User Score
6.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 477 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 3, 2012
    10
    This film masquerades as a high-adventure war picture, but is actually at its heart, a simple and perfectly-told story of friendship and camaraderie. The pursuit of the French vessel, magnificent as it is, is just the backdrop to this elegant, emotionally stirring and intellectually powerful narrative. Easily one of my top ten favorite films of all time. All of the haters can go watchThis film masquerades as a high-adventure war picture, but is actually at its heart, a simple and perfectly-told story of friendship and camaraderie. The pursuit of the French vessel, magnificent as it is, is just the backdrop to this elegant, emotionally stirring and intellectually powerful narrative. Easily one of my top ten favorite films of all time. All of the haters can go watch something that appeals more to their intellectual level, like Transformers 2. Expand
  2. sarah
    May 1, 2005
    10
    A classic. Beautiful, riveting, intellectually engaging. Astonishing direction, richly detailed, superbly acted. The best film of its year and the best Hollywood epic since Lawrence of Arabia.
  3. Jul 1, 2012
    10
    The type of people below who say this movie is boring and uninteresting are the same type of people who can not appreciate art. They cite things such as boredom, because they are not intelligent enough to watch the little details that went into making a film of this caliber. This is an excellent film by Peter Weir with an extremely interesting premise and great historical authenticity forThe type of people below who say this movie is boring and uninteresting are the same type of people who can not appreciate art. They cite things such as boredom, because they are not intelligent enough to watch the little details that went into making a film of this caliber. This is an excellent film by Peter Weir with an extremely interesting premise and great historical authenticity for a film. It's a very historical movie based in the Napoleonic Wars. So if you're not into history you may not like it so much...but to call it boring, uninteresting, and ill-written is an utter disgrace. It's okay to call something that is **** exactly that. But just because your mind is tuned to follow more formulaic and "explosive" movies with complete bull**** does not give you the right to call a finely tuned, acted, written, scored, and directed piece of art such a moniker. Shame on all of those who have done such a thing here, may you forever rot in the sullen lethargy that is your narrow intellect. tl;dr-- Screw you if you don't like this **** **** movie. Expand
  4. JimW.
    Feb 12, 2004
    8
    This is not supposed to be rollicking swashbuckler movie. It's a slice of life on square-rigged ship. It is almost too true to the O'Brian books. I thought it accomplished its goal admirably.
  5. KevinB.
    Jan 28, 2004
    9
    This movie was great. Everyone here is saying that the movie is bad.... and for what reasons: it was boring, no character development, it was like watching discovery channel. If you have any ability to retain knowledge, or think with a sense of intellectuality, then you will probably like this movie (It didn't get ten oscar nominations for nothing). Other than that, all the people This movie was great. Everyone here is saying that the movie is bad.... and for what reasons: it was boring, no character development, it was like watching discovery channel. If you have any ability to retain knowledge, or think with a sense of intellectuality, then you will probably like this movie (It didn't get ten oscar nominations for nothing). Other than that, all the people who gave this movie a ZERO: how about you stick to movies like "2 fast 2 furious," because that seems like a movie that would contain your small attention deficit defunct brain capacities in a way that would appeal to your pathetic undeveloped, unevolved, infantile, nincompoop, sub-human brain. Expand
  6. KathyS.
    Feb 10, 2004
    10
    So sorry to the bashers of this movie but I vote with the "respected" professional critics. So sorry it didn't turn out to be "Fast and Furious" for those of you who, obviously, didn't get it. It was an art film.
  7. WandaP.
    Feb 10, 2004
    10
    I didn't want this movie to end. Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin took me on an adventure in the early 18th century and I didn't want come back.
  8. AntjeE.
    Feb 10, 2004
    10
    A great movie and great actors.
  9. MaxC.
    Feb 8, 2004
    10
    It's a "10" in every sense of the word. The idiots who are giving it zeros must be zeros themselves. I think we've got 2 or 3 bored people who keep on signing on under different names. This is a great picture.
  10. ToriL.
    Feb 8, 2004
    10
    It is beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone could label this film "boring"! It was a beautiful film which told a simple story about courage,character,cowardice,superstition,loyalty and friendship. Peter Weir took me on a journey to a day long ago and far away and I BELIEVED I was there. Fear not those who are not mature enough for the likes of this film ..There's always plenty It is beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone could label this film "boring"! It was a beautiful film which told a simple story about courage,character,cowardice,superstition,loyalty and friendship. Peter Weir took me on a journey to a day long ago and far away and I BELIEVED I was there. Fear not those who are not mature enough for the likes of this film ..There's always plenty for you during the summer! Tori Expand
