Reviews (403)

Masterful and Commanding
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is the latest attempt by the Hollywood establishment to revive the nautical adventure genre that enjoyed great popularity during Hollywood's "golden age." Based on Patrick O'Brian's phenomenally successful novels about British heroism during the Napoleonic Wars, the film traces the efforts of Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and his loyal crew to intercept and destroy an errant French warship in the Pacific waters near the Galapagos Islands. Although this movie will disappoint any audience member who is expecting a great deal of background information about the historical intricacies and personalities of the Napoleonic Age, it will thrill and entertain all filmgoers who love the kinetic energy and old-fashioned showmanship of a well directed swashbuckler.
Veteran director Peter Weir is entitled to an Oscar nomination simply for staging some of the most dazzling and exhilarating naval battle sequences of all-time. The violent encounters between Aubrey's HMS Surprise and its French counterpart the Acheron were so gripping and realistic that several audience members at the showing I attended were literally gasping for breath as they left the theater (the sound of cannon fire and rushing water no doubt reverberating in their ears). However, Weir deserves the most credit for his detailed and provocative portrayal of every aspect of life aboard a British warship, circa 1805. Audiences get to see the chief lieutenants create strategies and chart courses, the midshipman cope with the responsibilities holding authority over much of the crew while still conforming to the expectations of their superiors, and the common sailors, mates and boatswain confront unbearable weather and inedible food as they prepare to risk their lives for the country they love. Several characters leave an indelible mark on the hearts and minds of viewers, particularly Max Pirkis as a prepubescent crew member who faces the amputation of an arm with unwavering courage and Lee Ingleby as an indecisive midshipman who becomes convinced that his presence is cursing the ship. The battle scenes owe much of their punch and power to Weir's realization that it is far more engaging to watch complex, multifaceted figures battle it out for God and country than it is to watch caricatured personalities scramble through combat without purpose or motivation.
At the center of the fray is Russell Crowe, who thoroughly captures Captain Aubrey's intensity and charisma. It isn't easy to play a character that orders the vicious beating of an unruly sailor in one scene and makes charming toasts to wives and sweethearts ("may they never meet!") in another, but Crowe succeeds brilliantly by imagining Aubrey as an impulsive individualist who stands by his instincts and emotions in any context. When the Captain engages in heated philosophical discussions about loyalty and leadership with his friend Dr. Steven Maturin (Paul Bettany), it is riveting to watch the star's fascinating portrait of a man obsessed with his own righteousness. Crowe will almost certainly reap some significant awards from this impressive performance, and at the very least he has found a profitable new franchise to sail through the rest of the decade with.

The War on the Waters
I came to 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World' with little expectations beyond reasonable entertainment. I was thus surprised that this was a powerful little human drama about a vicious chase in the high seas.

What makes 'Master and Commander' successful is not the plot, which is a straightforward cat and mouse story. Rather, it succeeds because of its gritty sense of realism and the ability to capture the feel of time and place.

While most historical movies feature ordinary, contemporary people in period dress (see 'Gangs of New York'), Master and Commander does feel like it takes place in the early 19th century. It is little things, like Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) motivating his troops by demanding "Do you want your children to sing 'La Marseillaise'?", or the real excitement the characters display in discussing Nelson.

Also powerful is the film's feel for the hardships of warfare on the Sea. Early in the film, a child loses his arm, and throughout the movie real characters suffer casual death. At one point Jack Aubrey must choose between saving one man and saving his crew, and he allows the man to drown. This form of realism is so rare in Hollywood films, in makes 'Master and Commander' truly unique.

The great weakness of the film is its episodic nature. There is scarcely a plot - the hunt for the French frigate "Acheron" is merely a framework for the individual happenings, which include a storm, a suicide, and most infamously, a rather overlong subplot about Crowe's sidekick's (Paul Bettany) Darwin-like expedition to Galapagos Islands.

Indeed, the emergence of this subplot makes the second half of the film slow and much less interesting then the first half. Although the scenery is breathtaking, the story just fails to move, until Bettany's accidental discovery of the Acheron, which sets the stage for the climatic battle.

Director Peter Weir and his crew should be commanded for a great adaptation of Patrick O'Brien's seafaring adventure. If there will be a sequel, I will go with high expectations.

EVERYTHING --& more!!
1. this is THE cute guy movie. from 8 to 80, small, tall, thin or round, this movie will have someone for you. i can only imagine my sister, who once had a list of 254 men she Truly Cared About that included people like the guy 3d from the left in the second scene of Star Trek 2, drooling like a pet of pavlov w/in the first 3 minutes.

2. & speaking of star trek-----

russell crow _IS_ Captain James T. Kirk.

this is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen!!

here is an actor playing a captain playing an actor playing a captain!!

i think captainhood has been forever embedded in the mind of anyone young or old & privileged enough to see the _real_ & _only_ Star Trek as meaning one thing: William Shatner. watch the timing!! watch the _gestures_!! watch the way he looks at the camera. the likeness is uncanny!!

my partner watched this movie a couple of days before i did & when i said to him, "you know who that is--" he said he had thought the same thing.

amazing!!

dont worry, i LOVE Captain James T. Kirk. when i was a very little kid, even younger than any of the little kids in this movie, my parents & i saw him (the actor, not the captain) screaming at his girlfriend at a folk dance festival. that image is embedded in my brain as well!!

anyway.

Captain Kirk, in order to be Captain Kirk, MUST have his Spock. & here, of course, he does. but oddly his Spock is only the entrée into........

3. the Monty Python element. think John Cleese, younger (much much younger), w/ a lot of freckles & a slightly skinnier jawline. think his uppercrust gestures & the way he often looks up at you (thru the camera) w/ those eyes..... right here. Mr. Spock as a naturalist-warrior-sailor-doctor who also, on the side, runs the Ministry of Silly Walks.

but thats not all!!

you also get, in this movie that was modeled on "Star Trek transports itself into Monty Python & the Holy Grail on the High Seas" --the old guy. you remember the Old Guy. he is embedded in yr brain too. i know he is. & it will be very very hard for you to watch a scene wherein he appears w/o thinking of eric idle, hanging on a dungeon wall & singing. every single time.

but nobody is singing "la marseillaise" b/c when you finally do meet those french types, they are too busy yelling things like:

"oh you english pig-dogs!!" --you get that too!! i almost expected a bunch of fruit & a cow to come flying over the side of the boat.

& theres more-- so much more-- it makes ones brain itch trying to remember it all.....

4. &, speaking of an itchy brain, in addition to heroic self-surgery, one also gets: trepanning. woohoo!! personally, i recommend amanda fielding's video (worth looking up) as she is doing real-life, real-time self-trepanning, but this one works as a little preview. & besides, she doesnt stick a quarter into her skull.

5. &, wait, there is so much more!! poop on the poopdeck (rewind or you will miss it. my partner, who worked on lots of boats made us rewind so i wouldnt miss it)-- & LOTS & LOTS of animals. i LOVE this movie!!

but probably not in the way that peter weir intended. which is why i gave it 4 stars. it is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen. the whole thing seems plotted, directed & acted as if it were a bunch of archetypal television programs strung together or laid on top of one another (lets not forget marlon brando (rip) in "mutiny on the bounty," although that might just have been inspiration for the costumes) (& do remember "the poseiden adventure" & undoubtedly "titanic" (i havent seen it)) w/ unbelievably fabulous images of oceans, islands, ground & ships-- just gorgeous stuff from the director of "the last wave."

& yes, it is a roiling barrel of entertainment.

Cat and Mouse on the high seas
Set in the Napoleonic Wars of the early nineteeth century, Master and Commander is based on the Patrick O'Brian's historical novels. The essence of the story is a chase starting off the coast of Brazil and ending up off the Galapogos islands, between a French ship with its clever commander and the HMS Surprise- the ship at the center of the story.

