’s infamous “Pussification” rant, dressed up as a Russell Crowe historical drama projected on the UltraScreen. This was when men were men, and gay men were OK as long as they were willing to, say, rip bullets from their own entrails without anaesthetic.
I might have been willing to stomach the good-old-boy social commentary if the action were involving or well-directed. But it’s not. The drawn-out first half makes the movie seem much longer than its 2:15 running time, and the second half is just a muddle. One of the few things that kept me going was the phrase “soused ox face” (referring to that night’s grub in the mess); I kept thinking about it during boring and/or “dramatic” moments, and disturbing those around me with strangled laughter.
For Kim du Toit: Highly recommended.
For everyone else: Not so much.
noooooooooooooooo!!!! I so want to like this movie! Okay, I more want to just watch Russell Crowe, but I did want to like the movie as well.
A lot of people do like it. Some call it an “epic.” So again, I’m in the minority opinion. If I haven’t said it before, I urge anyone reading this to take my words with a grain of salt.
It wasn’t as good as I’d hoped, but I wouldn’t describe it as “reactionary.” Sure, Russell Crowe’s character is supposed to be the ideal “manly” man and military leader, but, at the same time, I don’t think one can argue that the movie presents a strictly rah-rah view of war. If anything, the child casualties and the utter ridiculousness of trying to blast each other with cannons at close range present the opposite viewpoint. Also, I couldn’t help but think that the doctor’s scientific research would ultimately prove to be more important in the span of history than the fleeting battles pursued by Aubrey. Although I thought some of the seafaring scenes were visually impressive, I wish there had been more character development. For those of us who haven’t read the books, Crowe’s character is a bit of a question mark. How did he get here? What is his life like back home? I wanted to know more about the characters so I could care more about what happened to them. In my opinion, it’s still recommended, but I don’t think it’s a truly great film.