  11. RickP.
    Feb 9, 2004
    10
    I hate to be judgemental, but this is a movie for people with a brain in their head. If you get off on films like Independence Day, don't bother going to see this one. You aren't going to like it. But if you have an IQ above 110, and enjoy seeing spectacular special effects that compliment the film instead of becoming the film, go. You'll love it. It's the intelligent I hate to be judgemental, but this is a movie for people with a brain in their head. If you get off on films like Independence Day, don't bother going to see this one. You aren't going to like it. But if you have an IQ above 110, and enjoy seeing spectacular special effects that compliment the film instead of becoming the film, go. You'll love it. It's the intelligent person's visual feast. The cast is magnificent and Crowe is right on as Lucky Jack. Weir couldn't have done better. Expand
  12. Steff
    Apr 10, 2004
    8
    Wow! So many users call this an "action adventure" movie, which is proof that it wasn't really well marketed, or else the users don't actually know how to read. It's not an action adventure, it's a seafaring tale. It's quite possibly one of the best, most accurate films ever made of the imperial-age ocean voyages. No, it's not chock-full of action -- because Wow! So many users call this an "action adventure" movie, which is proof that it wasn't really well marketed, or else the users don't actually know how to read. It's not an action adventure, it's a seafaring tale. It's quite possibly one of the best, most accurate films ever made of the imperial-age ocean voyages. No, it's not chock-full of action -- because it's a BIG ocean and you didn't just happen upon fights on a daily basis. Most reviews SAID, in fact, that those wanting action only should probably look elsewhere. Too bad most people look at the poster and think "oh, blood, cool!" Anyone who wants to see realistic ocean voyages and loves the old ships of yore should definitely check this out. Myself and all my friends (we're 30, well-read, semi-history buffs, but also big fans of mainstream film) really loved the intelligence of this movie. Expand
  13. KarenR.
    Apr 20, 2004
    10
    Absolutely wonderful! No doubt about it! Peter Weir did a magnificent job in bringing this to life. I was hooked from the beginning! It was a pleasure to spend this voyage with him. Perfectly cast, Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany are wonderful together. They play off each other so well , it is a joy to watch! We need more thoughtful and engaging movies like this one!
  14. MilG.
    Feb 11, 2004
    10
    The best film I've seen in years.....and the only chance I'm going to get to serve on an early 18th century frigate. Great stuff, great film, gets better each time I see it.
  15. FrancesR.
    Feb 11, 2004
    9
    I loved this movie. The acting by all was excellent. Paul Bettany was too hamsome for the role of the Doctor but it otherwise was well cast. The contrast between the captain, God the Father on the ship and the Captain, revelling in the shear spped of his ship as very well done by Russell Crowe.
  16. D.Hinson
    Feb 11, 2004
    10
    As precisely drawn and exquisitely detailed as a chamber string quartet. (Alas, some viewers must have preferred very loud operetta.) The cinematography was excellent, use of Bach and Mozart contemplative, thoughtful and brave. The acting matched the Jane Austen-like mood. Anyone who claimed it lacked emotion must have gone for popcorn when young Blakeney had to prepare his friend for As precisely drawn and exquisitely detailed as a chamber string quartet. (Alas, some viewers must have preferred very loud operetta.) The cinematography was excellent, use of Bach and Mozart contemplative, thoughtful and brave. The acting matched the Jane Austen-like mood. Anyone who claimed it lacked emotion must have gone for popcorn when young Blakeney had to prepare his friend for burial.And to those who complain about the presence of **lumber** on a naval ship ? Men of war always put to sea with a huge supply of rope, lumber, spare spars, paint and masts.There was a forge aboard, a carpenter and carpenter's mates. It's called being prepared. Expand
  17. [Anonymous]
    Feb 15, 2004
    10
    Amazing movie, Bettany should have been nominated, if you want a pop corn flick go see Pirates of the Caribbean.
  18. RachelB.
    Feb 9, 2004
    10
    Far from being boring, this was a masterful and commanding film exploring themes such as duty, friendship, loyalty, courage, obsession and sacrifice. Beautifully shot and beautifully acted, with a number of stand-out performances - in particular those of Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, David Threlfall (the Captain's servant), Max Pirkis (the young midshipman who has his arm amputated) Far from being boring, this was a masterful and commanding film exploring themes such as duty, friendship, loyalty, courage, obsession and sacrifice. Beautifully shot and beautifully acted, with a number of stand-out performances - in particular those of Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, David Threlfall (the Captain's servant), Max Pirkis (the young midshipman who has his arm amputated) and Lee Ingleby (the midshipman who commits suicide). It's an emotionally-involving film which has been woefully mis-marketed. I'm not surprised that it does not appeal to those whose appetite seems to require endless explosions, car chases, etc. Expand
  19. LaurieM.
    Feb 9, 2004
    10
    At last! A film that is not dumbed down, and is refreshingly free of gratuitous sex and language. This movie experiencc is a window into the world of another age, where honor, respect, duty, and friendship are truely words to live by. I think Mr Weir & company have done O'Brian proud. No, not a literal interpretation, but one that most definitely captures the 'essence' of At last! A film that is not dumbed down, and is refreshingly free of gratuitous sex and language. This movie experiencc is a window into the world of another age, where honor, respect, duty, and friendship are truely words to live by. I think Mr Weir & company have done O'Brian proud. No, not a literal interpretation, but one that most definitely captures the 'essence' of the series and its characters. Yes, I've read the books, but one doesn't have to be familiar with the canon to enjoy this film. I was sorry to see it end & I can only hope that we get to share future adventures with Jack & Stephen. Expand
  20. LouisS.
    Apr 22, 2004
    10
    A masterful screen adaptation of my favorite stories. This movie is for fans of Patrick O'Brian what Lord of the Rings was to Tolkein fans. I've read all 22 of O'Brian's seafaring novels, and didn't see how the depth of the characters and their relationships could be portrayed in the same movie that does justice to the realism of the period. But Weir did it. A masterful screen adaptation of my favorite stories. This movie is for fans of Patrick O'Brian what Lord of the Rings was to Tolkein fans. I've read all 22 of O'Brian's seafaring novels, and didn't see how the depth of the characters and their relationships could be portrayed in the same movie that does justice to the realism of the period. But Weir did it. Bravo! This movie may not be for everyone. But if you like tales of the sea, this is for you. Expand
