Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (dir. by Peter Weir) Review


“This is the second time he’s done this to me. There will not be a third.” — Jack Aubrey

A lesser adventure movie would treat the ocean as empty space between battles. In Peter Weir’s Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, it becomes an entire way of life. Meals, friendships, work, and terrible injuries all happen within the same cramped wooden walls, with nowhere to go when things get uncomfortable. That sense of confinement makes the film surprisingly absorbing. The cannon fire is exciting, but so is watching people figure out how to live together under pressure. What starts as a pursuit of an enemy ship gradually becomes a closer look at the man who refuses to let that enemy escape.

The film draws from the first and tenth books in Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey–Maturin series, Master and Commander and The Far Side of the World, with the tenth supplying most of the central storyline. Rather than closely following the opening novel and introducing its characters from the beginning, Weir places us inside an established friendship and a working shipboard community. That choice gives the adaptation a lived-in quality. Aubrey and Maturin already have habits, disagreements, and ways of understanding each other that do not need explaining. We learn about their relationship by watching it function, which is more engaging than having their history handed to us.

Russell Crowe’s Captain Jack Aubrey commands HMS Surprise during the Napoleonic Wars. His target is the Acheron, a French privateer with enough speed and firepower to make their encounter seriously uneven. Weir establishes that imbalance through a brutal opening attack rather than a long explanation. The Surprise takes a beating, and suddenly the captain’s confidence has to compete with the evidence of shattered timber and injured men. Aubrey survives, but he cannot simply move on. Catching the Acheron becomes unfinished business, and everyone aboard gets pulled into his determination to settle it. The chase supplies the plot, but his reasons for continuing it supply the tension.

Crowe is a huge part of why this works. He gives Aubrey an easy authority that makes the crew’s loyalty believable. This captain can share a joke, appreciate a good meal, and make difficult decisions without appearing to switch between different personalities. There is warmth beneath his command, but also an expectation that his judgment will prevail. Crowe makes both sides convincing. You understand why the men feel safer with him in charge, even when he is asking them to do something dangerous. His confidence is attractive, and the film lets us enjoy it before making us consider its limits.

Those limits become clearer as Aubrey’s obsession with tracking down the Acheron builds. His assignment gives him a legitimate reason to pursue the French privateer, but the chase gradually becomes tangled up with his pride. Being beaten at his own game bothers him more than he wants to admit. Each setback seems to strengthen his need to prove that he can win. What makes this unsettling is how calmly he justifies himself. He never stops being intelligent or capable. Instead, military reasoning and personal ambition become difficult to separate. He can explain why the pursuit matters, but that does not mean he fully understands why it matters so much to him.

The person most willing to challenge him is Stephen Maturin, the ship’s surgeon and Aubrey’s close friend. Paul Bettany brings a dry, thoughtful quality to the role that plays beautifully against Crowe’s confidence. Maturin sees the wounded bodies behind the captain’s calculations, so arguments about duty are never purely theoretical for him. His scientific interests also give him priorities beyond the conflict. Where Aubrey sees a destination or a tactical advantage, Maturin notices something worth studying. Their disagreements make the voyage feel larger than its military objective. There is a whole world around them, even when Aubrey seems determined to reduce it to the distance between two ships.

Thankfully, the film does not turn their friendship into a series of lectures. Their shared musical sessions reveal a companionship that exists independently of whatever disagreement they are having. These scenes feel relaxed without becoming disposable. Watching them play together explains why they keep making room for each other despite their frustrations. Crowe and Bettany suggest familiarity through small changes in expression and tone rather than big emotional speeches. As a result, their arguments carry weight. They are not simply defending different opinions; they are testing how much disagreement a valued friendship can withstand, especially when one friend has the authority to overrule the other.

Weir gives the wider crew a similar sense of life beyond the plot. The Surprise feels like a workplace, a home, and an unforgiving social system all at once. Everyone has duties, everyone depends on someone else, and privacy barely seems to exist. Brief moments of joking or nervous conversation make the sailors feel individual without requiring formal introductions. The younger officers are especially affecting. Their uniforms and responsibilities cannot quite hide how young they are. Watching them try to behave bravely adds an uncomfortable edge to the adventure, because courage here is something children are already expected to demonstrate.

That attention to people makes the battles much more effective. By the time the guns start firing again, damage to the ship feels like damage to a community we recognize. The violence is messy and frightening rather than cleanly heroic. Splintering wood turns familiar spaces into hazards, while Maturin’s medical work makes the aftermath impossible to ignore. There is still plenty of excitement in watching a plan come together, but clever tactics do not erase their cost. Aubrey’s skill matters enormously, yet skill cannot guarantee that the people carrying out his orders will come through unharmed. Victory never feels quite as simple as being the better captain.