The movie itself is richly laid out in genuine props of the era, which succeeds in giving it an air of realism. Russell Crowe does a fine job as Captain 'Lucky Jack' Aubrey, a man with a history of experience and well respected by his sometimes grumbling men. The supporting cast is excellent with a list of characters that adds to the richness of life on a seafaring ship of that era.

Crowe doesn't grandstand and take over the movie allowing the story, other characters and action to speak for themselves. A lot of credit should of course go to Peter Weir for his direction and his adaption of O'Brian's novel.

Master and Commander is very reminiscent of old Hollywood epics and a quite enjoyable movie. I honestly didn't expect much and came away very satisfied and entertained.

Highly entertaining and recommended.

Well acted action-adventure film
A definite surprise - I enjoyed this movie much more than I thought I would. Very well acted, especially Paul Bettany as Dr. Stephen Maturin and Max Pirkis as the very young midshipman who loses his arm in the opening battle scene. While the special effects of the movie are amazing, they didn't overshadow the depth of the characters protrayed. Unless you are a reader of the O'Brian novels (which I recommend even more highly than the movie), you wouldn't notice one major change. The Acheron was really the USS Norfolk - an AMERICAN ship - not French. I guess the producers figured we wouldn't put down our dollars to see a movie where we were the losers. ... Read more

Reviews (403)

Masterful and Commanding
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is the latest attempt by the Hollywood establishment to revive the nautical adventure genre that enjoyed great popularity during Hollywood's "golden age." Based on Patrick O'Brian's phenomenally successful novels about British heroism during the Napoleonic Wars, the film traces the efforts of Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and his loyal crew to intercept and destroy an errant French warship in the Pacific waters near the Galapagos Islands. Although this movie will disappoint any audience member who is expecting a great deal of background information about the historical intricacies and personalities of the Napoleonic Age, it will thrill and entertain all filmgoers who love the kinetic energy and old-fashioned showmanship of a well directed swashbuckler.
Veteran director Peter Weir is entitled to an Oscar nomination simply for staging some of the most dazzling and exhilarating naval battle sequences of all-time. The violent encounters between Aubrey's HMS Surprise and its French counterpart the Acheron were so gripping and realistic that several audience members at the showing I attended were literally gasping for breath as they left the theater (the sound of cannon fire and rushing water no doubt reverberating in their ears). However, Weir deserves the most credit for his detailed and provocative portrayal of every aspect of life aboard a British warship, circa 1805. Audiences get to see the chief lieutenants create strategies and chart courses, the midshipman cope with the responsibilities holding authority over much of the crew while still conforming to the expectations of their superiors, and the common sailors, mates and boatswain confront unbearable weather and inedible food as they prepare to risk their lives for the country they love. Several characters leave an indelible mark on the hearts and minds of viewers, particularly Max Pirkis as a prepubescent crew member who faces the amputation of an arm with unwavering courage and Lee Ingleby as an indecisive midshipman who becomes convinced that his presence is cursing the ship. The battle scenes owe much of their punch and power to Weir's realization that it is far more engaging to watch complex, multifaceted figures battle it out for God and country than it is to watch caricatured personalities scramble through combat without purpose or motivation.
At the center of the fray is Russell Crowe, who thoroughly captures Captain Aubrey's intensity and charisma. It isn't easy to play a character that orders the vicious beating of an unruly sailor in one scene and makes charming toasts to wives and sweethearts ("may they never meet!") in another, but Crowe succeeds brilliantly by imagining Aubrey as an impulsive individualist who stands by his instincts and emotions in any context. When the Captain engages in heated philosophical discussions about loyalty and leadership with his friend Dr. Steven Maturin (Paul Bettany), it is riveting to watch the star's fascinating portrait of a man obsessed with his own righteousness. Crowe will almost certainly reap some significant awards from this impressive performance, and at the very least he has found a profitable new franchise to sail through the rest of the decade with.

The War on the Waters
I came to 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World' with little expectations beyond reasonable entertainment. I was thus surprised that this was a powerful little human drama about a vicious chase in the high seas.

What makes 'Master and Commander' successful is not the plot, which is a straightforward cat and mouse story. Rather, it succeeds because of its gritty sense of realism and the ability to capture the feel of time and place.

While most historical movies feature ordinary, contemporary people in period dress (see 'Gangs of New York'), Master and Commander does feel like it takes place in the early 19th century. It is little things, like Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) motivating his troops by demanding "Do you want your children to sing 'La Marseillaise'?", or the real excitement the characters display in discussing Nelson.

Also powerful is the film's feel for the hardships of warfare on the Sea. Early in the film, a child loses his arm, and throughout the movie real characters suffer casual death. At one point Jack Aubrey must choose between saving one man and saving his crew, and he allows the man to drown. This form of realism is so rare in Hollywood films, in makes 'Master and Commander' truly unique.

The great weakness of the film is its episodic nature. There is scarcely a plot - the hunt for the French frigate "Acheron" is merely a framework for the individual happenings, which include a storm, a suicide, and most infamously, a rather overlong subplot about Crowe's sidekick's (Paul Bettany) Darwin-like expedition to Galapagos Islands.

Indeed, the emergence of this subplot makes the second half of the film slow and much less interesting then the first half. Although the scenery is breathtaking, the story just fails to move, until Bettany's accidental discovery of the Acheron, which sets the stage for the climatic battle.

Director Peter Weir and his crew should be commanded for a great adaptation of Patrick O'Brien's seafaring adventure. If there will be a sequel, I will go with high expectations.

EVERYTHING --& more!!
1. this is THE cute guy movie. from 8 to 80, small, tall, thin or round, this movie will have someone for you. i can only imagine my sister, who once had a list of 254 men she Truly Cared About that included people like the guy 3d from the left in the second scene of Star Trek 2, drooling like a pet of pavlov w/in the first 3 minutes.

2. & speaking of star trek-----

russell crow _IS_ Captain James T. Kirk.

this is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen!!

here is an actor playing a captain playing an actor playing a captain!!

i think captainhood has been forever embedded in the mind of anyone young or old & privileged enough to see the _real_ & _only_ Star Trek as meaning one thing: William Shatner. watch the timing!! watch the _gestures_!! watch the way he looks at the camera. the likeness is uncanny!!

my partner watched this movie a couple of days before i did & when i said to him, "you know who that is--" he said he had thought the same thing.

amazing!!

dont worry, i LOVE Captain James T. Kirk. when i was a very little kid, even younger than any of the little kids in this movie, my parents & i saw him (the actor, not the captain) screaming at his girlfriend at a folk dance festival. that image is embedded in my brain as well!!

anyway.

Captain Kirk, in order to be Captain Kirk, MUST have his Spock. & here, of course, he does. but oddly his Spock is only the entrée into........

3. the Monty Python element. think John Cleese, younger (much much younger), w/ a lot of freckles & a slightly skinnier jawline. think his uppercrust gestures & the way he often looks up at you (thru the camera) w/ those eyes..... right here. Mr. Spock as a naturalist-warrior-sailor-doctor who also, on the side, runs the Ministry of Silly Walks.

but thats not all!!

you also get, in this movie that was modeled on "Star Trek transports itself into Monty Python & the Holy Grail on the High Seas" --the old guy. you remember the Old Guy. he is embedded in yr brain too. i know he is. & it will be very very hard for you to watch a scene wherein he appears w/o thinking of eric idle, hanging on a dungeon wall & singing. every single time.

but nobody is singing "la marseillaise" b/c when you finally do meet those french types, they are too busy yelling things like:

"oh you english pig-dogs!!" --you get that too!! i almost expected a bunch of fruit & a cow to come flying over the side of the boat.

& theres more-- so much more-- it makes ones brain itch trying to remember it all.....

4. &, speaking of an itchy brain, in addition to heroic self-surgery, one also gets: trepanning. woohoo!! personally, i recommend amanda fielding's video (worth looking up) as she is doing real-life, real-time self-trepanning, but this one works as a little preview. & besides, she doesnt stick a quarter into her skull.