  21. BeejR.
    Feb 11, 2004
    10
    Master and Commander in my view was inspired by the books of Patrick O'Brian rather than being a true adaptation. That aside, it is still a stunning rendition of the world through POB's works. This was no swashbuckling boys own adventure romp. This was the British Navy..."We do not swash, and we never buckle". I am a fan of The Aubrey/Maturin novels, Russell Crowe and Peter Master and Commander in my view was inspired by the books of Patrick O'Brian rather than being a true adaptation. That aside, it is still a stunning rendition of the world through POB's works. This was no swashbuckling boys own adventure romp. This was the British Navy..."We do not swash, and we never buckle". I am a fan of The Aubrey/Maturin novels, Russell Crowe and Peter Weir, and I think that the three elements combined to make an outstanding whole. It's a movie that seems to get better with each viewing, as there are always details you spot anew each time you go. I can understand adventure movie lovers feeling let down by this 'Commanding Masterpiece'. but the blame should lie with the mis-marketing from the studio and not with the movie. The main protaganists have always been quoted as saying it's a big budget art movie, not an action flick! This is an excellent study of life aboard a British man-of-war, showing the hardships and privations endured on their little wooden world. All in all an excellent job from everyone. Oh, and yes, naval ships did carry a certain amount of 'spare parts'. These would have been shipped in the hold, not left laying on deck, therefore they would have been relatively safe from the raking fire from the Acheron, a privateer, NOT a pirate. There were no pirates in this movie! Expand
  22. KIMCARTER
    Feb 13, 2004
    10
    Fantastic, breathtaking, riproaring adventure! I loved it!
  23. IvaniC.
    Feb 16, 2004
    10
    I have seen this movie 3 times and want more. It´s fantastic with the firm hand of Peter Weir. The story is well conducted and Russell´s and Paul´s acting are simply fantastic. Great sound, cinematography, special effects.
  24. StephanieL.
    Feb 29, 2004
    10
    I LOVED this movie. I had never heard of the books, nor am I a big fan of Weir's other movies. But this movie just captured my attention right from the opening scene. It's beautifully shot (esp. the suicide scene that morphs into the sunrise), well-acted, good story, interesting metaphors. It reminded me of a Robert Altman film, in the sense that multiple story lines & I LOVED this movie. I had never heard of the books, nor am I a big fan of Weir's other movies. But this movie just captured my attention right from the opening scene. It's beautifully shot (esp. the suicide scene that morphs into the sunrise), well-acted, good story, interesting metaphors. It reminded me of a Robert Altman film, in the sense that multiple story lines & characters are woven together. I know this is being marketed as an action film, but I think it's more of a character-driven drama. Maybe that's why a lot of people are disappointed in M&C. But not me! Expand
  25. MaryW.
    Mar 23, 2004
    9
    I really love the books that this movie is based on, and I thought they did an excellent job of transferring the characters from page to film. Pretty good actors, and they didn't completely chop up and twist the book storyline. Overall it was a really good movie worth seeing more than once.
  26. JerryB.
    Apr 23, 2004
    9
    Will be known as a classic long after some of it's competition is forgotton.
  27. StaceyG.
    Apr 25, 2004
    8
    First off, this was not my type of movie, that is why i gave it an 8. However it probably deserves a 9. Crowe was fantastic but Paul Bettany really stole the show (where was his supporting actor nomination?) The supporting cast was very good and the screenplay, directing and editing was all done well. Master and Commander was one great movie, Just not my kind of great movie.
  28. MarkB.
    Apr 25, 2004
    9
    I've read a lot of the comments you all have made about this film and I think the lot of you have really missed the point. Those of you that tout yourselves as historians, put your history books away. This film was not intended to be 100% historically accurate. Did it maintain the suspension of disbelief? The answer is yes! One thing recorded history tells us about sailors of the I've read a lot of the comments you all have made about this film and I think the lot of you have really missed the point. Those of you that tout yourselves as historians, put your history books away. This film was not intended to be 100% historically accurate. Did it maintain the suspension of disbelief? The answer is yes! One thing recorded history tells us about sailors of the period is that they tell tall tales. So, much of what is historically accurate about military naval history was left in the hands of the sailors. Others of you claim this film is full of some of the most cliche' elements of a story told at sea. Perhaps, but as some of the critics suggest, the telling of sea tales in motion pictures has been a dying art and what better way to revive the form than to retell some of these stories for this generation. Isn't immitation still considered the highest form of complement? Some of the other takes on this film suggest a lack of connection and believeability of the characters in this film. WHAT!? I watched this film in my brother's living room surrounded by children and uninterested wives and I was still overcome with emotion by a large portion of the character interaction. If you failed to connect with these characters, I would suggest you find another doctor to accurately dose you with Ritalin. This film was brilliant! Those who pick apart it's historic accuracy, plot development, etc really have lost sight of what films like this intend to do and that is to entertain. Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post claims this film loses it's objective many times. He claims that the objective of capturing or defeating the French ship Acheron was lost and then regained several times throughout the film. How does this happen? As ship's Captain, Aubrey not only has a duty to King and Country, but he has to fulfill this objective thousands of miles from home with a crew, despite their fierce loyalty, are human. They see their shipmates mamed and killed in an environment less than ideal. The working conditions are some of the worst possible and their personal successes seem to lie only in their duty to their captain, loyalty to their country and the pride of their victories. These things don't leave much of a tangible prize for them. Captain Aubrey knows what the damage of a disgruntled crew can do. He must inspire, he must know when it comes time to step back and regroup and it's this love of his crew and his fairness to them that gives them the desire to fight with him. This movie could have simply been written as a start to finish battle with the Aucheron, that may have been intense. This may have afforded us a look into the might that led the British Fleet to it's legendary victories but, the measure of a good ship captain is to understand the limitations of his vessel and his crew and know when to fall back and regroup. If he had been a balls-to-the-wall kind of guy, chances are this story would have been better told in the form of a television commercial instead of a motion picture. I hope the success of this film inspires others to recreate some of histories timeless classics, even if they have slightly different twists. Expand