Just as importantly, the battles between the Surprise and the Acheron are exceptionally well-staged and executed. Weir makes the tactics understandable without draining the encounters of confusion or danger. You can follow the importance of positioning, timing, and coordinated work while still feeling how little separates an effective maneuver from disaster. The action moves between the larger contest at sea and the immediate struggle on deck, keeping strategy and physical consequences connected. There is a satisfying sense that the sailors’ everyday routines have prepared them for these moments. All that hauling, drilling, and following orders becomes the machinery that gives Aubrey’s ideas a chance of succeeding.

The climactic confrontation brings those strengths together, but its most satisfying ingredient comes from an unexpected place: Maturin’s interest in nature. Aubrey takes a couple of pages from his friend’s observations of camouflage and disguises the Surprise as a vulnerable whaling ship, hoping to lure the Acheron close enough to overcome its advantages. It is a clever solution because it grows out of the relationship rather than arriving as a last-minute burst of genius. After allowing the pursuit to overshadow Maturin’s scientific interests, Aubrey finds something useful in the very subjects he has been too impatient to appreciate.

That connection gives the final battle more meaning than a straightforward test of firepower. Aubrey succeeds by adapting, looking beyond his usual expertise, and recognizing the value of another person’s perspective. The plan offers a small but important counterpoint to his stubbornness: his confidence becomes more productive when it leaves room for curiosity. Meanwhile, the execution delivers the excitement the long pursuit has promised. Preparation gives way to sudden violence, and the fighting feels close, exhausting, and dangerous. The deception may create an opening, but it does not make the confrontation easy. Weir lets the tactical payoff and the human cost occupy the same scene.

Outside the fighting, the contrast between the crowded ship and the enormous ocean remains one of the film’s strongest features. Inside, everything feels close enough to touch. Outside, the water seems capable of swallowing the whole enterprise without noticing. The storms sharpen that contrast by presenting a threat Aubrey cannot intimidate or defeat through determination alone. His experience can improve their chances, but it cannot give him complete control. That limitation matters in a story about a man accustomed to trusting himself. Nature keeps reminding him—and us—that confidence is not the same thing as power, however reassuring it may look from the deck.

The film’s patience will not work for everyone. Some stretches linger over routine or scientific curiosity when a more conventional action movie would hurry toward another confrontation. The Galápagos sequences are the clearest example, shifting attention toward Maturin’s interests and slowing the pursuit. For me, that breathing room mostly pays off. It makes the world feel worth exploring rather than merely crossing, and the later camouflage strategy gives those observations a satisfying place in the adventure. Occasionally, the contrast between the two friends feels a little neatly arranged. Still, removing those quieter passages would leave a faster movie with much less personality and far less reason to care about its outcome.

By the end, the Surprise feels less like a spectacular movie location than a place whose routines you have learned. You understand why these men need their captain, why his friendship with Maturin matters, and why his certainty can be reassuring and dangerous at the same time. That is what gives Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World its staying power. Weir delivers the adventure without treating the people as equipment needed to stage it. The battles draw you in, but the lasting pleasure is the company—even when the man setting the course makes you nervous about where everyone is headed.

Brad reviews Jane Austen’s PERSUASION (1995), starring Ciarán Hinds & Amanda Root!


It’s been a while since I’ve written about any of my favorite romantic films. Today, I thought I would discuss the film that just might be my favorite love story of them all, and that’s the 1995 version of PERSUASION. Based on Jane Austen’s final completed novel, PERSUASION tells the story of Anne Elliot (Amanda Root) who was persuaded eight years earlier, at the age of 19, to reject the hand of the man she loved, Captain Frederick Wentworth (Ciarán Hinds). At the time, Wentworth had no fortune or social standing, but the ensuing years seemed to bring both to the seafaring captain. When fate unexpectedly brings them back together, Anne’s past feelings of love re-emerge, and so does her regret for her earlier decision. After all these years, does the still-single Captain Wentworth love her, or is he ready to move on?

PERSUASION features incredible turns from Amanda Root and Ciarán Hinds as Anne Elliot and Frederick Wentworth. Their performances aren’t built around grand gestures or sweeping declarations of love. They’re built on quick glances, emotional restraint, and an ability to convey lingering pain, regret, and feelings of love that began many years earlier but have never gone away. Their chemistry isn’t flashy, but it is authentic, built over many years rather than some instant attraction. These character traits may seem old-fashioned and unnecessary in this day and time, but the action in the film takes place in early 1800’s where this behavior would have been perfectly natural.

