Master and Commander: Far Side of the World

[Ardath Bey]

Move over Revolutions for something deeper and heavier, Peter Weir's film adaptation of a book by the same title. Which concerns the beloved Captain Jack Aubrey and his surgeon shipmate friend Stephen Maturin in one of their rollicking sea adventures aboard the HMS Sophie. Based from a series written by Patrick O'Brian involving the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars, Master and Commander hits theatres this Friday November 14.

I am more psyched about this movie than ever after originally mentally catagorizing the film as Gladiator revisited, only this time a nautical adventure. But director Peter Weir has quite an distinguished film resume which includes such movies as Picnic at Hanging Rock; Gallipoli; Witness; The Year of Living Dangerously; Mosquito Coast; Dead Poet's Society; Green Card; Fearless; and The Truman Show.

I anticipate Master and Commander will be another sleeper like Mystic River and the best offering from here til RoTK. I will definitely be at the theatres come this Friday.

[Syo]

I agree it looks really good, and I have every intention of seeing it.

But it has two faults with it
#1 Looney Tunes Back in action comes out the same week and thats on top of my list to see first.
#2 I am really beginning to dislike Russel Crowe who is nothing more than a spoiled brat whom I would like to see fail.

[ReaperFett]

I think it looks bad. All I've seen is Crowe, boats and bad acting from the rest.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Ugggh if there is one thing I don't want to see this year, this is it. I just looks like they thought, "Hmm, Pirates of the Carribean made a lot, made we can try and make a more serious movie and rake in the same amount of cash."

[Figrin D'an]

The fact that the trailer sells the film's action only makes me hesitant. Unless you know of the book upon which it is based, most people will watch the trailer and ask themselves, "What on earth is this movie about?".

[JMK]

Well it isn't like they saw Pirates of the Caribbean romp at the box office and then decide to make another sea movie. It's obviously been in production for a couple years so it isn't like it's a rip off. That being said, there are trends in Hollywood though and certain types of movies seem to come out together in chunks.

[Droo]

I think this film looks dreadful and the fact that Russel Crowe is in it will ensure that I never watch this film. I think he's a terrible actor, to the point of it being unbearable. They should get the John Smith's cardboard cutout to replace him. Oh, and the movie title blows too. :mneh

[Charley]

I'm split on it.

I enjoy Crowe as an actor, and despite him being a jerk in real life, he's great on screen. I've yet to see a movie of his that I didn't like.

Then again, this looks like a blatant cash-in on Crowe's name, and I'm fearful that he might catch Hanks syndrome, insofar that movie execs try to put his name on crap and turn it into gold in some form of tinsel-town alchemy (aka, Cast Away)

However, I'm further encouraged by the fact that this is a story during the Napoleonic Wars, and I'm very fascinated with that kind of thing.

So, count me in on this. Looks like it could be enjoyable.

[JMK]

I dig Crowe as an actor, even if he may be an A-hole in real life. I loved Gladiator and loved L.A. Confidential even more primarily because of him.

[Charley]

Bingo.

[Ardath Bey]

I feel Russell Crowe is perfect for the role and happen to like the professional side of this actor. I am just glad they didn't choose that other handsome aussie gent that tends to overact and overdramatize. For that I am grateful. As far as the acting, we haven't seen enough to say if it is bad or good. The trailers gave very little away about this area of the movie.

I am quite taken in by Master and Commander and expect good 'ol fashioned grit, steel, and bare knuckles. Hopefully will be an inspired 'historical' action/war drama. The subgenre has disappointed me in the recent past with the following films ... Last of the Mohicans; The Count of Monte Cristo; Rob Roy; The Patriot; Gladiator; and Braveheart. All of those were big personal disappointments though moviegoers embraced and adored them.

BTW, The Studios stated that depending on how well this film is accepted by moviegoers will be the deciding factor whether they consider making it a franchise with a sequel or more.

[Jinn Fizz]

My mother and I tend to like movies like this, so I'm pretty sure we'll end up seeing it. I do have some of the same concerns that Figrin has voiced, though...I'm hoping they haven't strung all the best action scenes together into 30 second snippets for the commercials to make it look like it's wall-to-wall action when it's actually anything but. But we'll give it a try.

Um, but yeah, Looney Tunes is first on my list, I'm definitely going to see it on Sunday. I saw about 10 minutes worth of rough footage from it at Comic Con, and it looks like it's a gazillion times better than Space Jam. So I have high hopes for it. :)

As for Russell Crowe...yes, he's a fine actor (he definitely deserved all the praise and awards he got for Gladiator), and he's a moderately good-looking man, but he's a major jerk in real life. I hope that becoming a father will cause him to settle down and quit being such a macho buffoon. :x

[Ardath Bey]

Ya know if this Master and Commander is as good as I anticipate, I will probably warm-up to Gladiator as a companion set.