  29. WayneY.
    Apr 25, 2004
    9
    Never has a mast been of such significance. Amber, is of course wrong. These sailing vessels were at sea for years and carried a remarkable array of wood for just this purpose. I like this film more than I expected I would. Crowe was better than in Gladiator, perhaps because his character was closer to his Aussie Nature, and the relaxed way he commanded respect was great craft. How can Never has a mast been of such significance. Amber, is of course wrong. These sailing vessels were at sea for years and carried a remarkable array of wood for just this purpose. I like this film more than I expected I would. Crowe was better than in Gladiator, perhaps because his character was closer to his Aussie Nature, and the relaxed way he commanded respect was great craft. How can you say there was no emotional connection. Dialogue between Russ and Paul Betany was just right, and the plight of some of the officers , whose fears etc. we became part of, were genuinely heartfelt. Peter Weir knows how to make a big film without the formula book from Hollywood, even though the basic plot was not rocket science. Is the end a wink at a sequel - I hope so! Expand
  30. JessicaC.
    Apr 26, 2004
    10
    I watched it 5 times and more. It's a very good movie.
  31. Oct 22, 2011
    10
    I was really surprised by the low user score that this movie received. This is one of my favorite movies because it does such a great job of making you feel like you are witnessing what it was really like being on a war ship in the early 1800's. Through this movie, you are able to participate in an incredible sea adventure as an observer without risking life and limb. I have heardI was really surprised by the low user score that this movie received. This is one of my favorite movies because it does such a great job of making you feel like you are witnessing what it was really like being on a war ship in the early 1800's. Through this movie, you are able to participate in an incredible sea adventure as an observer without risking life and limb. I have heard others state how they find this movie incredibly boring, but that just goes to show how people perceive things differently. Sometimes you have to have a little patience to see the genius and depth that lay beneath the surface of what may otherwise seem ordinary from a distance. Expand
  32. Sep 6, 2010
    10
    For all those who gave this film a negative review and for those people wondering about watching it I say this: If you think that more explosions = more fun and you think that Transformers (Good film) and Transformers 2 (Horrible film) are the height of movie making then DO NOT watch this film. It is NOT a traditional action movie. It is for people who appreciate the art ofFor all those who gave this film a negative review and for those people wondering about watching it I say this: If you think that more explosions = more fun and you think that Transformers (Good film) and Transformers 2 (Horrible film) are the height of movie making then DO NOT watch this film. It is NOT a traditional action movie. It is for people who appreciate the art of storytelling and of watching a wonderful script from a classic book series woven into an artfully built crescendo. A story where the characters are not simply 1 dimensional but are given time on screen to build depth so that you truly feel for them when both wonderful and tragic things occur. Some people call this boring. THEY ARE WRONG. They simply have the attention span of a moth. This is a rich & rewarding movie experience for those with patience and a true appreciation for the craft of epic moviemaking. Expand
  33. JanetS.
    Feb 9, 2004
    0
    My husband and I went to see this garbage this weekend. After all the critics raved and it received 10 Oscar nominations. After 40 minutes we walked out with a few others who shared our opinion. I have never seen an adventure movie so dull. There is no life or feeling for any of the actors. Simply terrible.
  34. TerryB.
    Dec 8, 2003
    0
    This was as about as exciting as watching the splinters explode in the flick. The screenplay was terrible, the acting was disappointing, and there was no feeling for any of the characters. If you must see this sh.t take NoDose before you enter to see this NONaction boring film. Complete unadulterated crap.
  35. RobertH
    Jan 8, 2004
    0
    Cinematic art? I hardly think so. I found it to be boring beyond belief, tedious and without any character development. Your art would have been better sinking in the first five minutes. People were walking out in droves. Absolute crapola as far as I am concerned.
  36. James
    Feb 5, 2004
    0
    It is impossible that this movie was nominated for one Oscar let alone ten? Simply dull, boring and of no interest to me or most of the miniscule audience who watched in boredom. No character development at all. Not one character even touched me emotionally. How some of you rave about this crap is amazing. Nonetheless you're entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree.
  37. WilliamE.
    Feb 6, 2004
    0
    I only wish a U-2 Submarine had come along and sunk Russell Crowe in the first five minutes to put me and this dumb movie out of its misery. Boooooooooring.
  38. StephenO.
    Mar 3, 2004
    0
    Boring, boring, boring. I have never seen a more ridiculous movie that takes non-adventure to an all time low. How can a Pirate movie be this lethargic? The screenplay was simply awful. The acting third rate. The characters were never developed therefore leaving the audience not caring about what happened to them. Hard to believe that this movie was nominated for anything other than most Boring, boring, boring. I have never seen a more ridiculous movie that takes non-adventure to an all time low. How can a Pirate movie be this lethargic? The screenplay was simply awful. The acting third rate. The characters were never developed therefore leaving the audience not caring about what happened to them. Hard to believe that this movie was nominated for anything other than most boring movie of the year? Collapse
  39. CareyG.
    Dec 4, 2003
    0
    Found it depressing and simply ridiculous. The crew had no personality, no purpose and were just drones following stupid orders. Both the movie and the ship sailed around and around and went absolutely nowhere. Couldn't wait to leave the theater.