Speaking of “perfectly natural,” director Roger Michell’s realistic presentation of the material is one of the film’s key strengths as far as I’m concerned. Avoiding the polish of most period dramas, PERSUASION embraces the weathered houses, imperfect landscapes, simple costumes, and yes, even the less than glamourous looks of the cast. It seems like we’re watching real people living in the real world instead of impossibly attractive men and women playing dress up. As the lead characters seem to be falling deeper into love over the course of the film, their blossoming happiness makes them more attractive.  

If I haven’t made it clear enough, if you’re looking for a movie that throws a lot of overly dramatic plot twists and simple solutions your way, PERSUASION is probably not the movie for you. But if you enjoy a deliberately paced, mature story that deals with messy themes of missed opportunities, personal growth, and forgiveness, then you just may love it. There are moments when Anne simply watches Wentworth across a room, or clutches a chair as he enters a room, where I felt such a strong connection to the characters. Sometimes the most powerful emotions truly are those that are left unspoken. This film will reward your patience if you stick with it, and its final scenes are very satisfying to me because of what the characters have gone through to reach that point.

PERSUASION is a film that I return to again and again when I’m stressed or need a pick-me-up. It just makes me feel good. In my opinion, it isn’t just one of the best Jane Austen movies, it’s one of the best romantic dramas out there, and I highly recommend it!

Brad reviews NOTTING HILL (1999), starring Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant!


Life takes an unexpected turn for the reserved Englishman William Thacker (Hugh Grant) when the hugely popular American movie star Anna Scott (Julia Roberts) wanders into his humble little travel book shop in the district of Notting Hill in West London. When the initial meeting is followed up by some coincidentally spilled orange juice and an unexpected kiss, William finds himself completely smitten. After Anna leaves, and still in a state of disbelief, William struggles focusing on his normal life with his eccentrically odd flat mate Spike (Rhys Ifans). When Anna surprisingly reaches back out to him wanting to get back together, the sweet and shy William is ecstatic, but he remembers that he’s already obligated himself to attend his sister Honey’s (Emma Chambers) birthday party that night. Wanting to be part of something normal, Anna goes to the party as William’s date, where she has a wonderful, relaxing evening with Honey and their close-knit group of best friends that includes Max (Tim McInnerny), Bella (Gina McKee) and Bernie (Hugh Bonneville), even if she did give them quite the shock when she walked through the door. Everything seems to be going beautifully, but the life of an international film icon tends to be complicated, and William soon finds himself caught up in a whirlwind that includes her “boyfriend,” the arrogant American actor Jeff King (Alec Baldwin). He’s not really her boyfriend anymore, but that seems of little consequence to the press. And then there’s the sudden emergence of racy pictures of Anna from her past in the British tabloids. As much as William loves Anna, will he ever be able to deal with life in Anna’s superstar spotlight?

NOTTING HILL is part of a trilogy of modern-day love stories that I’m sure to watch every year, with the other two being RETURN TO ME (2000) and HITCH (2005). I’ve noticed that these three movies have plot points in common that I find extremely appealing. First, both NOTTING HILL and RETURN TO ME feature main characters who have a group of loyal family and friends who offer uncompromising love and support. William Thacker’s sister and friends clearly care about him and want what’s best for him. If necessary, they’re willing to prove it by being honest with him when he’s unwilling to be honest with himself. One of the best scenes of the film occurs near the end when William tells his group of friends that he’s turned down Anna’s request to continue their relationship, even after she says the famous lines, “I’m also just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.” While his friends struggle to find the right words, the flaky Spike, played superbly by Rhys Ifans, rushes into the meeting and when asked his opinion, says these three words to William, “You daft prick!” A memorable song on the movie’s excellent soundtrack reminds us sometimes that “you say it best when you say nothing at all,” but sometimes words need to be spoken, and Spike cares enough to tell William what he needs to hear. I’ve said it before, but I love it when a movie surrounds its characters with the type of people we’d love to have in our corner in real life. Second, both NOTTING HILL and HITCH feature plot lines that show a “star” falling for a sweet nobody. Maybe it’s because I’m a nobody myself, but the idea of the rich and powerful falling in love with regular people like me always strikes a nerve. Sure, it may be a fantasy, but it’s a fantasy I’m perfectly willing to roll with. 

