Noah

Year:  2014

Filming:  Color

Length: 137 minutes

Genre:  Action/Biblical/Disaster/Drama

Maturity:  PG-13 (for intense thematic elements and some sexual innuendos)

Cast:  Russell Crowe (Noah), Jennifer Connolly (Naameh), Ray Winstone (Tubal-Caine), Anthony Hopkins (Methuselah), Emma Watson (Ila), Logan Lerman (Ham), Douglas Booth (Shem), Leo McHugh Carroll (Japheth), Madison Davenport (Na’el), Nick Nolte (Samyaza), Mark Margolis (Magog), Adam Griffith (Adam), Ariane Rinehart (Eve)

Director:  Darren Aronofsky

Personal Rating:  2 Stars

***

   

    Where do I begin in my analysis of this newbie Biblical blockbuster, which has elicited ecstatic adulation and equally fervent cat-calls of disdain? Well, I suppose as good a place as any would be the rock monsters helping build the ark. Of course, the Cockney stow-away wouldn’t be a bad beginning either. Or perhaps we could talk about the narcotic berry juice and Noah’s fire-throwing machine. And then there is the Geiko car insurance salesman Serpent in the Garden of Eden. We’ll cover all of the above, and some.

    The story opens somewhere at the dawn of human history, after the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden. The descendents of Seth continue to keep their covenant with the Creator and maintain their role as stewards of Creation as veggie-loving gatherers, while the descendents of Caine have become blood-thirsty meat-eaters. After young Noah’s father is murdered by said-carnivorous-types, it is believed that all the descendents of Seth are officially kaput. But the lad eats his greens and grows up, turning into a prehistoric version of Russell Crowe and getting hitched to the long-suffering Naameh, played by Jennifer Connolly.

       Together they have three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and adopt a daughter named Ila, who was wounded by marauders as a child and is believed to be unable to conceive. Nevertheless, as the children grow into young adults, Shem and Ila fall in love, and it seems that they intend to get married even if they will be unable to have children of their own. All this is fine and dandy, until Noah begins having strange prophetic dreams about a great flood which will destroy the earth. In order to be further enlightened as to why he is having these dreams and what he should do about them, he decides to seek out his grandfather, the ancient Methuselah played by an equally ancient Anthony Hopkins.

     Along the way, he and his family encounter some rock monsters (no, I’m serious, let say it again…) rock monsters who apparently used to be angels called “Watchers”, until they tried to help Man after the fall in the Garden of Eden. This for some inexplicable reason they angered the Creator and were transformed into talkative craters who now have a chance to redeem themselves by helping Noah and his family…somehow! Still following this…? Good!

      Anyway, Methuselah gives Noah some narcotic berry juice, which causes him to have a few psychedelic visions to help interpret his dreams (although the possibility of it just causing more confusion is high…like high!). Nevertheless, he comes to conclusion that the world of men is indeed about to be punished, and that he is supposed to build an ark in order to save the animal life of the planet, which had done no wrong since the Fall. He also figures that he will be giving humanity a new start as well, with his family to start all over again. Fortuitously, the rock monsters are ready and willing to be of assistance in building the ark as Noah oversees preparations for the future 40-day-cruise. But there is trouble in paradise.

     For one thing, Noah starts getting progressively anti-human, because of all the corruption he sees in the camp of Caine’s descendents. He even magnifies the flaws of his family, and finally decides that the Creator really wants for all of humanity to die out in this flood after all, and leave only the animals the keep the balance of the great circle of life. Of course, this decision on the part of the patriarch is a tad traumatic for the rest of the family, who he agrees should be able to survive, but only because Ila is barren and therefore unable to continue reproducing the species. Ham, is forced to leave behind his new-found girl-friend when the flood waters start to rise, takes all this rather to heart.

    However, Naameh teams up with Methuselah and they cook up something of a cure of Ila so she will be able to conceive, enabling the human race to continue. Just before the waters start rising, Ila and Shem have a fling in the woods, and she becomes pregnant. But there are more pressing concerns, as the Cockney-accented Tubal-Caine, one of the chiefs of the evil meat-eaters, leads his hoards to destroy the ark. But never fear…rock monsters are here! And after a massive CGI-packed space-opera-battle, Noah and family manage to barricade themselves into the ark with their ga-zillion animal companions.