  40. Dwayne
    Jan 3, 2004
    1
    I give one point for the photography. I only wish that this had been a non-talking documentary about the animals found on the island. As for the screenplay and character development the less said the better.
  41. Arleen
    Jan 4, 2004
    0
    I would like to take one of those exploding splinters and place it up the rectum of whoever thought to make this trash. Simply awful and boring.
  42. TooGoodToBeTrue
    Jan 8, 2004
    3
    Not the most boring film of the year (that dishonor distinctly belongs to "Mystic River") but I had flashbacks to those unedurable history school textbooks I could never bring myself to read...Certainly blows my mind why anybody would make a movie without a plot or an end.
  43. HenryB.
    Feb 10, 2004
    0
    Just a terrible movie. There was nothing that made me care for any of the characters. It made absolutely no sense with a dumb storyline in which the excess timber to repair the ship is being carried on it. Conveniently, when the ship is first attacked, not even a splinter of the repair wood is damaged. Absolutely preposterous. And dull!
  44. ArthurF.
    Feb 18, 2004
    0
    Lukewarm adventure? Try no action or adventure. What the hell was this? It was so bad that half of the ten people who watched the screening walked out in the middle. I do not understand how this film could be nominated for anything let alone 10 Oscars? Hated it.
  45. JosefH.
    Feb 20, 2004
    1
    Was this a movie or a documentary to look at beautiful unihabitated islands with strange birds? Without doubt this film lacked soul or emotion. The acting was poor and the storyline was idiotic. Russell Crowe delivered his lines as if he were speaking with marbles in his mouth. I have never seen a more monotinous meandering movie than Master. I only wish that Russell and his crew had been Was this a movie or a documentary to look at beautiful unihabitated islands with strange birds? Without doubt this film lacked soul or emotion. The acting was poor and the storyline was idiotic. Russell Crowe delivered his lines as if he were speaking with marbles in his mouth. I have never seen a more monotinous meandering movie than Master. I only wish that Russell and his crew had been sunk in the first five minutes to spare us the predicatable unmoving ending. I despised this poor excuse for an adventure film. Expand
  46. TheresaL.
    Mar 2, 2004
    0
    Boring with a Capital B. Not believable in any aspect. The acting, directing and screenplay was abysmal.
  47. Will
    Apr 21, 2004
    6
    Please don't comment about practices aboard a British man-o-war unless you know what you're talking about. Of course these ships carried spare masts, just as the Titanic had spare parts for her engines. Sigh. Anyway, the movie captured the spirit of the Aubrey-Maturin books. I did not like the jumbled sub-plot of the Jonah--it didn't seem to fit in the screenplay.
  48. JaredH.
    Jun 20, 2004
    0
    This movie sucked. It was so freakin boring. And Russell for God sakes man take the damn marbles out of your mouth. If I could have I would have torpedoed this dud to Davey Jones locker after thirty minutes. What a boring piece of crap.
  49. JohnQ.
    Dec 1, 2003
    1
    This is one of the lamest movies I have ever watched. There was little warmth in the characters and I kept glancing at my watch hoping that it would end. Other than some beautiful scenery it was not entertaining at all.
  50. DrewH.
    Dec 1, 2003
    0
    Possilby one of the most tedious movies I have watched this year. Something is missing and the characters have no warmth or appeal. Couldn't wait to leave. Avoid at all costs.
  51. Valk.
    Dec 2, 2003
    0
    Absolutely preposterous adventure story lacking in conviction or emotions for the crew. I kept hoping that it would pick up but I needed one of those cannon ball splinters to hold open my eyes? I was dozing off it was so bad. A waste of time and money. Avoid.
  52. Fusichinucca
    Dec 2, 2003
    2
    The sea was nice but the movie sucked big time. At the end of the flick, the audience was shaking their heads in a negative way. Once word of mouth gets out this film is doomed. Lots of winds bellowing the sails but not much else. Terribly disappointing.
  53. Randyflailer
    Dec 2, 2003
    2
    Hated it and couldn't wait to leave. Served no purpose and there was nothing to any of the characters. Just drones following boring orders. It it were on TV you would change the chanel. Avoid.
  54. PIRANHAG.
    Dec 3, 2003
    3
    Yes it´s true. Peter Weir made a bad movie. Epic movies are annoying people. STOP IT its not nice.
  55. WarrenT.
    Dec 5, 2003
    1
    Hated every long drawn out lethargic scene in this sorry excuse for an action movie. I have never been so bored in my life. I would rather watch paint dry than see this epic disaster of a movie again.
  56. PeytonW.
    Dec 6, 2003
    3
    Well, I know the "experts" really like this film, but there is absolutely nothing special about it. The subplots throughout the story are all cliche and nothing special. Despite the efforts to make the audience care about the characters, I really didn't. There was surprisingly little action, and the action provided was only mediocre. Overall it was a disappointment. I was often bored.
  57. MichaelS.
    Jan 1, 2004
    3
    It seems the director did not know whether to make a movie (with a strong story line and good acting) or a documentary (with facts and anecdotes weaving a rich historical fabric). The result is a failure either way. The story reads like a dull history book, the action does not make much sense, the acting and the photography are lost in this mess.