I just feel Gladiator is largely a hack piece, two films come to mind in particular. Both of which one of my favorite western directors of the 50s directed or co-directed, Anthony Mann.

First one is Spartacus 1960, was Stanley Kubrick's directorial breakthrough film yet Mann was uncredited as co-director. This film covered the gladiator angle quite thoroughly. A beautiful film starring Kirk Douglas. The other would be Fall of the Roman Empire 1964, directed by Mann alone that centered on Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus.

But Gladiator is a beautiful film itself no doubt and Russell Crowe deserved the accolades.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by JMK
I dig Crowe as an actor, even if he may be an Aussie in real life. I loved Gladiator and loved L.A. Confidential even more primarily because of him.

Fixed it for you.

There's a vastly different opinion of Crowe down here, especially in his home of Coffs Harbour. He seems to be a pretty straight up kinda bloke, much like quite few of us. I'd not beleive the media in this case. He appears to be the type of bloke who wold prefer to play cricket and go to the pub afterwards and sink a couple of stubbies. I'd love to meet him and Steve Waugh, the aussie cricket captain

[Ardath Bey]

Russell Crowe is a fine actor, yet can be difficult to work with and very demanding. Arrogant yes. But I believe there are other sides to this man the media does not see.

[Droo]

I couldn't give a hoot what he's like about in real life. I've noticed that a lot when it comes to people talking about his acting, people start saying "Oh yes, he's this in real life, he's such a that." Etc. That's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't interest or matter to me in the slightest. But like I said, his voice grinds, he's the most monotonous actor when it comes to his voice and performance. He does nothing for me and I nearly fell over when he was given an Oscar for his performance in Gladiator. Bah!

[Charley]

gb2 moulin rouge, captain sassypants.

[Droo]

Originally posted by Agent Charley
gb2 moulin rouge, captain sassypants.

Happily. /Hijack

[Darth Viscera]

I want to see American characters in this film :cool

After all, this is the British navy in 1805.

[Ardath Bey]

Yes! Wooooo!

Just seen the new commercial of Master and Commander, it reveals little action and more story oriented images. Such as islanders greeting shipmates, Russell Crowe or someone walking with another man who has a pegleg on a rocky shore with a vessel in the background, and other beautiful shots. OMG, I am more psyched about this film than before. I already thoroughly love this movie.

Master and Commander: Far Side of the World is going to rock. Friday can't get here any sooner. Get ready for a film that will redefine 'historical' war drama and adventure. I am almost entirely convinced this is the best thing from here to Troy.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Get ready for a film that will redefine 'historical' war drama and adventure

Riiiiiiiiiiight..........

I have my doubts about that

[Darth Viscera]

Why did they change the plot of the film so drastically from the book? I heard that in the book they were chasing a light frigate of the U.S. Navy in 1813, and in the movie the foe is a heavy French ship in 1805.

What's the deal?

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Why did they change the plot of the film so drastically from the book? I heard that in the book they were chasing a light frigate of the U.S. Navy in 1813, and in the movie the foe is a heavy French ship in 1805.

What's the deal?

Well, I have been trying to avoid any film spoilers. But Master and Commander and Far Side of the World are both individual titles from O'Brian's series. So I am not sure what Peter Weir has chosen to do. I'd rather find out friday. But with such material, if you are a history buff, you have to come into the film suspending substantiated fact. Because truth and fiction are going to meld together.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Ardath Bey
Yes! Wooooo!

Just seen the new commercial of Master and Commander, it reveals little action and more story oriented images. Such as islanders greeting shipmates, Russell Crowe or someone walking with another man who has a pegleg on a rocky shore with a vessel in the background, and other beautiful shots. OMG, I am more psyched about this film than before. I already thoroughly love this movie.

Master and Commander: Far Side of the World is going to rock. Friday can't get here any sooner. Get ready for a film that will redefine 'historical' war drama and adventure. I am almost entirely convinced this is the best thing from here to Troy.

<img src=http://www.sw-fans.net/photopost/data/501/1156linda-what2.jpg>

Uh, I think it'll be good and all, but thats a might big slice of crow to eat over a trailer, fanboy.

I changed my mind, bring Jonathan back. I want a refund.

[Ardath Bey]

Yes, I am a genuine Master and Commander fanboy after seeing the second trailer. Marvelling. I can almost imagine Gladiator by the tenth power.

I don't think this movie can go wrong really. Very refreshing stuff, 17th-19th century naval pictures are rare today. They were quite popular in the early years of cinema up til I guess say the 50s. :)

Maybe the trailer can be dug up somewhere on the net, Troyboy er Agent Charley. ;)

[imported_J'ktal Anajii]

I believe that Master and Commander will be a special effcts, props and costuming extravaganza with what could be a good story added on at the end. Unfortnately, it doesn't look like the other way around, with a story-driven base, and the extras added onto that.