     But the ocean voyage gets rocky when Noah discovers that Ila is pregnant, and is fit to be tied. He is, at this point, totally convinced that it is the Creator’s will to wipe out humanity, and this throws a bit of a wrench into the system. So Noah decides that, if the child is a girl, and thus capable of reproducing, he will have to kill it. This doesn’t go over well with the other voyagers, and a would-be mutiny begins to develop. Compound this with a certain Cockney stow-away…and a very nifty fire-throwing machine…and you’ve got one wild ride through uncharted waters!

      There are multitudinous questions that need to be asked about this movie…starting with…who the heck decided to cast Russell Crowe as Noah? After his role as Lucky Jack in Master and Commander, it seems as if every film I see the man in he has been badly miscast, from the off-key Javert in Le Miserables to the Irish-accented outlaw anti-hero in Robin Hood! He was okay in Cinderella Man, although I still think they could have gotten someone to fit the role better, instead of recruited a New Zealander to put on a fake New Jersey accent! As one of my friends commented about his role as this ancient Biblical narcotic imbibed patriarch, “Well, at least Lucky Jack got to stay on the high seas in a boat of his own!” That’s about the only consolation.

    Next question: Were the rock monsters really necessary to enhance the story?? I cannot find words to describe the sheer uselessness of their presence in the plot! They were nothing more than generic versions of the Ents from Lord of the Rings, who blast off into paradise after being pulverized into itty-bitty rock chips! It was just…baaaaad. Actually, all the “special effects” were pretty cheesy, from the little aardvark-dog that gets hunted down by the carnivore-villains, to the Geiko-looking-snake in the Garden of Eden, to the 3-D deluge, to the narcotic berry juice dreams…everything! Sadly, this makes the story of Noah into something between a fantasy flick and a disaster romance…so Tolkien meets Titanic, in a prehistoric CGI setting!

 

    Another odd feature of Noah is its fixation with making meat-eaters evil. Just to clarify, I have all the respect in the world for vegetarians, and I am a partial vegetarian myself. I am also an animal lover, and if I had to kill to have meat, I would content myself with munching on dandelions for a lifetime. But does the fact that I need protein as found in a chicken sandwich make me evil? Are human beings evil for being carnivores? Are cats, or any other meat-eating animal, evil for eating meat? I think not. We are simply part of that “circle of life” that God put in place to assure balance in Creation. We must be good stewards of our resources, and always conscious and respectful of the natural world. Yet it was nothing more than a modernistic jab to make the good-guys vegan and the bad-guys carnivorous.

    Then there’s the whole concept of making Noah anti-human. This kind of harkens back to the above problem of making animals on a par or superior to people. I do understand, to some extent, where the screen-play writers were coming from when they purported that the animals were being saved because they were innocent, and were still the way the Creator made them, whereas Man had degenerated into a thing so unlike what he was meant to be. But still, why Noah suddenly became so violently anti-human was never properly explained. And the concept of his wanting to kill his grandchild through much of the movie just seemed a bit far and away. Admittedly, there are some pretty dark passages in the Bible, but there is nothing like this with regards to the story of Noah. In this case, it was a bit like…character assassination.

    Of course, there were a few saving graces to the movie. One of my favorite scenes was when Noah told the Creation story to his sons on the ark, which is shown if vivid flashbacks, combining modern evolutionary theory with the traditional Creation narrative. And surprisingly, it actually fit together quite convincingly! After we see the nature of species diversify and become more complex as each “day” passes, we finally reach the creation of the first Man and Woman, who bodies are shown to be glowing with an angelic aura. Now, this may sound a tad cheesy, but actually it is quite an evocative method of demonstrating their “ensoulment” that makes them unique from all other creatures, and the Divine Grace that illuminated them before the fall.

     Also, I do think that, in spite of everything that was wrong with this flick, its heart was generally in the right place.  At least it started asking some interesting questions, even if the answers tended to muddled or just plain bizarre. It shows that people have always sought to “be like God”, which some, like Tubal-Caine, interpret as an excuse to be cruel and arrogant in their efforts to subjugate the earth. Others, like Noah in this portrayal, honestly seek out the will of God, but often misconstrue it, with near disastrous results. 

    In the end, the film does come to the conclusion that the Creator has written his will upon the heart of Man, and that it His will that humanity should be given a second chance. The flood was indeed a cleansing and renewing precursor to the Sacrament of Baptism, after which Noah and his family could start their lives again, as Children of God. The rainbow (cosmically rendered as it was in the movie) was a symbol of that bond between God and Man, the Creator and His Creation, and a promise of an even greater redemption to come.