  58. DenzelN.
    Jan 15, 2004
    2
    Great scenery but otherwise an absolutely worthless boring piece of crap. I could barely keep my eyes open as it was an action movie in which the characters never came to life or had any meaning. Reading how the other posters found this a piece of art makes me wonder what they were watching? If you have insomnia then this is the movie for you. Otherwise don't waste your time or Great scenery but otherwise an absolutely worthless boring piece of crap. I could barely keep my eyes open as it was an action movie in which the characters never came to life or had any meaning. Reading how the other posters found this a piece of art makes me wonder what they were watching? If you have insomnia then this is the movie for you. Otherwise don't waste your time or money. Garbage. Expand
  59. DetroitConnection
    Jan 16, 2004
    0
    Simply dreadful. It is one of the slowest moving dullest action films I have ever witnessed. There is little if any character development and is sadly lacking the flair and adventure that was so apparent in the cartoonish Pirates Of The Caribbean. The latter was so superior to this that it makes one wonder how anyone found this to be artistic at all? As far as I am concerned Russell Crowe Simply dreadful. It is one of the slowest moving dullest action films I have ever witnessed. There is little if any character development and is sadly lacking the flair and adventure that was so apparent in the cartoonish Pirates Of The Caribbean. The latter was so superior to this that it makes one wonder how anyone found this to be artistic at all? As far as I am concerned Russell Crowe should have gone to Davey Jones locker in the opening minutes of this unadulterated boorish excuse for a motion picture. Come to think of it motion does not apply as this film crawled along at a snails pace. Avoid at all costs. Expand
  60. WaltD.
    Jan 24, 2004
    0
    I just completed watching this film and agree with the majority of viewers who despised this work. It is a slow meandering dveloping film with nice scenery but not much more. There is NO character development at all and I have NO desire to read the book, let alone 21 volumes. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to feel for any of these characters in the movie. As for Russell Crowe this I just completed watching this film and agree with the majority of viewers who despised this work. It is a slow meandering dveloping film with nice scenery but not much more. There is NO character development at all and I have NO desire to read the book, let alone 21 volumes. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to feel for any of these characters in the movie. As for Russell Crowe this is NOT one of his better performances. As for a pirate film that should scream ACTION, to tell the truth there is very little. And when it does come, you care so little for the characters that you really don't care what happens to them? As for the fight scenes, it is very difficult to tell who is who as the close-ups destroy all sembelance of what is happening to who. To compare this to Pirates of The Caribbean is not fair in the sense that although POTC is cartoonish it had charisma, flair, daring, swashbuckling and a mystical overtone to it. In Master, it is lacking any real conviction and truly is a dud of a film. If you look at the box office receipts between the two there is no comparison as Pirates dominated. What you pseudo snobbish intellectuals do not understand is that Pirates was spectacularly received by word of mouth. Master's word of mouth is so terrible that it completely bombed at the box office. One would think that any film with Russell Crowe would do well considering his stature as an actor. Sadly, I must agree with all those who hated this film. In no way, does Master make me want to read the book as Seabiscuit did with its movie. Just a terribly disappointing film from start to finish with people leaving the theater early. Expand
  61. JenniferT.
    Jan 26, 2004
    0
    This was a terrible film. An adventure? If this was on the discovery channel I would turn it off. Not very good at all. We go to the movies to be entertained not subjected to a senseless piece of drivel. There was no character development and the premise was absolutely ridiculous. Revenge, okay, if you want to believe it? It's like going after the Bismark with a row boat. C'mon, This was a terrible film. An adventure? If this was on the discovery channel I would turn it off. Not very good at all. We go to the movies to be entertained not subjected to a senseless piece of drivel. There was no character development and the premise was absolutely ridiculous. Revenge, okay, if you want to believe it? It's like going after the Bismark with a row boat. C'mon, this movie was a complete bore and a total bust at the box office once word of mouth got around. Expand
  62. DavidH.
    Jan 20, 2004
    0
    Starfox I just read your review and feel compelled to advise anyone contemplating seeing this disaster to just stay away. You could not be more off base. There is absolutely ZERO character development in this film. If so please explain Russell Crowe's background and his passion in pursuing a hopeless mission that endangers both his crew and his ship. And, please don't quote to Starfox I just read your review and feel compelled to advise anyone contemplating seeing this disaster to just stay away. You could not be more off base. There is absolutely ZERO character development in this film. If so please explain Russell Crowe's background and his passion in pursuing a hopeless mission that endangers both his crew and his ship. And, please don't quote to me from the book. Where is it in the movie? It's not. Explain why his best friend the Ship's physcian chose a life at sea with lowlife followers when he could have been so much more. Again, point it out to us from the movie. Character development, I don't think so. Also, while you're on the subject please explain where the timber came from to repair the ship? Have you ever seen this in any other pirate movie you have ever watched? As for the acting it was third rate, including marble mouth, Russell Crowe, and was difficult to follow. As the other posters have noted, ticket buyers were walking out in droves as this "so-called" action movie was basically devoid of any action except for the exploding splinters during the battel scene in which no one knew who was who nor did we care. So spare me your sarcasm about what a great movie this was. It was an absolute worthless piece of garbage that I would not sit through again unless somebody took bamboo shoots and put them through my eyes. My advice to anyone wanting to rent this film is to take NoDoze before you attempt to sit though it. For you to rate this a perfect ten as compared to the great classics makes me want to give this a score of about a negative 1,000,000. It was that bad. Expand
  63. PollyJ.
    Jan 28, 2004
    0
    How anyone saw any action or adventure in this astonishingly slow film is beyond me? It was simply terrible in which I felt absolutely nothing for any of the characters. If you can't feel emotion then the movie is dead!