While I will admit I would like to see it, it doesn't look too terribly thrilling, or any better than Gladiator. It might be a hit, might be a miss. Nobody can tell yet.

[Ardath Bey]

Here is the Master and Commander: Far Side of the World trailers. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/MasterandCommanderTheFarSideoftheWorld-1127359/trailers.php)



A blurb from today's paper:

--"'Master and Commander' is just plain glorious! It creates convincing and intriguing characters. It is more about adventure and strategy and personality than simply about action, and it's endlessly absorbing. Patrick O'Brian's fans, and I am one of them, must have thought his stories could never be captured on film. But 'Master and Commander' proves they can be, intelligently and thrillingly. Russell Crowe give a magnificent performance. It's just a wonderful movie."--


Roger Ebert

[Kale]

Having recently become a fan of the Horatio Hornblower books, I'm interested in seeing this. I have, however, heard negative reports about O'Brian's writing--namely, that he didn't seem to have nearly the grasp of actual naval strategy that C. S. Forrester did. Not having read O'Brian, I dunno... A&E's Horatio Hornblower productions have been very well done.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I'm interested in seeing this, but comparing a Napoleonic naval battle story to Gladiator seems a bit of a stretch.

Oh wait, they have the same lead actor. My bad.

[Ardath Bey]

Just arrived back from seeing M&C and it turned out to be a decent movie. Only Peter Weir's newest creation rose far below my expectations, I desired an adventure maintaining the power and strength similar to his earlier film, Gallipoli. Cinematography was grade A and most the battle scenes were exciting especially when Captain Aubrey's HMS Surprise skirmished with the french frigate, Acheron. Those were the highlights of the movie.

Outside of that, Master and Commander did alot of skating around instead of assembling a solid base for the movie move on. Along the way, Weir introduces us to some character sacraments between Captain Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and Surgeon Maturin (Paul Bettany), only none of it comes off as intimate. Too awkward with little relevance to the story. And every natural history predarwinism references made by Bettany caused my eyes to roll painfully. Despite these faults the movie was never boring neither a glowing achievement.

[Zasz Grimm]

Revolutions is still in theaters. :cool

j/k.

Honestly, I don't know if I will be going to see this movie or not. I like Crowe as an actor- I've never listened to the media or anyone elses opinions about anything concerning an actor; so what I've just heard about him was new to me. I thought he was excellent in Gladiator, L.A. Confidential, and A Beautiful Mind.

Sea movies aren't really my thing, though. I'll probably wait for this on DVD. But if I'm at the theater anytime soon, I may see it.

[Ardath Bey]

You might not have a choice. There is really nothing out in the theatres right now. But I am looking forward to The Missing come Nov. 26th. A Ron Howard movie.

[Zasz Grimm]

Yes. The Missing looks excellent! I saw the making of it on TNT or something a few nights ago. Very good film, it seems.

[Ardath Bey]

Yeah, appears to be quite unique western. I recently read in the paper that Clint Eastwood originally picked up the project and dropped it long before it was ready for production. Then Ron Howard immediately picked it up again. Both are great directors.

[Syo]

There is plenty in the theatres right now. Looney Tunes, Elf, Matrix Revolutions, Radio, Mystic River, and The Runaway Jury to name just a few.

Plus there is several more good movies heading this way Cat in the Hat, Gothika, Bad Santa, The Haunted Mansion and Timeline in November alone.

[Ardath Bey]

I have seen all of them (including Kill Bill) besides Looney Tunes and Radio. Brendan Fraser is enough to condemn the first one. And the second film, too many people have told me it is a drag. Literally drags. So I am skipping those two and may never bother to rent them.

Must sees for the remaining November, um, The Missing. Maybe Timeline but if it is as bad as the book was, I have wasted time and money. But I am not going into December yet. :)

[imported_J'ktal Anajii]

I view Master and Commander the exact same way that I view Gladiator. Well-shot, decently scripted, and pretty well cast. In areas, the personality of a charater shined, but for the most part it was covered in a wash of gray formality.

Crowe delivered a modest performance, but it is far from his best work. Paul Bettany really stole the show, though I now and then expected him to leap into one of his Chaucer speeches. The action was good when it was there, and I find the accuracy of the props and sets to be spot on as far as I could tell.

It was good, but not great, and earns a B by me.

And, I find Brendan Fraser quite funny, and very interesting. He is excellent in the roles he plays, and I find he picks them rather funny. Looney Toons is next on my "Must See" list, for I am a great fan of American animation. Sure it might not be cinematic brilliance, but, all I want is to be entertained by the things I like. Master and Commander gripped me on the historical interest level, but slipped on the humanity of the characters.