5. &, wait, there is so much more!! poop on the poopdeck (rewind or you will miss it. my partner, who worked on lots of boats made us rewind so i wouldnt miss it)-- & LOTS & LOTS of animals. i LOVE this movie!!

but probably not in the way that peter weir intended. which is why i gave it 4 stars. it is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen. the whole thing seems plotted, directed & acted as if it were a bunch of archetypal television programs strung together or laid on top of one another (lets not forget marlon brando (rip) in "mutiny on the bounty," although that might just have been inspiration for the costumes) (& do remember "the poseiden adventure" & undoubtedly "titanic" (i havent seen it)) w/ unbelievably fabulous images of oceans, islands, ground & ships-- just gorgeous stuff from the director of "the last wave."

& yes, it is a roiling barrel of entertainment.

Cat and Mouse on the high seas
Set in the Napoleonic Wars of the early nineteeth century, Master and Commander is based on the Patrick O'Brian's historical novels. The essence of the story is a chase starting off the coast of Brazil and ending up off the Galapogos islands, between a French ship with its clever commander and the HMS Surprise- the ship at the center of the story.

The movie itself is richly laid out in genuine props of the era, which succeeds in giving it an air of realism. Russell Crowe does a fine job as Captain 'Lucky Jack' Aubrey, a man with a history of experience and well respected by his sometimes grumbling men. The supporting cast is excellent with a list of characters that adds to the richness of life on a seafaring ship of that era.

Crowe doesn't grandstand and take over the movie allowing the story, other characters and action to speak for themselves. A lot of credit should of course go to Peter Weir for his direction and his adaption of O'Brian's novel.

Master and Commander is very reminiscent of old Hollywood epics and a quite enjoyable movie. I honestly didn't expect much and came away very satisfied and entertained.

Highly entertaining and recommended.

Well acted action-adventure film
A definite surprise - I enjoyed this movie much more than I thought I would. Very well acted, especially Paul Bettany as Dr. Stephen Maturin and Max Pirkis as the very young midshipman who loses his arm in the opening battle scene. While the special effects of the movie are amazing, they didn't overshadow the depth of the characters protrayed. Unless you are a reader of the O'Brian novels (which I recommend even more highly than the movie), you wouldn't notice one major change. The Acheron was really the USS Norfolk - an AMERICAN ship - not French. I guess the producers figured we wouldn't put down our dollars to see a movie where we were the losers. ... Read more

Amazon.com

"It is not enough that your actions are good. You must take care thatthey appear so." This is one lesson that plucky orphan Tom Jones (Max Beesley, adead ringer for Ewan McGregor) never learns, charging through life with his chinup and his libido unchecked. With tongue firmly in cheek, narrator HenryFielding (John Sessions) walks us through this randy satire like a tour guide,proffering introductions and amusing observations as he tours the drama. Beesleyis all charm and earthy sincerity as handsome Tom, with Samantha Morton adetermined, elegant, and deliciously funny Sophia and red-faced Brit stalwartBrian Blessed (Black Adder) as her blustery, bellowing pater. Comparisonsto Tony Richardson's hearty interpretation are inevitable: this 1997 miniseriesfavors dry wit and understated asides to Richardson's knockabout comedy and highenergy, and it's a delight from start to its improbably (and delightfully)contrived conclusion. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Great Fun!!!!!!!!!
A&E is excellent when it comes to making mini-series, and Tom Jones is a prime example. The characters were very well cast and the screenplay was very well written. It was a joy to watch. I enjoyed every minute. Max Beesley was amazing as Tom and Samantha Morton did a wonderful job of portraying Sophie. There is nothing more to say other than, it was one of A&E's finest.

Excellent!! Flawless adaptation of the book!
I saw Tom Jones when it aired on A&E, and loved it so much that I had to read the book. I must commend BBC for the superb work they did interpreting the book into the movie. The movie follows the book exactly, which pleases me to no end, considering the way that some movies have massacred the story they came from. This is a very funny and enjoyable movie.

Outrageous!
Here's a story filled with dastardly plotting and prevarication, true love and tawdry sex, wild drunkenness, chases, disguises, near-misses, and utterly improbable (but hilarious) meetings. Wonderful acting by British stage and film stars--fans of BBC literary adaptations will recognize many favorites--bring this wild, picaresque tale to life with charm and boundless verve. Perhaps best of all is the screenplay, which manages to make sense of everything in Fielding's convoluted tale while also making the most of 18th-century English, when the language was at its graceful, urbane peak.

Just try to watch this one with a straight face!

I Love You Tom!!
Tom Jones is one my favorite movies of all time. It is so hard to watch this movie and not be charmed by Mr. Jones and his crazy antics. In this movie you have your two central characters, that rapscallion orphan Tom Jones and his fair innocent(though sometimes a bit temperamental)Sophie. Surrounding this epic love story are a wide variety of vivid and eccentric characters. This story has one of the best endings ever, which I won't reveal to you though I am sorely tempted to do so. If you are a rommantic at heart or just love a good laugh and lot of adventure, you must see this movie.

Henry Fielding's immortality
"It is a pity he was not immortal, he was so formed for happiness." -- Mary Wortley Montagu on the death of her cousin, Henry Fielding.

This dramatization of this most wonderful book is nearly perfect. I say nearly perfect because that are one or two little problems with the sound (no, Honour doesn't mean she wouldn't say a word if Sophia were to go to bed with Mr. BLIFIL instead of Mr. Jones, nor does Miss Western mean to say, "Brother, if you would only leave your NIECE to my care...") but never mind that. It doesn't matter because the director, Metin Huseyin, has his fingers on the pulse of 18th century England. It's not a "bawdy romp." It was really like this. Straight, nonintoxicated Englishmen hugged and kissed each other in public (a show of feeling was considered a mark of a gentleman). People talked more openly about sex than they did for another 175 years, the fact that women liked it too, and the fact that sex is, every once in a while, a motive for human behaviour. Women talked back and demanded respect. Hypocrisy was everywhere (and just like now, you could sometimes say so). About 140 crimes carried the death sentence. Money and property sometimes mattered more than people. Young people sometimes had to marry the person they were told to marry whether they hated them or not, and being kind, generous and amiable could get you in worse trouble than being greedy, grabby and nasty. Fielding wrote it all down and Huseyin delivers it wonderfully well here.

Tony Richardson's Tom Jones was splendid, to be sure, and is full of brilliant acting, but in many ways it was, to quote a friend of mine, rather like, "Austen Powers does the 18th Century." This is Tom Jones as Fielding conceived him. A pretty, sweet fellow, probably based on Fielding's youthful self, who makes a few very human mistakes and, with the help of his enemies, nearly gets himself hanged.

The casting in this production is marvellous and the director has, probably through his obvious great love for this story, allowed each actor to be infused with a faithful sense of character. Fantastic as Joyce Grenfell was, to the heavily Freudianized audiences of 1964, a character like Lady Bellaston could only be portrayed as a clinging nyphomaniac. Lindsay Duncan, on the other hand, is perfect as the mature, sexy, selfish, independently wealthy female who does exactly as she likes, a type of woman not unknown today and not unknown in the 18th century, either. (It was the Victorians and people in the first three quarters of the 20th century who claimed women like this were aberrations.) Peter Capaldi is great as the horribly funny Lord Fellamar. Partridge is rumpled, wronged and tender-hearted. The household parasites ARE odious, Brian Blessed IS Squire Western (complete with dog slobber and misguided parenting), Samantha Morton is perfect as Sophia, who in turn was based on Fielding's beloved wife, Charlotte; lovely, hot-tempered, brave and honest. As is true of all the casting, her long-suffering, imperfect maid and friend, Honour, is great. The child actors well match their grownup counterparts. Beesley is a good Tom and also has a nice bottom. John Sessions, who plays Fielding himself, our wry narrator, is a delight.

