inignoct wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] I think this movie will be underseen domestically, as it
] ] covers a geeky subject, isn't violent enough, offers no love
]
] ] interest, and doesn't involve Americans. However, I enjoyed
] it
] ] alot. Escapism? Maybe. Its a Star Trek episode set in the
] ] 1700s. You get an impression of the life of the olde Navy,
] ] back when sailing the South Seas was to push the edges of
] ] human experience.
]
] of course, being a big budget movie, there's about 1000 times
] more action in it than was in the books, apparently, at the
] expense of developing the relationship between the the
] commander and his great friend. i haven't seen it yet, but
] the review i read was predictably disappointed that the movie
] strayed so far from what the author intended to convey.
]
] that being said, having not read the books, it could be quite
] enjoyable. i know they went to great lengths to make the
] sounds precise and really capture the feeling of being on that
] boat with them, so that's good.

Being an avid fan of the books, I personally was not disappointed in the movie - even though it suffers a bit from being a highlight reel of memorable moments from the entire 20-odd book series. It succeeds as an action film without subscribing to any of the typical action-movie devices - in fact, it plays very much like an art film/action movie fusion, something you just don't see every day. Perhaps not what middle America is prepared for, but definately doesn't suck.

RE: Master and Commander doesn't suck