[Ardath Bey]

I have no interest in Looney Tunes (though I still adore those original LT cartoons, very zany and never short on wit). But after viewing Brendan Fraser's other comic cartoon films, I have very little faith in his newest one. Looney Tunes > Space Jam?

/apologies on the hijacking

[Lilaena De'Ville]

You're hijacking your own thread, so I think it's allowed. :p

[Ardath Bey]

;) LD.



Sad, while we're on the subject. The best naval movie I have ever seen was the 1935 movie, Mutiny on the Bounty. Starring Charles Laughton and Clark Gable. Laughton's portrayal of Captain Bligh is absolutely mesmerizing. Laughton is pure bastard and wickedly dastardly. In fact, it is Laughton's most infamous and acclaimed role, the equivalent of Bogart/Rick; Karloff/Monster; etc. I can't give a naval film depiction a higher recommendation. A+++

There was 1984 remake, called The Bounty starring Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins. Another decent movie but Hopkins looks quite pedestrian compared to Laughton.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

The subgenre has disappointed me in the recent past with the following films ... Last of the Mohicans; The Count of Monte Cristo; Rob Roy; The Patriot; Gladiator; and Braveheart. All of those were big personal disappointments though moviegoers embraced and adored them.

In what ways do you consider them disappointments?

Sorry for jumping into this late :\

[Ardath Bey]

::sigh::

This is difficult to answer having not seen some of these films in years.

Well, Gladiator was decent but I prefer Kubrick's Spartacus and Mann's Fall of the Roman Empire. I get so much more out of both those classics than Gladiator and maybe you would too.

Count of Monte Cristo never, ever impressed me. The pacing was unreal and jumpy. I would rather watch a Basil Rathbone, Stewart Granger, or even a Errol Flynn swashbuckler than this.

Braveheart and The Patriot, starring the same actor and the main characters share very similar lives. Mel Gibson deserves credit for his achievements as producer, director, and star of Braveheart. Even poured 15 million of his own money to finance it. These films to me, are Mel 'Pat-meself-on-the-shoulder' Gibson spectacles. Though Braveheart was very earnest. But please enlighten me with something deeper than Mel Gibson. And Rob Roy fits into the same category only stars Liam Neeson but a choke full stomache churning performances.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

*gasps in horror* Braveheart = more than a good movie in *my* opinion.

Also, I watched Spartacus, and found it to be awful. :x Nothing about Kirk Douglas' "acting" impressed me in the least.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Ive always liked Kirk Douglas and I like Spartacus as well but I dont see that his acting is any better in it than Mel's was in Braveheart or The Patriot.

I think Mel is one of the rare ones to achieve - what I consider - true stardom. Im not meaning popularity...I mean stardom, like 'old' Hollywood used to have. Now, almost anyone who has had 2 or 3 big movies gets their names and star on the sidewalk. Its come to mean less than nothing to me :(

[Ardath Bey]

No, I differ on that. Kirk Douglas is superb and his movie invites greater character study. Spartacus is awesome.

The Patriot owes much to Jimmy Stewart's 1965 film, Shenandoah. Even though the latter concerns the Civil War instead.

The Patriot and Braveheart both come across as excercises in melodrama. Especially with Mel Gibson hamming too much of the spotlight. The story in both movies is old school tiresome too.

[Charley]

What?

Uh, not liking the Patriot is pretty excuseable, but Braveheart earns you the death penalty. That movie redefined scope and intensity in the war drama genre.

Get off my internet.

[Sejah Haversh]

The Count of Monte Cristo is the best revenge stoy ever, and was masterfully portrayed in the recent film. The acting was excellent, and the pace suited the story quite well. I believe your favorig of older films is biased by years of people glorifying "classics" simplybecause they were the big theatre draws bask in the day. TCoMC is a great film, as is Braveheart.

In the words of "Handy" via The Human Ton, "Read a book."

I just love that line, evenout of context.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The Patriot and Braveheart both come across as excercises in melodrama. Especially with Mel Gibson hamming too much of the spotlight. The story in both movies is old school tiresome too.

No idea bout Patriot, so there I am not qualified to comment.

However, calling Braveheart that earns you troll status with me. Braveheart is too good to be just dismissed off hand as you did.

[Charley]

Saw Master and Commander.

As I've said before, Crowe's name carries clout. He's a man who masters the art of movies, and his presence in movies practically guarantees that it'll be a good film.

Except now.

Master and Commander SUCKS. Not a little. Sucks like a diesel-powered hoover.

Good parts:

Dialogue: Very accurate for the age. Sounds well written.

Humor: Intelligent, quirky, and clever. Quintessentially British.

Strategy: Best ship combat I've seen since the Wrath of Khan

Action: Good stuff.