This production is much closer to the original, including the dialogue, already in place by Fielding, who wrote dialogue for his novels like the dramatist that he was; so in a way it was already a screenplay. Some of the longer narrative passages had to be pared out, of course, but why both directors (Richardson and Huseyin) leave out the fact that Squire Allworthy sends his precious but disgraced Tom off, well provided for, with 500 pounds in his pocket, I don't know, but I'm sure they had their reasons. The sets may not be brilliant, but the costumes, make-up, acting and directing are. This is a wonderful production in the old BBC tradition. Get it and love it, because they aren't making them anymore. And if you think we won't suffer for this loss, then listen (as if you could avoid it) to the deafening whine that passes for so much of modern dramatic art. We need Henry Fielding as much now as they did then. ... Read more

Reviews (403)

Masterful and Commanding
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is the latest attempt by the Hollywood establishment to revive the nautical adventure genre that enjoyed great popularity during Hollywood's "golden age." Based on Patrick O'Brian's phenomenally successful novels about British heroism during the Napoleonic Wars, the film traces the efforts of Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and his loyal crew to intercept and destroy an errant French warship in the Pacific waters near the Galapagos Islands. Although this movie will disappoint any audience member who is expecting a great deal of background information about the historical intricacies and personalities of the Napoleonic Age, it will thrill and entertain all filmgoers who love the kinetic energy and old-fashioned showmanship of a well directed swashbuckler.
Veteran director Peter Weir is entitled to an Oscar nomination simply for staging some of the most dazzling and exhilarating naval battle sequences of all-time. The violent encounters between Aubrey's HMS Surprise and its French counterpart the Acheron were so gripping and realistic that several audience members at the showing I attended were literally gasping for breath as they left the theater (the sound of cannon fire and rushing water no doubt reverberating in their ears). However, Weir deserves the most credit for his detailed and provocative portrayal of every aspect of life aboard a British warship, circa 1805. Audiences get to see the chief lieutenants create strategies and chart courses, the midshipman cope with the responsibilities holding authority over much of the crew while still conforming to the expectations of their superiors, and the common sailors, mates and boatswain confront unbearable weather and inedible food as they prepare to risk their lives for the country they love. Several characters leave an indelible mark on the hearts and minds of viewers, particularly Max Pirkis as a prepubescent crew member who faces the amputation of an arm with unwavering courage and Lee Ingleby as an indecisive midshipman who becomes convinced that his presence is cursing the ship. The battle scenes owe much of their punch and power to Weir's realization that it is far more engaging to watch complex, multifaceted figures battle it out for God and country than it is to watch caricatured personalities scramble through combat without purpose or motivation.
At the center of the fray is Russell Crowe, who thoroughly captures Captain Aubrey's intensity and charisma. It isn't easy to play a character that orders the vicious beating of an unruly sailor in one scene and makes charming toasts to wives and sweethearts ("may they never meet!") in another, but Crowe succeeds brilliantly by imagining Aubrey as an impulsive individualist who stands by his instincts and emotions in any context. When the Captain engages in heated philosophical discussions about loyalty and leadership with his friend Dr. Steven Maturin (Paul Bettany), it is riveting to watch the star's fascinating portrait of a man obsessed with his own righteousness. Crowe will almost certainly reap some significant awards from this impressive performance, and at the very least he has found a profitable new franchise to sail through the rest of the decade with.

The War on the Waters
I came to 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World' with little expectations beyond reasonable entertainment. I was thus surprised that this was a powerful little human drama about a vicious chase in the high seas.

What makes 'Master and Commander' successful is not the plot, which is a straightforward cat and mouse story. Rather, it succeeds because of its gritty sense of realism and the ability to capture the feel of time and place.

While most historical movies feature ordinary, contemporary people in period dress (see 'Gangs of New York'), Master and Commander does feel like it takes place in the early 19th century. It is little things, like Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) motivating his troops by demanding "Do you want your children to sing 'La Marseillaise'?", or the real excitement the characters display in discussing Nelson.

Also powerful is the film's feel for the hardships of warfare on the Sea. Early in the film, a child loses his arm, and throughout the movie real characters suffer casual death. At one point Jack Aubrey must choose between saving one man and saving his crew, and he allows the man to drown. This form of realism is so rare in Hollywood films, in makes 'Master and Commander' truly unique.

The great weakness of the film is its episodic nature. There is scarcely a plot - the hunt for the French frigate "Acheron" is merely a framework for the individual happenings, which include a storm, a suicide, and most infamously, a rather overlong subplot about Crowe's sidekick's (Paul Bettany) Darwin-like expedition to Galapagos Islands.

Indeed, the emergence of this subplot makes the second half of the film slow and much less interesting then the first half. Although the scenery is breathtaking, the story just fails to move, until Bettany's accidental discovery of the Acheron, which sets the stage for the climatic battle.

Director Peter Weir and his crew should be commanded for a great adaptation of Patrick O'Brien's seafaring adventure. If there will be a sequel, I will go with high expectations.

EVERYTHING --& more!!
1. this is THE cute guy movie. from 8 to 80, small, tall, thin or round, this movie will have someone for you. i can only imagine my sister, who once had a list of 254 men she Truly Cared About that included people like the guy 3d from the left in the second scene of Star Trek 2, drooling like a pet of pavlov w/in the first 3 minutes.

2. & speaking of star trek-----

russell crow _IS_ Captain James T. Kirk.

this is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen!!

here is an actor playing a captain playing an actor playing a captain!!

i think captainhood has been forever embedded in the mind of anyone young or old & privileged enough to see the _real_ & _only_ Star Trek as meaning one thing: William Shatner. watch the timing!! watch the _gestures_!! watch the way he looks at the camera. the likeness is uncanny!!

my partner watched this movie a couple of days before i did & when i said to him, "you know who that is--" he said he had thought the same thing.

amazing!!

dont worry, i LOVE Captain James T. Kirk. when i was a very little kid, even younger than any of the little kids in this movie, my parents & i saw him (the actor, not the captain) screaming at his girlfriend at a folk dance festival. that image is embedded in my brain as well!!

anyway.

Captain Kirk, in order to be Captain Kirk, MUST have his Spock. & here, of course, he does. but oddly his Spock is only the entrée into........

3. the Monty Python element. think John Cleese, younger (much much younger), w/ a lot of freckles & a slightly skinnier jawline. think his uppercrust gestures & the way he often looks up at you (thru the camera) w/ those eyes..... right here. Mr. Spock as a naturalist-warrior-sailor-doctor who also, on the side, runs the Ministry of Silly Walks.

but thats not all!!

you also get, in this movie that was modeled on "Star Trek transports itself into Monty Python & the Holy Grail on the High Seas" --the old guy. you remember the Old Guy. he is embedded in yr brain too. i know he is. & it will be very very hard for you to watch a scene wherein he appears w/o thinking of eric idle, hanging on a dungeon wall & singing. every single time.

but nobody is singing "la marseillaise" b/c when you finally do meet those french types, they are too busy yelling things like:

"oh you english pig-dogs!!" --you get that too!! i almost expected a bunch of fruit & a cow to come flying over the side of the boat.

& theres more-- so much more-- it makes ones brain itch trying to remember it all.....

4. &, speaking of an itchy brain, in addition to heroic self-surgery, one also gets: trepanning. woohoo!! personally, i recommend amanda fielding's video (worth looking up) as she is doing real-life, real-time self-trepanning, but this one works as a little preview. & besides, she doesnt stick a quarter into her skull.