As far as I’m concerned, Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant have never been more appealing than they are in NOTTING HILL. Julia is so beautiful, and I fell in love with her myself for the first time when I watched this movie at the theater in 1999. There are scenes where William is watching Anna Scott on the big screen and the small screen, whether it be a love story or a science fiction movie, and he’s clearly in complete awe of her. As a film buff going back to my early teens, I can relate so easily to his character, whether it be my crush on Elizabeth Shue in the 80’s or Salma Hayek in 90’s. Heck, as recently as a couple of years ago, after interviewing the lovely Jan Gan Boyd who starred with Charles Bronson in ASSASSINATION (1987), I can still identify with a man completely smitten with a beautiful actress. And Hugh Grant is so sweet, witty and funny as William Thacker. This was a big film for Grant, as a few years earlier his promising Hollywood career had somewhat stalled due to his arrest on Sunset Strip in Los Angeles for “lewd conduct in a public place” with a prostitute named Divine Brown. With the irony not lost on me, if you’ve seen NOTTING HILL before you’ll understand that my inclusion of this matter of public record proves the character of Anna Scott to be correct when she explains to William just how difficult it can be to live life in the public eye. Regardless of all that, Hugh Grant is great in the film, and with a few years separating the events, it seems the filmgoing public was ready for forgiveness. NOTTING HILL was a runaway box office success, raking in $365 million dollars at the worldwide box office. 

The final thing I want to point out about NOTTING HILL is the incredible talent behind the scenes. Director Roger Michell helmed one of my very favorite Jane Austen adaptations, PERSUASION from 1995, starring Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. It’s a perfect movie as far as I’m concerned, and I watch it several times every year. Writer Richard Curtis has written the wonderful films FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (1994), BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY (2001), and LOVE ACTUALLY (2003), and he clearly knows how to push our love buttons. Both Michell and Curtis do the most successful work in their careers here. Now whether or not it’s their very best is a matter of opinion, but it’s definitely great work that I can confidently recommend to anyone. 

Playing Catch-Up With The Films of 2016: Eye In The Sky (dir by Gavin Hood)


Eye in the Sky is many things.  It’s a tense and involving drama.  At times, it’s a satire of the bland and often cowardly bureaucracy that controls so much of the world.  Occasionally, it’s an angry polemic and a sad-eyed look at the state of the world today.  It’s a film about drone warfare, one that is remarkably honest about both the costs and the benefits of being able to randomly blow people up on the other side of the world.  It’s a film that will make you think and it will make you cry and it will even make you laugh in a resigned sort of way.

But, at heart, it’s ultimately the story of two houses in Nairobi, Kenya.

In the first house, terrorists are plotting their next attack.  The film leaves little doubt as to what they are planning.  Thanks to a miniature drone controlled by Jama Farah (played by Barkhad Abdi and it’s good to see him giving as good a performance here as he did in Captain Phillips), both American and British intelligence are aware of what’s happening in that house.  A British jihadist is planning her next attack.  Guns are being loaded.  Suicide vests are being prepared.  If nothings done to stop their plans, hundreds of people are going to die.

Sitting nearby is the other house.  And, in this other house, an apolitical Kenyan family is going about their day with zero knowledge of what’s happening just a few doors down.  11 year-old Alia Mo’Allim (Aisha Takow) twirls a hula hoop while her father watches.  Later, in the day, she’ll go out in her village and, while the local militia harasses anyone who doesn’t look right to them, Alia will attempt to sell bread.  She’ll set up her table directly outside of the first house.

And what no one in that village realizes is that an armed drone is hovering above them.  As they go about their day, they have no idea that there are men and women in America and Britain who are debating whether or not to blow them up.

Colonel Katherine Powell (a steely and totally convincing Helen Mirren) is determined to blow up that house and the terrorists within, even if it means blowing up Alia in the process.  However, before Powell can give the order, she has to get permission from Lt. Gen. Frank Benson (Alan Rickman, at his weary best) and Benson has to get permission from the government.  And the government is full of people who are eager to take credit for killing terrorists but who don’t want to be blamed for any of the inevitable collateral damage.  Everyone passes responsibility to someone else.

Powell may be the most determined of everyone to blow up that house but she is not the one who will actually be firing the missiles.  That responsibility falls on two Americans, Lt. Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) and Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox).  As the teorrists prepare and Alia tries to sell bread and the bureaucrats debate, Watts and Gershon are the only ones who seem to truly understand what’s about to happen.  If they fire the missiles, Alia will probably die.  If they don’t, hundreds of other definitely will.

It all makes for incredibly tense and thought-provoking film, one that is all the more effective because it actually allows both sides to make their case.  In Eye in the Sky, no one is presented as being perfect.  On the one hand, Powell may be willing to manipulate the data to get permission to fire that missile.  But, on the other, the film doesn’t deny that Powell is right when she says that if they don’t blow up the terrorists when they have a chance, hundreds of innocent people are going to die.  Towards the end of the film, Alan Rickman says, “Never tell a soldier that he doesn’t understand the cost of war,” and Eye in the Sky appears to understand that cost as well.  Nobody escapes this film untouched.

Well-acted and intelligently written and directed, Eye in the Sky was one of the most thought-provoking films of the previous year.  See it if you haven’t.