The rest? How about no real plot, no character development, uninteresting and forgettable characters, boring interludes full of nothing, horrible hippy overtones (ie, OMG PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT!). Worst of all, it has no ending. Probably the worst ending I've seen in a movie since the Time Machine.

Let me put it in other terms. This movie is like having sex. Sex that is getting better and better. But just before you get yours...the bitch stops, and goes to watch a soap opera.

WHAT THE CRAP?

I'm glad I didn't pay to see it.

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Sejah Haversh
I believe your favorig of older films is biased by years of people glorifying "classics" simplybecause they were the big theatre draws bask in the day. TCoMC is a great film, as is Braveheart.

In the words of "Handy" via The Human Ton, "Read a book."

I just love that line, evenout of context.

Incorrect, I favor alot classics because they are quality pictures. Braveheart bored me to tears. (And TCoMC was all fluff and loose boards. Blah and no personality. Revenge tale? *lol*) It's like the difference between a amusement park ride and a dream vacation. One is a quickie thrill but the other you savior into your memory. You can't convince me to watch Braveheart again even if you put a gun to my head.

[Sejah Haversh]

How was Braveheart boring? Master and Commander was boring, and the fights weren't as cool. Braveheart romps all over M & C, and at the time it came out, it was quite stunning, and not hackneyed or chiched. It set the tone that many other movies followed, so maybe that's what made you think it was so unoriginal. And, how much do you know about William Wallace? Or England and Scotland at that point in time? Braveheart is a movie that--though it did not depict it accurately--captured the spirit of a Scottish folk hero, and the heroic ideal. Hmm, maybe some of us look for a little more depth rather than fancy camera angles and film-school type movies. I got action, I got feeling, I got history and I got entertained overall. That is a good movie.

And you want melodrama? Look at Basil Rathbone and tell me he wasn't a ham, I dare you.

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Sejah Haversh
How was Braveheart boring? Master and Commander was boring, and the fights weren't as cool. Braveheart romps all over M & C, and at the time it came out, it was quite stunning, and not hackneyed or chiched. It set the tone that many other movies followed, so maybe that's what made you think it was so unoriginal. And, how much do you know about William Wallace? Or England and Scotland at that point in time? Braveheart is a movie that--though it did not depict it accurately--captured the spirit of a Scottish folk hero, and the heroic ideal. Hmm, maybe some of us look for a little more depth rather than fancy camera angles and film-school type movies. I got action, I got feeling, I got history and I got entertained overall. That is a good movie.

And you want melodrama? Look at Basil Rathbone and tell me he wasn't a ham, I dare you.







No, Hollywood has been doing historical-inspired war dramas literally from the beginning with silent classics, Braveheart chose a true historical figure and a created a very inacurrate depiction.

But it wasn't the first, Cecille De'Mille directed The Crusades in 1935, one of his earliest epic extravaganzas. Based loosely upon the third crusade and centered on Richard the Lionheart battling Saladin and the Mohomeddan hordes. Historically inaccurate but contained stunning battle scenes.


Anthony Mann did a nice film in 1961 called El Cid starring Charlton Heston. A portrayal about Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar, AKA El Cid. An 11th-century Spanish hero who freed Spain from Moorish invaders. Epic battle galore.

And there was Ken Hughes' Cromwell (1970) which concerned the conflict between Oliver Cromwell and Charles I during the English Civil War, however inaccurately. More great epic battle scenes.

And yet another was The War Lord (1965) another 11th-century european medievel picture starring once again Charlton Heston, this time as Chrysagon, a norman knight. Period piece but disavows any true historical figure. More romance than the previous.

And one of the greatest historical depictions by sheer beauty alone is Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan The Terrible Parts I (1944) and II (1946). An unbelievable epic achievement about Russia's first czar. Plenty of political intrigues and battle scenes. These films are breathtaking!!!

So, no, Braveheart is far from new. No, formuliac and predictable. Don't miss the battle scenes from Fall of the Roman Empire and the final 75 minutes of Spartacus. The latter's great climatic battle bears an uncanny resemblance to Braveheart's final battle. With similar actions done by both Douglas and Gibson ending in similar results. Only Douglas does not wear face paint and the choreaography-f/x are more dated and less advanced of course.

This is just naming a few films of the longlived genre.

Oh, and Basil Rathbone starred in one of my favorite swashbucklers of all time, Rouben Mamoulian's Mark of Zorro (1940), he plays the Governor's main baddie opposite Tyrone Power's Zorro. Both actors, BTW, were master swordsman at fencing in real life and have a stupendous duel in the movie that would make modern choreaographers drool. Great fun movie!