5. &, wait, there is so much more!! poop on the poopdeck (rewind or you will miss it. my partner, who worked on lots of boats made us rewind so i wouldnt miss it)-- & LOTS & LOTS of animals. i LOVE this movie!!

but probably not in the way that peter weir intended. which is why i gave it 4 stars. it is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen. the whole thing seems plotted, directed & acted as if it were a bunch of archetypal television programs strung together or laid on top of one another (lets not forget marlon brando (rip) in "mutiny on the bounty," although that might just have been inspiration for the costumes) (& do remember "the poseiden adventure" & undoubtedly "titanic" (i havent seen it)) w/ unbelievably fabulous images of oceans, islands, ground & ships-- just gorgeous stuff from the director of "the last wave."

& yes, it is a roiling barrel of entertainment.

Cat and Mouse on the high seas
Set in the Napoleonic Wars of the early nineteeth century, Master and Commander is based on the Patrick O'Brian's historical novels. The essence of the story is a chase starting off the coast of Brazil and ending up off the Galapogos islands, between a French ship with its clever commander and the HMS Surprise- the ship at the center of the story.

The movie itself is richly laid out in genuine props of the era, which succeeds in giving it an air of realism. Russell Crowe does a fine job as Captain 'Lucky Jack' Aubrey, a man with a history of experience and well respected by his sometimes grumbling men. The supporting cast is excellent with a list of characters that adds to the richness of life on a seafaring ship of that era.

Crowe doesn't grandstand and take over the movie allowing the story, other characters and action to speak for themselves. A lot of credit should of course go to Peter Weir for his direction and his adaption of O'Brian's novel.

Master and Commander is very reminiscent of old Hollywood epics and a quite enjoyable movie. I honestly didn't expect much and came away very satisfied and entertained.

Highly entertaining and recommended.

Well acted action-adventure film
A definite surprise - I enjoyed this movie much more than I thought I would. Very well acted, especially Paul Bettany as Dr. Stephen Maturin and Max Pirkis as the very young midshipman who loses his arm in the opening battle scene. While the special effects of the movie are amazing, they didn't overshadow the depth of the characters protrayed. Unless you are a reader of the O'Brian novels (which I recommend even more highly than the movie), you wouldn't notice one major change. The Acheron was really the USS Norfolk - an AMERICAN ship - not French. I guess the producers figured we wouldn't put down our dollars to see a movie where we were the losers. ... Read more

Description

A comic, brutal and passionate take of greed and love in Victorian England. A top-notch cast of veteran actors and rising young newcomers shines in a lavish new British production of the Charles Dickens classic. The hero, a penniless young gentleman, struggles to make his way in the world and protect his mother and sister, meeting up with the worst and best of humanity along the way. Charles Dance (The Jewel in the Crown) stars as Ralph Nickleby, with James D'Arcy (Rebel Heart) as Nicholas and Sophia Myles (Mansfield Park) as his beautiful sister, Kate. Other standouts include Lee Ingleby (Ever After) as Smike, Nicholas' faithful companion, and Dominic West (28 Days) as the lecherous Sir Mulberry Hawk. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

truly entertaining
I've just seen this movie on Bravo. I don't own the dvd but I have every intention of getting it. I've read Nicholas Nickleby at least a dozen times and each time the story is well told. Even while watching it on Bravo, I felt a lump come into my throat for the sister and brother and anger rise up at the uncle and yes, even at the stupidity of the mother. When a movie can still draw you in like that (even when you know what to expect) then it is truly a superb movie with truly excellent acting. This is absolutely a keeper.

Excellent!
As of this writing I do not have the DVD, but I just watched this version on the Canadian Broadcast Company network, and I must say that I was thoroughly impressed. The casting, the costumes, the 'out of the book' quotes. They have truly accurately portrayed the Victorian era in all its splendor and wretchedness. There's not any bad that I can say about this movie. Ok, there IS one thing: the ending is narrated rather than played out. They could have easily made this one more half hour longer to put it over the top. The Scrooge-like uncle is played to perfection, so well, in fact, that one finds they'd probably rather be with old Ebenezer than Uncle Ralph. That's just one of the variety of characters that you would expect to see in a Dickens novel/movie. There are many more, of course (besides Nicholas Nickleby, who is quite the wallflower compared to nearly everyone else in the story).
When this movie is released on DVD shortly (by the time this is being read, it should already be available), you can bet I will spend my hard earned cash to purchase it!

Postscript: I now own the DVD and it is EXCELLENT! The picture quality is so much brighter and clearer than the broadcast version. And best of all, it's in the LETTER BOX format! Truly even better than I thought it would be!

A Degradation to Dickens
By in large, most of Charles Dickens' novels are dark, melancholy, and morbid. But the majority of them have an uplifting ending, and main characters above reproach. "Nicholas Nickleby" is one of his lesser-known volumes, falling to the back of the line in favor of "A Tale of Two Cities" and "David Copperfield." But it's also one of my personal favorites. Thus said, this Bravo adaptation follows it very closely... but I disliked intensely many of the scriptwriter's own "inventions" in dealing with the text. What bleeds through is a strong sexual undercurrent not present in the novel, as well as the defacing of several minor characters who made complete turnarounds in the novel by means of redeeming themselves.

The plot in novel form never comes across as being lecherous, even when dealing with Madeline Bray and the seventy-year-old swindler who wants to marry her for her money. Seeing him ogle her on the screen is much more disconcerting, as are the obvious sexual illusions, innuendo, and activity portrayed. Mr. and Mrs. Mantalini are all over each other, Mr. and Mrs. Squeers are constantly trading innuendo on jumping into bed at the earliest opportunity, and Sir Mulberry Hawke's advances toward Nicholas' sister Kate are much more lurid and offensive than in the book... like when he corners her against the pool table, puts his hand down her blouse, and then tries to force himself on her.

The acting is quite good, but the offensive elements for me weighed out the fact that this adaptation tries to be faithful to the text. It seems very cold and shallow without any great character development and the climax turns out slightly flat. I would encourage viewers to see the excellent 2002 adaptation by Douglas McGrath, which is all around more faithful to the spirit of Dickens, much less visually offensive, and far better produced.

The DVD is fair. The menu is nice, but includes virtually no extras except a photo gallery and menu selection. Since this was produced for TV, there's nothing glowing about the actual production itself. The darkness is slightly grainy, and some closeups seem a bit fuzzy.

Excellent Adaptation of Dicken's Classic
James D'arcy is perfectly cast in the title role as Nicholas Nickleby, a young, well-meaning but penniless gentleman who tries to earn an honest living to support his loving mother and sister who are dependent on him. First, he accepts a position as a teacher at a Yorkshire boarding school, not realising the horror that awaits him at the school run by the cruel Mr Squeers. When he could no longer endure the cruelty and atrocity inflicted by Squeers on the young children, he runs away from the school, followed by a boy (Smike) who has long suffered abuse and gross mistreatment at the hands of Squeers. Both Nicholas and Smike quickly become inseparable, loyal friends. By a strange chance, they go on to become actors at a small theatre run by the Crummles family. After being long separated from his mother and sister, Nicholas later leaves the theatre and makes a hasty return home to save his sister from a sinister plot cooked up by his evil uncle, Ralph Nickleby (played by Charles Dance). Ralph is a rich, old miser with a heart of stone who hates Nicholas intensely (mainly because he is jealous of Nicholas's youth and goodness of heart).

James D'arcy's "Nicholas" is endearing and wonderful to watch. If you are a female viewer, you will be most pleasantly surprised (and awed) by his uncommon good looks. He is so strikingly handsome and will make you swoon! He reminds me of a young Ralph Fiennes (the eyes and upper part of the face) and Ethan Hawke (the lower part of the face).

The beautiful Sophia Myles is also well cast as Nicholas's sister, Kate, a sweet and wholesome-looking girl who has to fend off unwanted male attentions wherever she goes.