  64. JuanP.
    Jan 30, 2004
    0
    I so glad to see Amber P put Kevin in place. He has no right to insult people. I saw the movie because I like Rusell Crow. But the movie is very bad. No action. I don't feel for anyone. I want fun and there was no fun and I do not like it. Very bad.
  65. TrudyD.
    Feb 10, 2004
    0
    Garbage. I could not believe an adventure movie could be this slow. The plot was preposterous; nothing was explained about why the crew elected to spend their humdrum lifes at sea; nor why they carried repair lumber on the vessel? I will point out that I have never remotely seen any other ship from that century carry timber if and when they were attacked by pirates? Usually, the ship Garbage. I could not believe an adventure movie could be this slow. The plot was preposterous; nothing was explained about why the crew elected to spend their humdrum lifes at sea; nor why they carried repair lumber on the vessel? I will point out that I have never remotely seen any other ship from that century carry timber if and when they were attacked by pirates? Usually, the ship would either win the battle or be sunk. What is Master a Boy Scout troop in that they were prepared? C'mon, this film was the equal of watching moss grow on a rock. It was boring and without any character development at all. The characters were completely lifeless and I really wish they had all drowned in the opening minutes to spare me the agony of watching this crap. Expand
  66. Teresa
    Feb 1, 2004
    0
    Painfully dull. A failed adaptation.
  67. Jamal
    Feb 15, 2004
    0
    Jamal hated this suck-ass boring movie. Where was the action? We send shuttles into space without back up parts. You telling Jamal that 400 years ago with just the wind for propulsion that there were ships sailing around with spare masts? Bullsh.t! You either won the battle or sunk. How come 400 years later the Titanic didn't carry spare metal panels to repair the damage by the Jamal hated this suck-ass boring movie. Where was the action? We send shuttles into space without back up parts. You telling Jamal that 400 years ago with just the wind for propulsion that there were ships sailing around with spare masts? Bullsh.t! You either won the battle or sunk. How come 400 years later the Titanic didn't carry spare metal panels to repair the damage by the icebergs? Who could even be stupid enough to believe the crap these writers try to pawn off on us. Master sucked as there was no adventure. Jamal tried to get a refund. Expand
  68. WinstonF.
    Feb 1, 2004
    0
    After receiving 10, count them, 10 OSCAR nominations, despite the generally poor Metacritic reviews, I was foolish enough to let the professional critics cloud my judgment. Well, I saw Master yesterday along with my wife. We both hated it. It was absolutely atrocious and so boring. It is inconceivable that any pirate movie could have so little action. And when it does come, the characters After receiving 10, count them, 10 OSCAR nominations, despite the generally poor Metacritic reviews, I was foolish enough to let the professional critics cloud my judgment. Well, I saw Master yesterday along with my wife. We both hated it. It was absolutely atrocious and so boring. It is inconceivable that any pirate movie could have so little action. And when it does come, the characters are all so undeveloped that you feel absolutely nothing for any of them. People were walking out of the theater during the screening. We were stupid enough to sit through the whole boring ordeal. I give my word in that I will never listen to the paid off professional critics again. Thank you Metacritic for providing a service that permits REAL PEOPLE, not shills, to discuss the merits of a film. Avoid at all costs. Better yet, "ABANDON SHIP." Expand
  69. KarenJ.
    Feb 21, 2004
    0
    Was Master a joke or what? Inane and inept in every facet of what makes a good motion picture. There was no motion, emotion, and certainly, no adventure in this laughable moronic story. It is beyond belief that Master could be up for any award let alone 10 Oscars.
  70. Spriggangirl
    Feb 24, 2004
    0
    Need I say anything??
  71. TomasP.
    Feb 2, 2004
    0
    I only wish I had gone down with the ship in the first five minutes of the film to avoid what may be one of the most boring movies ever made. It was terrible and I did not have feel any emotion for any of the characters. How in Gods name did this movie get ten Oscar nominations?
  72. SharonW.
    Feb 3, 2004
    0
    Repulsive is the only way to describe this terribly slow movie. Ten Oscars for this??? Kevin, are you sure you're from this planet? At one point, I became so disenchanted with the film that I started observing the few others in the theater foolish enough to have paid for this water torture. They were squirming, looking at their watches, and a few did indeed walk out about forty Repulsive is the only way to describe this terribly slow movie. Ten Oscars for this??? Kevin, are you sure you're from this planet? At one point, I became so disenchanted with the film that I started observing the few others in the theater foolish enough to have paid for this water torture. They were squirming, looking at their watches, and a few did indeed walk out about forty minutes into what seemed like an eternal bore. Other than some nice scenery and wildlife this movie is a dud. Expand
  73. SidneyF.
    Feb 3, 2004
    0
    Max we're nuts? Take a look at the Metacritic scores and then take a good look in the mirror... As a historian of this period perhaps you would care to enlighten us how Russell conveniently had all the lumber he needed on his ship to effect a complete makeover. Better yet, please advise how the far superior vessel snuck up on poor old Russell blasted his ship to kingdom com but Max we're nuts? Take a look at the Metacritic scores and then take a good look in the mirror... As a historian of this period perhaps you would care to enlighten us how Russell conveniently had all the lumber he needed on his ship to effect a complete makeover. Better yet, please advise how the far superior vessel snuck up on poor old Russell blasted his ship to kingdom com but somehow managed not to damage to the necessary SPARE timber required to make those repairs. This movie had more holes than swiss cheese. There was no character development at all. It meandered along as slow as a bead of sweat dripping from one's brow. Absolutely dreadful. Expand