[Charley]

Please watch Braveheart again and pay attention to the scope and detail. Its far from formulaic. You need to remove your classic movie blinders, because every argument you use is the same angle.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Have you actually watched all of those movies? Are you a film student, or just insane? :p

[Sejah Haversh]

He's Prince John the second.

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Agent Charley
Please watch Braveheart again and pay attention to the scope and detail. Its far from formulaic. You need to remove your classic movie blinders, because every argument you use is the same angle.

I will try to view as soon as I can. Don't own the DVD, shame on me. But will get my hands on a copy and see how another viewing affects my opinion.


Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Have you actually watched all of those movies? Are you a film student, or just insane? :p

Yes, I have seen all of those films. Television and video. Neither am I of the opinion that any on the list to be superior to Braveheart.

Besides Sergei Eisenstein and his Ivan The Terrible duo. Just last month, in October, TCM televised both films back-to-back and they blew me away, descriptively like Akira Kurosawa meets Ingmar Bergman. The Russian director has another film I desire to see, Alexander Nevsky. A lavish spectacle recounting the invasion of Russia by the Teutonic Knights in the 13th-century. Eisenstein's work thus far is over-reaching and magnificient.

[Dasquian Belargic]

I'm doing Film Studies. I hope I don't end up hating Braveheart :uhoh


Neither am I of the opinion that any on the list to be superior to Braveheart.


wait... I thought you were saying Braveheart was pants and those were ossum? I'm so lost :huh

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I thought that was what he was saying as well.

[CMJ]

Alexander Nevsky. A lavish spectacle recounting the invasion of Russia by the Teutonic Knights in the 13th-century. Eisenstein's work thus far is over-reaching and magnificient.

The battle scenes are excellent, but I thought the last act resolution was laughably bad. It's obvious Soviet propaganda in advance of the German attack on it's borders. I'm sure the government commissioned it to be made - it's angle of Germans being evil warmongers is a bit heavy handed.

I agree with you on "Braveheart" to a degree. I really enjoyed it, but did find it a bit overrated. I've never seen all of "Spartacus", but your admiration for "Fall of the Roman Empire" is beyond me. It was okay I guess, but I felt whole sections were tedious to sit through. I do agree that "Gladiator" borrowed *heavily* from it, but in my mind it(speaking of Gladiator) was a helluva better movie.

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Dasquian Belargic
I'm doing Film Studies. I hope I don't end up hating Braveheart :uhoh



wait... I thought you were saying Braveheart was pants and those were ossum? I'm so lost :huh

No, I am speaking overall, some of the inclusion rank from okay to good. Braveheart I would say is a better packaged film with higher production value than most of those listed. But Braveheart is by no means, a likeable or enjoyable film. I was raised on historical war dramas and found Braveheart an accumulation in tedious style excercise. But what purpose that post served was to draw out to Sejah that what Mel Gibson created was not revolutionary or original to cinema or film-making. Historical war dramas have a very, very long history dating back to the silent era.


Originally posted by CMJ
The battle scenes are excellent, but I thought the last act resolution was laughably bad. It's obvious Soviet propaganda in advance of the German attack on it's borders. I'm sure the government commissioned it to be made - it's angle of Germans being evil warmongers is a bit heavy handed.

I agree with you on "Braveheart" to a degree. I really enjoyed it, but did find it a bit overrated. I've never seen all of "Spartacus", but your admiration for "Fall of the Roman Empire" is beyond me. It was okay I guess, but I felt whole sections were tedious to sit through. I do agree that "Gladiator" borrowed *heavily* from it, but in my mind it(speaking of Gladiator) was a helluva better movie.

Interesting, I look forward to viewing Alexander Nevsky eventually. The reason I brought up Fall of the Roman Empire because I felt it had alot more political clout and story integrity, though as you pointed out some parts are slow and tedious. The reason I am appalled by Gladiator because it represents an overally simple story. Personally wished this Gladiator had more meat on it's bones and more muscle to strengthen it's integrity. Instead of moving us with realism and tragedy, Gladiator attempts to awe us by focusing on cinematography and action. But the plight of Maximus is too far stretched and the story too underdeveloped, so Gladiator never worked for me.

[CMJ]

It's a simple revenge tell, true enough. But it does it remarkably well, which is why it WORKS. ;)

Really there are only about 6-7 story arcs that all movies, books, plays, etc fall into. Doing a good story is about making the cliche seem original or inspired. Hell look at all the sources Lucas borrowed from to make the original SW:ANH.

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by CMJ
It's a simple revenge tell, true enough. But it does it remarably well, which is why it WORKS. ;)

Really there are only about 6-7 story arcs that all movies, books, plays, etc fall into. Doing a good story is about making the cliche seem original or inspired. Hell look at all the sources Lucas borrowed from to make the original SW:ANH.