The many supporting characters (queer, eccentric folks, all) help spice up the plot and inject much humour into the story. Most notably, the Squeers family (an incredibly obnoxious and hateful family), the Mantalinis (a lovey-dovey couple who runs a fashion house; but they fight a lot too), the Crummles family (who owns the theatre), the generous Cheeryble twin brothers, Newman Noggs (Ralph Nickleby's reluctant assistant) and Arthur Gride (a hideous-looking and repulsive old man who plots to marry the beautiful Madeline Bray who also happens to be the object of Nicholas's affection). My only complaint is that the actress who plays Madeline Bray has too much make-up on (her face is too thickly powdered and it shows because you see that her neck is tan). Also, the scarlet red lipstick is unsuitable for her character who is supposed to be a simple, poor girl who would not have the time, money nor inclination to buy or use make-up!

I feel this adaptation does good to leave out some of the minor characters from Dicken's novel because they do not serve the plot much, such as the large Kenwigs family and the madman who lives next door to Mrs Nickleby (Nicholas's mother). Otherwise, this production would be another hour long, at least.

I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation and would recommend it to all fans of high quality period drama.

Dickensenian Delight!
As this film so wonderfully illustrates, wealth and breeding are not necessarily accompaniments. The production itself, however, is a marvelous composition of both: a classily written rendition of the oft-told Victorian tale, richly replete with an amazing repertoire of actors who utterly pack each portrayal with charm, wit, and panache! The mood ranges from low-key pathos to manic buffoonery, the latter wrought by the gluttony, lust, and greed of what must be among the most scrumptiously scuzzy characters ever seen on the screen! Liz Smith in a familiar old-hag role and George Innes as a grubby lecher are definitely not to be missed! Throughout, Dickens' horrific vision of nineteenth-century poverty and child abuse is never compromised, and a number of the scenes are truly nightmarish in intensity. Particularly poignant is the portrayal of the waif Smike, brilliantly played by Lee Ingleby. Like an accomplished orchestra, the movie strikes the chord of every human emotion and is immensely enjoyable, enlightening, and uplifting! ... Read more

Amazon.com

"This movie is cursed!" exclaimed movie-magazine headlines regarding Exorcist: The Beginning, but those dire warnings turned out to be exaggerated. Considering a tumultuous production history that actually did seem cursed, Renny Harlin's much-maligned prequel to The Exorcist is a surprisingly competent, serious-minded shocker filled with the same anxious foreboding that made the 1973 original so phenomenally effective. The story lacks focus and feels cobbled together (perhaps the result of its tortured development, which included the untimely death of original director John Frankenheimer), but Stellan Skarsgård is well-cast as Father (now Mr.) Merrin, a lapsed Catholic priest summoned to East Africa in 1949 to retrieve a demonic idol. He discovers a buried church, a vast underground cavern, demonic possession, and a legacy of carnage that preys upon guilt-ridden memories from his parish in Nazi-occupied Holland. Harlin delivers the gross-out moments that Warner Brothers demanded, but otherwise shows remarkable restraint while cinematographer Vittorio Storaro delivers doom-laden visual atmosphere. It's not the classic many were hoping for--not even close--but it's still a win-win scenario for horror fans, since it's rumored the unreleased and "abandoned" version directed by Paul Schrader will be paired with this film for its DVD release. Comparisons will no doubt prove interesting. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (121)

Skip this crappy film
Genre: Horror

Genre Grade: B-

Final Grade: C-

This prequel ain't got nothing on the original, but it still offered a few thrills to get me interested. It seemed like it was incredibly long, and in the end it tries to shock you with a surprise but you really don't even care enough to notice. The characters were weak (unlike the original) and the plot was too reliant on traditional "suspense" moments of the horror genre. This movie could have been a lot better I think, especially when it's focused on the (fictional) spot where Lucifer fell from Heaven. The few moments of demonic possession did hold true to the original, which I give the director some credit for, though not much. Skip this one unless you really love the Exorcist franchise.

A surprisingly worthy prequel to The Exorcist
I was quite prepared to be less than enthusiastic about this prequel to one of the truly immortal films of all time.The unfortunate death of John Frankenheimer, the original director, fanned rumors that the whole production was cursed, there's a lot of talk about the original version of this prequel being abandoned by yet another director (Paul Schrader), and I heard almost no one in my circle of acquaintances discussing this film at all after its release.The whole idea of prequels is also pretty tricky in and of itself, as even the great George Lucas has learned.I really didn't bring too many expectations of any kind with me into Exorcist: The Beginning, and maybe that's why I was actually quite impressed by what I saw.Stellan Skarsgard, it must be said, turns in an excellent performance as Father Merrin.This really is an excellent film and, in my opinion, a worthy prequel to The Exorcist.

Don't go in looking for projectile vomiting and head-spinning; this is not The Exorcist.There is a surprising amount of depth here for those willing to immerse themselves in the story.There will be demonic special effects for all those who care only about that kind of thing, but you will have to wait a little longer than you might like to see them.Exorcist: The Beginning is not really about Lucifer or demonic possession or even exorcism per se; this story is really about Father Merrin and how this great man of the cloth lost and then regained the faith that would later transform him into the man we all know as The Exorcist.Humanity and faith are always more powerful themes than evil and doubt - less exciting, perhaps, but much more meaningful.

The action here takes place in 1949 in eastern Africa, where a Christian church has recently been unearthed by archaeologists - a Christian church that dates back to a time long before Christianity made its way to that part of the world.Merrin, then an ex-priest, is charged with aiding the dig and locating an iconic sculpture of a demon's head.The situation on the ground (which is said to be the spot where Lucifer originally fell after he was cast down from heaven) is less than ideal: local tribesmen are afraid that a great evil will emerge from the buried structure, the British army is wary of a tribal rebellion there, and decay and misery (not to mention flies and less savory insects) seem to engulf everything in the humid atmosphere.The original leader of the expedition has been consumed by madness, a number of men have disappeared, and Merrin finds scenes of desecration inside the ancient walls of the church (including the proverbial upside-down cross of Jesus). Soon, a local boy is taken ill after witnessing a traumatic event, begins showing signs of possible demonic possession - and then everything really starts to fall apart around Merrin.The film may move too slowly for some viewers for the first hour, but I think the director did a wonderful job of building suspense for the showdown we all know is yet to come.The ancient, remarkably preserved church hides many secrets of a most unsavory nature, and it is here that Merrin's lack of faith in the God he once served is eventually challenged by a manifestation of evil powerful enough to break down the formidable barriers he has placed around his tortured soul.

The reasons for Father Merrin turning his back on God and the church serve as the emotional centerpiece for all that is to come.It is hard to imagine the Father Merrin we know from The Exorcist having ever abandoned his faith or entertained unholy thoughts, but this prequel makes clear, in the most poignant ways possible, how such a tragedy transpired.Merrin is a man truly and justifiably haunted by his memories.It takes a face-to-face meeting with evil incarnate for Merrin to find what he has lost in himself and in his God.The final confrontation, which comes with something of a twist, is almost anti-climactic, largely because the job is much easier than it should be (very little of the battle is waged on psychological grounds).The special effects are well-done, but a lot of the R rated material here seems contrived, actually taking something away from the power of the film's story of redemption lost and regained.

This is really quite a dark film, as you might expect, but more so for the psychological and human aspects of the story than for the outwardly demonic manifestations of evil.There is a significant amount of gore and demonic symbolism in the film, but my reactions to the film were much more internal than external.Obviously, Exorcist: The Beginning didn't deliver what many Exorcist fans expected of it but that does not make it a bad movie.In my opinion, this film is vastly underrated.

pretty good
it wasn't as good as the first one, there were some cool scenes that were pretty freaky, you know, like possessed people saying crazy stuff and dogs eating people. but there was a little romance tossed in so i had to fast forward through that stuff.

Wish I could give it 0 stars...
Exorcist: The Beginning is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't see how anyone could possibly enjoy this movie. The original Exorcist is a very terrible film too. I was so dissapointed when I saw it for the first time. I was expecting a 4 star horror film, but all I got was a new, quick way to fall asleep. I haven't seen II or III, but I definetly don't recommend The Exorcist or Exorcist: the Beginning.