  

A stressed-out Naameh (Jennifer Connolly) embraces her husband, Noah (Russell Crowe)

   

Robin Hood

Year:  2010

Filming:  Color

Length:  102 minutes

Genre: Adventure/Drama/History

Maturity:  PG-13 (for violence and sexual innuendos)

Cast:  Russell Crowe (Robin Hood), Cate Blanchett (Marian Loxley), Mark Strong (Godfrey), Max von Sydow (Sir Walter Loxley), Oscar Isaac (Prince John), William Hunt (William Marshall), Danny Huston (King Richard), Eileen Atkins (Eleanor of Aquitaine), Matthew Macfadyen (Sheriff of Nottingham), Mark Addy (Friar Tuck), Kevin Durand (Little John), Scott Grimes (Will Scarlet), Alan Doyle (Alan a’ Dayle), Douglas Hodge (Sir Robert of Loxley), Lea Seydoux (Isabella of Angouleme),

 Director: Ridley Scott

Personal Rating:  2 Stars

 

***

       After managing to survive Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves starring Kevin Coster, I decided I might as well take a shot at Robin Hood starring Russell Crowe. I figured since the former depended on a California cult symbol dressed in Lincoln Green, mayhaps a New Zealander might cut a better wildnerness figure? It remained to be seen. I came, I saw…I sighed. Okay, who decided to call this production “Robin Hood” again?? 

    We meet our main protagonist, a common English archer in the army of King Richard the Lionheart, on a field of battle in France. After being accused on cheating in a betting game, he is brought before the king, who is a far cry from the traditional heroic depiction. Somehow or other, they get to discussing the justice, or lack thereof, of The Crusades, and Robin basically confronts Richard about the mass execution of Muslim prisoners at Acre. The king is none-too-pleased at the archer’s impudence, and has him and several of his comrades locked in the stocks. But when Richard is killed by a French arrow, Robin and friends manage to escape and head for the hills. 

     But as they are fleeing through the forest, they come upon an English knight who  is being set upon by Frenchmen, and nobly come to his aid. The knight, Sir Robert of Loxley, has been mortally wounded, and entrusts Robin with the crown jewels he had been carrying  to safety and his own sword to return to his father. Even though Robin is a deserter, and running for his life, he agrees to fulfil the man’s dying request. In order to do this, he takes on the identity of Robert of Loxsley and makes for England.  
 

    Upon returning home and presenting the crown to Prince John, Robin journies to the north and to hand over the sword to the dead knight’s father, Sir Walter Loxsley. While there, he also meets Sir Robert’s young widow, the formidable Lady Marian, and is compelled to continue his guise as Sir Robert in order to secure the estate from the greedy local officials. He also hassles with miserly churchmen who are carrying off the grain needed by the commoners to plan to pay tithes to the bishop. One gent named Friar Tuck is complicent in this, but is forced to change his policity at the point of Robin’s sword! 
 

    As Robin becomes proficient in managing the estate, he earns the admiration of Sir Walter, who practically adopts him as a son, and the affection of Marian, who never had much feeling for her late husband to begin with. Meanwhile, there are some very complex transations are going on between the royal courts of England and France, resulting in something of a political crisis as the French prepare to invade England and the English barons prepare to rebel against their own heavy-handed King John! Since Rob is the one who brought home the crown, he is selected to pressure the king into giving the people a “charter” to guarentee their liberties and loyalty. And as it is later revealed, Rob’s late father wrote just such a charter befor his death, only to be executed for his trouble, and the sword of Loxsley actually used to be his! 
 

    Cutting to the chase, the king and his noblemen agree to the concept of a charter and prepare to join forced to combat the invasion. The English and French have it out in an epic battle on the coast, and Marian shows up disguised as a knight to avenge the death of Sir Walter, who was killed off by a very bald Frenchman named Godfrey. In the process of this, she’ll need to be rescued by Rob, earning his “knight in shining armor” status. But no sooner have the invaders been driven back than King John reneges on his charter-deal, and declares Robin to be an outlaw for impersonating a nobleman (he knew??!!). Rob and Marian head into the forest, where they are taken in by a band of vagabond orphan boys (who decided to turn the Merry Men into the East End Kids?) and…and…we are assured by computer generated lettering at the end that “the adventure begins”!  
 