True, but I wanted Gladiator to gather more from historical perspectives and facts. That's what made the film too unreal. I mean, yes it was a simple revenge tale but it was not an adapted Shakespeare work either. Gladiator was not a well researched or resourceful film in the least bit.

[CMJ]

That's where you made the mistake. You forced your wants on the movie, rather than judged what was on the screen. It's funny you mentioned Shakeaspeare...he normally deviated fairly heavily when he did "historical" plays.

No one takes him to task now. ;)

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by CMJ
It's funny you mentioned Shakeaspeare...he normally deviated fairly heavily when he did "historical" plays.

No one takes him to task now. ;)

That's the exact point I am making, drawing comparitive opposites. :)

[CMJ]

Well, you can't have it both ways though bro'. On the one hand you say it(Gladiator) isn't well researched enough...and then the next that these kind of stories don't have to be exact - true to life adaptations.

I'm not sure what would have made you happy. For me, "Gladiator" was the best film of 2000, so it's the last time I agreed with the Academy 100% on the top choice.

We could talk Oscar all day though....I love that stuff. But that's a whole other thread and topic. ;)

[Ardath Bey]

True, I guess I can't have it both ways. Only difference lies between the poetic brilliance of Shakespeare, and that of a film that fills me with utter disbelief and seriously dampens my viewing pleasure. Besides that, Gladiator is a beautiful cinematic achievement though not rich.

[CMJ]

To each his own. I was blown away by Ridley Scott's epic. Different strokes, for different folks.

I saw plenty of crap in film school that is highly thought of. Don't get me wrong, I loved alot of those old movies...but some films that are revered are just plain overrated IMHO.

[Charley]

What?

Gladiator wasn't supposed to be a historically accurate portrayal.

The story is an embodiment of the old Republic mythos of Cinncinnatus, transplanted into a timeline of Imperial rule.

FFS, read on the concept of virtus, and of Cinncinnatus's story. Its the trinity of farmer, soldier, and senator. Pretty big underlying theme right there.

The entire thing was an expression of old values, rising up and slaying new decadence. The only reason Marcus Aurelius or Commodus were even in the story was to provide a point of reference as to the state of the empire. Aurelius was the last of the line of the "four good emperors", and from that point the brief imperial golden age that Rome had enjoyed was lost forever into corruption.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Actually I don't like Gladiator because of the historical stuff but that is because I am historian and that stuff just bothers me I don't try to fault the movie it just gets on my nerves by changing the facts about that especially since I have read up on that period. Sure I do think the movie is a great speticle of a film but I think Spartcus was the best movie on the Roman Empire (however HBO is doing a miniseries on the Rise and Fall of Rome I can't wait for that, considering how good HBO is on historical accuracy I am looking foward to it)

[Dan the Man]

It miffed me for all of two seconds, and then I figured out what they were doing with the movie's theme. Is everyone else such a movie literalist as well?

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Dan the Man
It miffed me for all of two seconds, and then I figured out what they were doing with the movie's theme. Is everyone else such a movie literalist as well?


Yes... I mean, geez, those stupid Star Wars films were so unrealistic, with those light swords and people who can understand hairy grunting ape creatures and ships that MAKE SOUNDS IN SPACE. OMG, they don't know anyth1ng about sc31nce, we mu$t k1ll th3m n0w!!!11!


:rolleyes

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Agent Charley
What?

Gladiator wasn't supposed to be a historically accurate portrayal.

The story is an embodiment of the old Republic mythos of Cinncinnatus, transplanted into a timeline of Imperial rule.

FFS, read on the concept of virtus, and of Cinncinnatus's story. Its the trinity of farmer, soldier, and senator. Pretty big underlying theme right there.

The entire thing was an expression of old values, rising up and slaying new decadence. The only reason Marcus Aurelius or Commodus were even in the story was to provide a point of reference as to the state of the empire. Aurelius was the last of the line of the "four good emperors", and from that point the brief imperial golden age that Rome had enjoyed was lost forever into corruption.






... of which commentary is lost and downplayed to nothing by Gladiator itself as the film degenerates into a simple revenge tale trapped in the confines of a terribly morass historical drama.

[Sejah Haversh]

<img src=http://www.nehantish.com/and-the-horse.jpg>

Denegrates? No, I believe it ascends to a story of virtue and the heroic ideal. How can you praise Shakespeare when he too told tales that essentially boiled dwn to "simple reveng stories." By your own contradictions, you have lost the right to argue.

Yes, Shakespeare could be poetic, but still, when you cut to the thick of it, many of his works were simple and base. Re-read Hamlet, and then tell me that a "simple revenge tale trapped in the confines of a terribly morass historical drama" can't be a master piece.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Ardath Bey
... of which commentary is lost and downplayed to nothing by Gladiator itself as the film degenerates into a simple revenge tale trapped in the confines of a terribly morass historical drama.

