ince I didn't see this film until it was released on DVD, I'm going to be lazy and just paste the start of the official studio synopsis, rather than wasting paragraphs explaining the premise myself.

Based on a series of books by Patrick O'Brian, and directed by Peter Weir, MASTER AND COMMANDER plunges viewers deep into the story of a British Navy ship at sea during the Napoleonic war. Russell Crowe stars as Aubrey, the charismatic captain who wrestles with issues like honor, pride, duty, sacrifice and loyalty while using ingenious tactics to engage his prey--a much larger and better-equipped French Man o' War. Paul Bettany plays his friend, the ship's doctor...

That's a fair enough assessment. To the scores (which you can see explained here):

Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World
Script/Story: 7
Acting/Casting: 8
Action: 8
Humor: 6
Eye Candy: 7
Fun Factor: 7
Replayability: 6
Overall: 6

I'm at a loss to explain why I didn't like this movie more. It's got a decent plot, good action, good acting through and through, it mixes in enough humor to keep things light, it's relatively fun, and though I've only seen it once (since we bought the DVD used from Hollywood Video during one of their 3/$25 sales) I can imagine watching it again and enjoying it.

My main objection? The star. After years of reading one drunken brawl story after another about Russell, I have trouble seeing him as a real actor. It's sort of like any Mel Gibson movie after the craziness of The Passion when we all found out what an out-there old-school pre-Vatican II Catholic he was: I'll never see him in a movie again without wondering when he'll be tortured, or start ranting about Jews, or work in his obligatory anti-gay character/remark.  Russell isn't that bad; I can still see him as an actor, sort of, but it's hard. And whenever he's in a scene with drinking, or fighting, it's all over; it might as well be a documentary at that point.

Other than Russell "Fightin' 'Round the World" Crowe, my only real objection was that they took too long to get to the conclusion, and that they spent too much time on the subplots. This is utterly hypocritical of me, since I regularly dislike movies that have no subplots, or feel rushed since there's nothing at all that's not put there purely to propel the plot along. And yet, while watching Master and Commander, I frequently wanted them to get on with it. Less grumbling about the captain's determination to fight a more powerful ship, less of the doctor whining about how he never gets enough time to catch animals on the Galapagos Islands, less of the wimpy underachieving midshipman before he finally kills himself, one or two fewer long dinner scenes with lots of officers roaring in laughter, etc. Any of those would have been fine, but to cram so many subplots into the same long movie bloated it and sapped the energy from the overall plot and story. By the time the enemy ship showed up again at the end, I hardly remembered what Russell's ship was there to do in the first place, or why we were supposed to care.

True, I always expected that the enemy would show up again, and that we'd get some closure, but the movie seemed too content to just putter along and show the minutia of life on the ship. And while that would be great in a documentary, and I liked all of the subplots and information about that era, it took me out of the story and excitement of the plot.

This is a very subjective complaint and review, I admit, but what's a review for if not to communicate my opinion, about the film, no matter how unlikely and/or unfair?

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.