    Russell Crowe as Robin Hood is just as bad as Kevin Costner as Robin Hood – but in different ways. The Costner film stuck with the basic plot line, while trying desperately to make it hip (Californian accents, hokey witches, naked bathing sequences, galactic sword fights…the full treatment!). The Crowe film, on the other hand, threw out the plot altogether, and created a totally new entity – but for some unreasonable reason decided to cling to the title for dear life! There were moments in the film when I said, “Hey, it’s not so bad – if it wasn’t called ‘Robin Hood’”! But it was. Like in the movie King Arthur starring Clive Owen, the producers make a vain attempt to create an “historical” explanation for a legend, simultaneously mangling history and ruining the legend we all know and love.  
 

    I will admit that the acting overall was decent enough, although the main cast seemed terribly miscast. Russell Crowe might be great as “Lucky Jack” Aubrey, and Cake Blanchett as the Lady Galadriel, but they just don’t cut the mustard as Robin and Marian. Both are too dark, too heavy, too conflicted. The whole setting, while lush and haunting, lacks sparkle and charm that make the original tales so endearing. Some will insist that “Merrie England” never existed, and therefore should not be recreated. But it always has and always will exist in the heart and in the imagination. It is the rebel streak and sparkling wit and glorious romance that is so characteristic of the British nature, and Robin Hood personifies it. Again, if they had decided to be original, and the whole plot was just about this random English archer who takes the place of a dead nobleman and battles against the invading French, etc., yes, it might work to change the tone. But they didn’t, and it isn’t, which is sad.  
 

    Marian’s character is one of the more complex ones in the script. She is basically bitter over having to be a pawn in the world of men’s injustice, appealing to feminist types who thrive on this sort of storyline. On that subject, the female warrior gets a bit old hat, but if that’s what women need to feel valuable, I suppose they must inndluge! While Marian obviously has come to sincerely lover her father-in-law, her relationship with her late husband seems to have crumbled due to his long absence on crusade. But honestly, her measuring of marital worth seems to rely heavily on activity in the marriage bed as opposed to any deeper emotional attachment. When chatting with Robin about her past, she sums up her marriage by one “short but sweet” night in which they had sex. I can’t help but wince at this. Is that really what defines a marriage?  
 

    Even if my marriage had been similarly arranged and cut short, I would hope I might choose to remember something about the person as opposed to the body. If her husband was a decent man, and all references indicate that he was, can she not recall one fond memory of him? One conversation shared? One letter sent? One moment when she noticed the color of his eyes for his first time? Those are the things I would hope to remember, that I would find even the slightest bit romantic. To Marian’s credit, however, I will say that she doesn’t rush off on a fling with Robin and remains chaste even when he is pretending to be her husband. In fact, she is quite determined to keep him in line…and she sleeps with a dagger just to make sure! 
 

   As for historical accuracy qualms, the writers definitely should have scrapped all the silliness about his father penning the pseudo-Magna Charta. Come on, on-set historians…ever hear of Bishop Stephen Langton? Evidently the writers were too busy vilifying the clergy to a man – including Friar Tuck, the wine-guzzling bee-keeper hoarding all the supplies from the common people! Marian even gives up going to mass because there are too many hypocrites (not a very good reason, really…the Church is a hospital for sinners). Furthermore, the Crusades got short shrift, driven by the same unreasoning bias that permeated Prince of Thieves. Indeed, we can all agree that atrocoties were committed by both sides during the wars, but in what way does that invalidate the cause to free the Holy Lands from Muslim domination? Also, the portrayal of King Richard is basically that of a war-monger lunatic. While he was certainly a warrior-king, I don’t think anyone would call him crazy. 
 

    The music score in the film was fairly good, especially the theme played during the credits, although even that seemed rather confused and lacking the proper feel. There seemed to be a desperation to replace the notion of “Merrie England” with a Celtic Distopia. When Marian and Robin are dancing, the Irish song “Spancil Hill” is played, which is totally off geographically and come after the story by almost nine centuries! And will these people please stop trying to recapture the “Braveheart Moment”, with some awkwardly worded, would-be rousing speech about “freeeeeeeedooooooom”??? Aren’t there any other things to seek after in this world? An interesting tid-bit is Russell Crowe’s seeming inability to keep his accent consistent, sounding English sometimes and Scottish others. I think he was trying his best to sound Northern English, but it was said that when someone accused him on sounding Irish, he walked off the set in a rage! Oh, well. Anything to mask the New Zealand ork-accent, what?  
 