I believe I have read that on-line before. I believe it is a direct quote from a critic.

And it's just as worthless a comment reading it the second time around.

[Droo]

Meh. I can't abide Gladiator. For it's scope and grandios epic feel, it really was uninteresting and monotonous. I've never been able to like it and I'm almost certain it boils down to Russel Crowe - he is a curse on films for me. I simple can't enjoy a film he is in.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Ardath Bey
... of which commentary is lost and downplayed to nothing by Gladiator itself as the film degenerates into a simple revenge tale trapped in the confines of a terribly morass historical drama.

I'm not trying to convince you to like the movie, because you have every right not to. Yet, you and I have already gone over this *exact* angle a time or two. No one makes headway in these kind of discussions once we revisit the SAME frickin' argument. I've had unpopular opinions on this board, probably everyone has at one time or another. If you press you're basically trolling.

Just say you didn't like it, and leave it at that.

[Charley]

<img src=http://www.sw-fans.net/photopost/data/504/1156argument.gif>

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
I believe I have read that on-line before. I believe it is a direct quote from a critic.

And it's just as worthless a comment reading it the second time around.

Nope, now you're attacking me on my own quote, none of that is taken from any other source Marcus. It is a direct response to Charley's little bit about an existing subtext in Gladiator.


Originally posted by CMJ
I'm not trying to convince you to like the movie, because you have every right not to. Yet, you and I have already gone over this *exact* angle a time or two. No one makes headway in these kind of discussions once we revisit the SAME frickin' argument. I've had unpopular opinions on this board, probably everyone has at one time or another. If you press you're basically trolling.

Just say you didn't like it, and leave it at that.

What? I am entitled to respond to Charley's assumptions on Gladiator. Thank you very much. :) And quite calling me a troll, this board is becoming old very quickly with all the personal attacks and namecalling. I am actually sacrificing to come here and discuss movies.

[meh]

Reading the latter parts of this thread can be equated with:

<img src=/photopost/data/504/1fumostomp2.gif>

>_<

[JMK]

Yep, I agree. This thread is on borrowed time...:zzz

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Ardath Bey

What? I am entitled to respond to Charley's assumptions on Gladiator. Thank you very much. :) And quite calling me a troll, this board is becoming old very quickly with all the personal attacks and namecalling. I am actually sacrificing to come here and discuss movies.

Read what I said bro...I said you were troll like when you continually beat us over the head with the SAME ARGUMENTS. Each side has expressed their opinion...time for both sides to shut up.

As you can see, I'm not the only one who felt this way. Oh and by the way, I don't think anyone was overly negative to you. The way you criticized some movies here, you implied anyone who liked them was simple minded. That's no better my friend.

[TCM'74]

Originally posted by CMJ
The way you criticized some movies here, you implied anyone who liked them was simple minded. That's no better my friend.

I am not implying anyone is simple minded not the least bit. ;)

[CMJ]

Yeah right...the wink ain't helping. :p

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Off topic question: Why another screen name???

...Can we delete all the other screen names you've gone through and don't use anymore?

[CMJ]

Gee Holly...you used to have like 7 dozen screen names to your credit. ;)

[TCM'74]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Off topic question: Why another screen name???

...Can we delete all the other screen names you've gone through and don't use anymore?


I don't why Lilaena, why do you have so many screen names??? And yes, you can delete away... except Ardath and HunterJodoKast.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

:) I RP with mine. Sorry, I retract my question, and we're not deleting them.

[TCM'74]

I know LD. :)

No, it is okay if you delete them. I am not going to be using the others. I prefer it actually. But does deleting a screen name delete previous posts, is what my main concern is? I would desire to eventually just have this one anyways. :)

[JediBoricua]

Anyway back to the original topic.

Saw Master and Commander today, and I am thankfull that I had not read this thread, because I would have gone to the theatre biassed.

I loved the movie.

Yeah, plain and simple. I loved it, so did my g/f. I do enjoy Crowe's perfomances, and he did it again with this movie.

The storyline I found interesting, as it's just fun to root for the underdog. In Captain Jack Aubrey I found a strong leader, who is both admired and loved by his men. A simple tale of valor, duty and friendship (god that last line sounds corny...).

Anyway I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys good cinema. With movies like this, there is still hope that Hollywood can still make intelligent big budget blockbusters.

Will buy and rewatch on DVD.

[CMJ]

I saw it today. Really good movie, with stretches of greatness. Well written, acted, performed, shot, hell just about everything. There was a one 10-15 minute sequence I felt could have been totally deleted - which would have greatly helped the pace of the film.

Honestly, that was the only real part that dragged. In attempt to be spoiler free, I didn't mention the section. Ask me and I'll PM you.