Pleasantly surprised...
I'm not the biggest horror film fan. Partially because my wife hates them, so I never get to see them. So if I am going to see something, it's more likely to be an action movie or possibly a comedy.

Every once in a while, the wife is out of the house and I get in the mood for a horror movie. Recently I decided to pick up Exorcist: The Beginning. Having not seen the original Exorcist, I didn't really know what to expect. I was a little bit apprehensive, because sequels often stink, and prequels are even worse.

Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised with this prequel. It's not going to win any awards or anything, but it was actually pretty good. It was a bit predictible in places, but I, for one, didn't see the ending coming at all.

The extent of the special features, aside from the director's commentary, is an eight minute behind the scenes featurette and the original trailer. It would have been nicer if the behind the scenes featurette had been longer. It would also have been nice to see how some of the make-up effects and special effects were done. Unfortunately, they skimped a bit on that.

If you're in the mood for a movie with a few scenes that will make you jump, pick up the Exorcist. ... Read more

Description

Stuck in their putrid, claustrophobic trench, 17-year-old Billy Macfarlane and his mates desperately try to distract themselves from what is rapidly approaching – by whatever means necessary. Only a short time ago, these brash young men had raced to sign up and fight the Kaiser. Now, with the countdown to war ticking away, the awful truth of what they are about to encounter begins to sink in. Surrounded by snipers and with the artillery barrage thundering constantly overhead, the war is closing in around them. When the order finally comes to fix bayonets and clamber over the top, these frightened soldiers are forced out of the trench and into a hellish maelstrom of smoke, blood and destiny. Who will survive? Who will wish they had not? ... Read more

Reviews (2)

The Trench
This is an excellent movie for World War I buffs. Why? For one reason, there is little enough out there for the amateur historian of this period, and the depictions and language exchange are useful to understand trench warfare. This is not about character development to the ultimate degree. This is about a snapshot of history, and it is well done, for what it set out to achieve. And the price is right. Buy it, now.

Several things are lacking, like the dry trenches (never happen) and the clean uniforms (Britain had been in the war for two years), but perfection would make it five stars, rather than four.

Jim Minnoch

A Great Disappointment
The first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916 - the bloodiest day in British military history - deserves a detailed portrayal on film. Unfortunately, The Trench is not that film. The Trench is a standard "small group" portrayal of a British infantry platoon in the forward trenches during the three days leading up to the British attack. As films in the war genre go, this film is not very original and even hackneyed at times. Indeed, the film's ending is reminiscent of Gallipoli with Mel Gibson, although not as well done. The film also has basic problems with character development, plot evolution and historical background. Overall, this film is passable if you have a great interest in the First World War (but you will likely be let down) but quite boring and even incomprehensible if you do not.

Unfortunately, the director of The Trench did not feel that character development is particularly important and the viewer is presented with a bunch of stock characters that never gain much definition. The main characters (by type) are: the young, rookie private; the older, experienced sergeant; the weak lieutenant; the disgruntled soldier; the jerk; and the fat, optimistic soldier. The viewer learns precious little about these characters, other than that they generally interact poorly with each other. Indeed, there is very little indication of friendship, cooperation or comradeship that make a real military unit work. It would have been nice to get some background on where these troops come from and how much combat experience they had, but the director almost presents them as ciphers. One of the more interesting aspects of the Battle of the Somme was the character of the British "Pals" battalions, formed from tight social groups like rugby teams or clerks back in England. A "Pals" battalion would have been much more interesting than this near-dysfunctional team.

The plot is also a major problem with The Trench because there is so little of it. Most of the film focuses on the 72 hours prior to the attack and is thus anticipatory in nature. While there is one small night raid into No Mans Land, a brief artillery bombardment and a sniper attack, much of the film is quite slow. Indeed, the director wastes an incredible amount of time on two ridiculous but inter-related subjects: a stolen pornographic postcard and the young private mooning over an Irish waitress whom he met briefly before shipping out. Clearly, the director has no idea how to sequence a dramatic film and he appears to stuff anything handy - however absurd - into the cracks. Furthermore, the director is unable to bring out the kind of tension that exists prior to a big attack - which Gallipoli did so well.

Even the "big" attack at the end is a major disappointment. A&E's "Lost Battalion" last year had for more convincing scenes of trench warfare than "The Trench's" limp attack at the end. We see perhaps 50-60 troops marching across a green meadow that lacks a single shell crater, uphill (!), against a German line that seems to consist of a single row of barbed wire. Apparently, there wasn't much budget for extras, location or special effects. Given that this was the largest single attack ever launched by the British Army, this film's depiction of it appears to minimize a great and tragic event. Instead of seeing rows of British troops mowed down (and like Spielberg's Private Ryan, this film should have made some effort to show what the attack looked like from the German side), we see individuals go down. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

okay
Case of Evil is okay. It's not really Holmes, but it's got it's moments. I liked the cast. Holmes fans will probably be dissapointed. Non-fans of Holmes won't probably watch it. It all plays like a missed opportunity. Who knows who this was made for, but it could have been worse.

Not traditional Sherlock-but still a treat
Thought this story presents a younger Sherlock Holmes-who's character and appearance are quite different from the works of Conan Doyle (or the drawings of Arthur Paget)it is still a very good story which maintains the viewers interest throughout.
The Holmes in this story is rather sexually amoral--but the fate of the woman he loves at the hands of Moriarty-provides a plausible explanation for Holmes' later apparent disinterest in the fairer sex. In this story we are also given a reason for Holmes' original addiction to Opium.
James D'Arcy is far from my favorite Holmes-but his performance is adequate as long as one doesn't expect Jeremy Brett. The actor who portrays Watson is also adequate-though not outstanding. But, Vincent D'Onofrio is perfect as the evil Moriarty--far surpassing his performances on "Law & Order"--though a little "over the top"--his Moriarty is perfect-at least in my opinion.
Though some may dislike the revisionism--this is a very good story and well worth watching and owning!

swinging shagging sherlock
I'm amused by the reviewer's who claim this is what Doyle intended. Oh yeah, Doyle wanted Holmes to be a swinging guy engaging in threesomes. That's exactly what Sir Arthur wanted. There's nothing sterile about this Holmes! Just kidding. This is diverting, but not true to Doyle's detective. More fun perhaps, but not right. The cast here is solid for what they are given, but Matt Frewer is still the "best" in the weird Holmes category.

Have these people ever read a Sherlock Holmes book?
I cant really give a full review of this movie as I turned it off about 15 minutes into it. I really tried to like this movie, but it is so off course and unfaithful to the spirit of Holmes. Dont waste your money or your time if you are a real Sherlock fan.

A well-done and accurate representation of Holmes and Watson
My wife grabbed this DVD off the rental rack, I am usually very cautious about period pieces that I have never heard of, especially those pertaining to well-known fictitious characters such as Holmes. Maybe I am gun-shy after the horrible 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,' but there was nothing else to rent so we decided to give this one a go. Well, let me say I was pleasantly surprised! This is a great film with well-acted characters and a plot that moves along. Sure, it has its faults, the relationship between Holmes and Rebecca Dolye doesn't unfold to a level necessary later in the script (I won't ruin any of the plot); but the inclusion of Holmes' brother Mycroft to explain Holmes' disdain for Professor Moriarty as well as Mycroft's role in this movie are well done, as it the introduction of Watson into the film.

Far from perfect, this was a very entertaining movie that grabbed my attention from the start and kept it throughout. I can understand why some Holmes fans wouldn't like it, his character does take a beating in this movie but his fundamental strengths are still highlighted. It isn't a Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved character, but a genuine fan of Doyle's works (in other words, those who have read his books and not just watched movies based on them) will appreciate this version, which delves deeper into the character and his fault's than the more sterile versions done by Rathbone/Bruce. Don't get me wrong, I love those movies, but this adaptation of Doyle's work probably is much closer to what he intended.