        Overall, this picture seemed confused as to what it wanted to be when it grew up! I'll admit that there were a few moments when I was actually enjoying it, especially the big battle sequence on the coast. Look out for the lush scenery scope, including the famous White Horse markes out in the hill. And there were even moments when I could have possibly warmed to Russel Hood and his sword (interesting inscription, in the spirit of the “real” Robin Hood: “Until Lambs Become Lions”). That having been said, the combination of historical and legendary innacuracy and wrong “feel” in general left a rather bitter taste in my mouth. As I mentioned in the review of Prince of Thieves, if you want to see good adaptations, try the ones with Richard Greene, Richard Todd, Erroll Flynn, and the cartoon fox!



Robin-sort-of-ish-Hood (Russell Crowe) rides with Marian Loxsley (Cate Blanchett)

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Year:  2003

Filming:  Color

Length:  138 minutes

Genre:  Action/Adventure/Drama/History/Swashbuckler/War

Maturity:  PG-13 (for mild language and battle sequences)

 Cast: Russell Crowe (Capt. Jack Aubrey), Paul Bettany (Stephen Maturin), Max Pirkis (Midshipman Blackney), Lee Ingleby (Midshipman Hollom), Max Benitz (Midshipman Calamy), James D’Arcy (First Lt. Thomas Pullings), Billy Boyd (Barret Bonden, Captain’s Coxswain), Joseph Morgan (William Warley, Captain of Mizzentop)

Director:  Peter Weir

Personal Rating:  5 Stars

***

    As you’ve probably gathered from my past film reviews, I feel that most modern attempts at historical adventure epics tend to trip over their own feet in efforts to be bigger-and-better than all that has gone before, and generally lose track of historical veracity as well as the magic of good story-telling. Not so with Master and Commander. While I think its greatest set-back may be a somewhat ponderous pace, it is an admirably accurate drama with relatable characters and the right balance between dark and light aspects of men at war.

    

    Russell Crowe stars as Captain "Lucky Jack" Aubrey, a British Naval commander in the midst of the Napoleonic Wars, who is ordered to locate the French privateer ship, Acheron, and either capture or destroy her. The task is far from an easy one, as the captain and his crew embark on a voyage to "the far side of the world" to find the enemy vessel that is nearly twice the size of the Aubrey's ship, HMS Surprise. In the process, enemy ambushes, fire-fights, and ocean storms cost the British heavy casualties.

    Along the way, “Lucky Jack” goes head-to-head with his best friend, the Irish ship’s physician Dr. Stephen Maturin, over conflicting interests. While they are both deeply opposed to Napoleon’s tyranny, Aubrey whole life is dedicated to battle while Maturin longs to better humanity through scientific research. When morale on board begins to plummet, the sailors make a scape-goat of a shy and sensitive young midshipman, Mr. Hollom, and Aubrey does not intervene strongly enough to put and end to it. Ultimately, Hollom throws himself overboard.

   Aubrey feels guilty over this, but is now obsessed with locating Acheron, refuses to pause even for much needed refreshment or repairs. He also further alienates Dr. Maturin by refusing to let him go in search of plant and animals specimens when they finally reach the Galapagos Islands. The doctor accuses the captain of letting his own pride supersede his duty and their friendship, which the latter indignantly denies while at the same time pulling rank to keep Maturin in line.

    But Aubrey finds himself put to the ultimate test when Maturin is accidentally wounded on deck while one of the other officers is trying to shoot down an albatross. His only chance of survival is for him to have immediate surgery, and the procedure can only be properly preformed on land. Now Aubrey is faced with a dire choice: to stop the ship in order to save his friend's life, or to continue his pursuit of the French privateer at all costs.

    This film is an excellent salt-sea yarn that highlights the importance of comradeship, friendship, and a fierce refusal to submit to tyrants. Russell Crowe is definitely at his absolute best in this performance, and I don’t any of his other roles ever rivaled his portrayal of “Lucky Jack” Aubrey. I love his suave yet swashbuckling demeanor, his sense of humor, and the ironical questions he puts to his men, urging them to fire fast, keep up the fight, and never surrender: “Do you want to see a guillotine in Piccadilly? Do you want to call…Napoleon your king? Do you want your children to sing ‘La Marseillaise’?”  His crew responds in rousing unison: “NO!”

    When the Acheron is finally found and the real fighting is about the commence, Aubrey continues to be an inspirational leader, declaring, “England is under threat of invasion, and though we be on the far side of the world, this ship is our home. This ship is England.” When the Union Jack is raised and they launch their attack on Acheron, Aubrey bellows, “For England, for home, and for the prize!” Although Lord Nelson never features physically in this film, and is only referenced to with great reverence as an almost mythological figure, Aubrey seems to fill in very well for him, making the character traits of Nelson come to life on the big screen.

    The plot stays comparatively historically accurate, authentically portraying of the chain of command and daily life on board a ship in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. There are thankfully no overt modern perspectives projected into the past, and we get to see our ancestors as human being, with virtues and vices just like us, instead of super-galactic heroes and buffoonish villains. Also, we get to observe how both the officers and the rank-and-file feel about events, instead of having one side take up all the air time.

    The music score is excellent, and I felt especially moved by the pounding snare drums used to demonstrate the coursing movement of the ship against the ocean in hot pursuit of the enemy. Plus, they tossed in a few good old salt sea shanties, ballads, and tunes, including two of my personal favorites: “Spanish Ladies” and “O’Sullivan’s March”.  The costuming was also very good, with the officer’s garb being especially interesting to behold. Who knew the midshipman could wear top-hats in combat?

    Morally, there is nothing particularly reprehensible, save for a few mild curses on the part of the soldiers, which is certainly nothing to complain considering how colorful the REAL sailors no doubt were in there verbiage! Interestingly for a historical epic, there is a noted lack of romance in this film. In fact, the only women showing up in the movie at all are some native girls who visit the ship when HMS Surprise stops off to resupply. This turns out to be fortunate overall, since it saves us all from another sappy, Titanic-type affair, or R-rated shenanigans in the Great Cabin. It’s a pity female characters in most modern historical flicks get such poor treatment, but such is often the case.

    Religious elements include Aubrey reciting several heart-felt prayers as part of his duty in commending his slain men to the deep. In the case of Mr. Hollom, who commits suicide, it is particularly moving when the captain asks pardon of God for himself and his crew for having failed him as a friend. After the epic battle between Surprise and Acheron, Aubrey leads his crew in The Lord’s Prayer, in which everyone is deeply choked up before letting their dead (many of them mere boys) slip into the see forever. In the film, there are also subtle references to the relationship between God and science, providence and free will, and an undercurrent that the characters portrayed do have an underlying belief in a Creator and something beyond this sphere, even if they are not particularly expressive about it. The opening of the film sets this tone when the crewmen are refereed to as “souls.”

    On the down-side of the film, be prepared to spend a lot of time on board a rocking ship and brace yourself to watch several sailors get seasick and throw up their breakfasts! Given the subject matter, I guess there was no real way for the film-makers to avoid the long, drawn-out maritime excursion, but by the time the crew finally takes a hiatus on the Galapagos Islands, we are as thrilled to get off HMS Surprise as they are! Depending on one’s attention span, it all could get a bit tedious, and there are probably a few hanging-around-on-deck sequences that could be fast-forwarded if desired.

    There is a fair amount of battle-related violence, plus brain surgery, an arm amputation, and a stomach operation performed with mirrors! We do not see the actual latter operation being performed, but only the tweezers holding the bloodied bullet after it is removed. Blood is seen smeared on the decks during battle, and men are shot and bludgeoned close to the camera lens, but these shots are not unnecessarily gory or explicit. There are a lot of jerky motions that let us know something happened to so-and-so, but not it too much graphic detail. Still, for younger audiences, it would no doubt be pretty intense.

    To point out a few rather humorous glitches in the story-line, Aubrey is shown as being stabbed by a French sailor in the last battle, yet no reference is made to that wound, and the captain seems to be in perfect health thereafter. Furthermore, Aubrey allows said enemy sailor to crawl back under the hatch from which he just emerged, presumably to prepare to stab another unsuspecting British tar! Also, it’s note-worthy to mention my own temporary confusion when Mr. Hollom rapidly grabbed that cannon ball and leapt overboard! My first though was: What was that? His favorite cannon ball or something? Like, a favorite nanny blanket or teddy bear? ;-)

    But if you can get past these minor kinks in the plot, Master and Commander is a really well-made film about courage, loyalty, and high adventure that shows off one of the most interesting and glorious moments in the British experience. I enjoy watching and re-watching it, and am most thankful to my guy-friends who got me hooked. So, if you’ve the heart and stomach for it, raise your colors and prepare to board: this flick is not for the faint-hearted!

Captain Jack Aubrey and his midshipmen watch for the Acheron