Bottom line, great movie and well worth renting/owning. Although rated 'R' it is a fairly tame movie with just a few scenes not suitable for younger viewers (e.g. autopsies). ... Read more

Reviews (16)

A mixed bag, but interesting
While certainly not a movie for those with ADD (who will be bored to tears with the bad editing and pacing), this literati thriller is fairly decent. I expected more of Terence Stamp's acting, but overall the film was well cast.

The film is in the vein of the literary thriller, like the Ninth Gate, or the recent book The Da Vinci Code, and combines the conspiracies of the Knights Templars (the Illuminati in this movie), Second Coming, and the Jesus & Mary Magdaline marriage.

Our heroes are the ex-con son of Terence Stamp's character and an alchemist that Stamp brings in to study an artifact with other experts. They slowly unveil the possible meanings of the artifact, which in turn leads to many deaths.

Throughout we are taken on a whirlwind tour of Europe's lesser known religious shrines in the quest to rediscover the artifact and learn of the conspiracy surrounding it. The movie culiminates in the birth of the Antichrist and the beginning of the End Days.

All in all, I found this movie to be interesting, but it was very flawed. The editing was shoddy, but the story and most of the acting was solid. If you're into conspiracies, alternative religion, alchemy, weird science, and intrigue, you may also like it.

A well made occult thriller.
Along similar lines to Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, comes this fascinating film about secret orders, sacred symbolism, The Knights Templar and the coming apocalypse. Ultimately this story is about the perpetual battle between good and evil. It is hinted in the film that 'a' secret order runs the planet, influencing every aspect of our culture from the highest hierarchies in government to the Vatican. The race is on to find a sacred relic that has existed since the death of Christ. What the relic actually is and the secrets it guards and the power it possesses, depending who owns it, will determine the future of our world.

In terms of actual production value, cinematography, direction, acting and real locations from England, France and the Greek islands, one couldn't hope for anything better. It is apparent that a good deal of money, work and time went into the making of this film, and it more than shows in the final product. This film, surprisingly, did not receive the fanfare that most films of this calibre do. Whether it is the film's subject matter that might well offend the more religiously orthodox movie-goer or simply the distributors didn't see it as a winner at the time of its release, your guess is as good as mine. Whatever the reason, Revelation is a good film, suspenseful, intriguing and realistic.

If you're that type of person who enjoys religious conspiracy theories and the occult, combined with a tight story line that intrigues as well as entertains, this is the movie to see. Three and a half stars.

Mind candy.
Revelation (Stuart Urban, 2001)

TV director Stuart Urban comes up with his second feature film. Generally mindless stuff, but topical and easily watchable enough to kill two hours with.

Magnus Martel (Terence Stamp) is a very rich man in possession of a very rare, in fact one of a kind, item; a holy relic called the Loculus. No one knows, exactly, what the Loculus is used for, but in the course of the opening scenes, we find out many people have died for it over this years, and that it came eventually to rest in the hands of the Knights Templar, led by a mysterious grand master played by Udo Kier (Suspiria, Shadow of the Vampire). In order to try and figure out what it's sued for, Martel calls in his estranged son Jake (James D'Arcy, recently seen in Master and Commander), a cryptographer, along with a team of other professionals. Except that somewhere along the way, it seems Magnus crossed the (still-alive after three hundred years) grand master, who's out to reclaim the Loculus.

The bulk of the film details Jake's attempts to find out where Magnus has hidden it, aided by Mira (Natasha Wightman of Gosford Park fame), another member of the team, and his old warrior-turned-priest friend Ray (Liam Cunningham, who showed up in the most recent Prime Suspect). All along the way, they have to dodge invisible Templars, the military, various packs of mad animals, and the like. Typical adventure fare, but with the religious twist recently popularized by books like The DaVinci Code. Will probably be forgotten in a few years, and deservedly; none of the ast here gives an outstanding performance, the writing is middle-of-the-road, etc. But as I said, if you've got a couple of hours to kill, there are worse ways to spend it. ** ½

Great movie for Dan Brown fans
Just saw this movie and thought it was outstanding. By coincidence, I had recently finished reading Dan Brown's novel "Angels & Demons." I was struck by the similar feel of the stories and heartily recommend this movie to anyone who has read the Robert Langdon novels by Dan Brown. If they ever get around to turning Dan Brown's books into movies, I don't think you could find a more perfectly suited director than Stuart Urban. Revelation shows he has a feel for the style and understanding of the content. Great flick!

Gnostic nonsense, but fun...
Udo Kier...False Prophet to Michael York's menacingly charismatic Anti-Christ in OMEGA CODE II...is back in action as reincarnated Black Adept leading his Masonic cult of very bad, bad guys on a Merry-Magdalene chase around the world after The Holy Grail. In this outing, the Grail is "Raiders of the Lost Ark"-like box,LOCULUS, constructed with spikes used to crucify Jesus. The good, bad and ulgy initiates believe these spikes are spiked with the Lord's DNA, and the sacred gene pool can be used to engineer an UBERMENSCH CLONE. The movie features Terence Stamp as (sort of)"Terry Mason" attempting to thwart unilluminated brothers from ushering in the Black Millenium superintented by Grand Master Kier and his custom-made Anti-Christ. James Darcy and Natasha Wightman...New Age witch whom we are led to believe, belives herself reincarnation of Mary Magdalene...are foot soldiers and tourist-guides unlocking ancient codes and astological/occult mysteries.Battle for Biblical End Times Truth ends on Patmos, the island where St.John(Jesus'youngest Apostle, one of three who stood vigil at the Crucifixion)mystically entranced, composed The Book of Revelation.

Viewers familiar with "The Da Vinci Code", DNA(er)Dan Brown's best-selling rehash of Magdalene Myth-as(incarnated & impregnated)Holy Grail will find end of this chase between forces of Black and White Magic(there's no Christianity here, folks)bogus.Director Stuart Urban has mounted a handsome-looking film with good FX; accessible plot pacing;and occasionally terrifying "grimness"(there are persecution/torture scenes DEMONstrating Udonic Mason's do mean business). But pay-off REVELATION is more ridiculous than Loculus thing-a-ma-jig they're hunting. If you're into the real stuff, Nikos Kazantzakis,THE LAST TEMPTATION at least plays by gnostic(heretical)rules. If you're not familiar with this kind of mythology, the movie's "hip" references to CIA; P-2; Michele Sidona and Vatican Bank scandal conspiracies, is confusion for sake of confusion. The movie...it has an hour of Extra DVD Features dealing with Knights Templar schemes for World Domination; Alchemy; and "sacred" geometry...takes itself very seriously. Don't you. Watch it unseriously (like an OMEGA CODE III).Then, this gnostic nonsense is PM monster-mash fun. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This ghost, formerly Sir Simon de Canterville, has one real problem--the only people in England who aren't afraid of him are the ones he wants to scare. If only every ghost-plagued, imposing mansion could have residents like the Otis family! The practical father sells elixirs (stain remover for blood spots, oil for squeaky armor...). His politely southern wife, Mrs. Lucretia Otis, merely wants to impress the local peerage with a fancy party (something Sir Simon puts an amusing end to). Finally, after a hilarious string of "experts" fail to get rid of the ghost, it's the Otis's teenage daughter Virginia who saves the day.

Based on Oscar Wilde's classic tale, this version is one of many. Although Ian Richardson's performance as the ghost is not as endearing as Sir John Gielgud's or David Niven's, this production is thoroughly enjoyable. Sarah-Jane Potts, as Virginia, makes an inspirational heroine that viewers will respect. A refreshing blend of wholesome wit with a smidgen of Victorian sentimentality, The Canterville Ghost will make great viewing for children (ages 7 and up), families, and grownups. --Tara Chace ... Read more