  74. LassiterR.
    Feb 9, 2004
    0
    As I write this review, I have to laugh at the ten ratings most of the posters gave this awful film. First of all, it isn't worthy of any Oscar except for cinematography. I must admit that the Island Scenes were beautiful to look at. But as far as the acting and the development of the characters it was horrendous to say the least. I am absolutely dumbfounded by the acclaim the As I write this review, I have to laugh at the ten ratings most of the posters gave this awful film. First of all, it isn't worthy of any Oscar except for cinematography. I must admit that the Island Scenes were beautiful to look at. But as far as the acting and the development of the characters it was horrendous to say the least. I am absolutely dumbfounded by the acclaim the professional critics lavished among this unmitigated dissaster. It is so slow and ridiculous that I find it hard to believe that anyone could have liked it, but as I have read some of you have. The proof that the public hated this film is at the box office where it completely bombed. People were actually walking out of the theater, and some teenagers had the right idea when they called out "REFUND!" Expand
  75. BillR.
    Mar 13, 2004
    4
    The umpteenth Best Picture nom to which I respond: Yawn. Lazily acted for the most part. About as 'adventurous' as my arsehole; ending skirmish is disgracefully shot. Stripped down to its purely dramatic element, it can never maintain a competent focus on characterization. In fact, the most it can ever evoke is "Who gives a sh*t?", really. Even bigger letdown than The Truman The umpteenth Best Picture nom to which I respond: Yawn. Lazily acted for the most part. About as 'adventurous' as my arsehole; ending skirmish is disgracefully shot. Stripped down to its purely dramatic element, it can never maintain a competent focus on characterization. In fact, the most it can ever evoke is "Who gives a sh*t?", really. Even bigger letdown than The Truman Show overall, *still* waiting for a Weir film to really floor me. Expand
  76. StevenP.
    Mar 2, 2004
    0
    Probably one of the most overrated movies I have ever seen. It is so slow that it is like watching Old Man River? The acting is third rate, and as hard as I tried, I felt nothing for any of the characters. The screenplay was simply awful as was the directing. There is no action and the battle scenes fail to invoke any feeling from the audience. It is so bad that you just don't care. Probably one of the most overrated movies I have ever seen. It is so slow that it is like watching Old Man River? The acting is third rate, and as hard as I tried, I felt nothing for any of the characters. The screenplay was simply awful as was the directing. There is no action and the battle scenes fail to invoke any feeling from the audience. It is so bad that you just don't care. And where did they get the nerve to show that Russell had the wisdom to carry spare masts in the belly of the ship just in case they were attacked and not sunk? Please it is so ridiculous that it is laughable. The ship is blown to splinters, but not one hair is harmed on the replacement timber? Yeah, okay, sure, wink wink nod nod. Just a terrible movie from beginning to end. To accept the many holes in this storyline you need to really love swiss cheese. Expand
  77. HansU.
    Mar 31, 2004
    2
    I belive the book is a cheap copy of CS Forester's Hornblower books. And the movie is good in it self but it is remarkably american. No English man would speak like the most of the actors does.
  78. DavidP.
    Mar 4, 2004
    0
    Little did I realize that when I went to the theater that I was going to see another disaster movie? Master was like the "Morning After" in the Posidon Adventure in that watching it was an utter disaster. NO movie could be this bad or so slow? Where was the character development? And the screenplay was from hunger. One of worst movies I've ever seen. I wish it had been sunk before it Little did I realize that when I went to the theater that I was going to see another disaster movie? Master was like the "Morning After" in the Posidon Adventure in that watching it was an utter disaster. NO movie could be this bad or so slow? Where was the character development? And the screenplay was from hunger. One of worst movies I've ever seen. I wish it had been sunk before it was released on the public. Expand
  79. ThomasO.
    Apr 3, 2004
    0
    Pure and simple this movie was an absolute bore. For an action adventure movie I only wish that the entire movie had been sunk in the opening scene. The screenplay is full of swiss cheese that it is ludicrous. The acting is third rate and there is absolutely no emotional connection to any of the characters that appear on screen. How this movie was nominated for anything is proof of the Pure and simple this movie was an absolute bore. For an action adventure movie I only wish that the entire movie had been sunk in the opening scene. The screenplay is full of swiss cheese that it is ludicrous. The acting is third rate and there is absolutely no emotional connection to any of the characters that appear on screen. How this movie was nominated for anything is proof of the bullshit of politics. This movie plain out sucked wind. If you liked it, fine, go out and watch the paint dry or moss grow on a rock. Both are as satsifying as this crap. Expand
  80. DakotaP.
    May 1, 2004
    6
    This movie starts off boring and stays that way until the finish. But you do get to see some nice waves and sails. Rent it and watch it while you do something else. Good background flick while you cook dinner.
  81. PatC.
    Jun 3, 2004
    7
    A realistic and unpretentious rendition of life aboard a British man-of-war. What it achieves in straightforwardness it lacks in provocativeness. The adventure of the times is captured, but so is the tedium. When the crew was ready to head for home, so was I. It's best feature was its depiction of leadership-by-example within the confines of a vessel long at sea, and the capacity of A realistic and unpretentious rendition of life aboard a British man-of-war. What it achieves in straightforwardness it lacks in provocativeness. The adventure of the times is captured, but so is the tedium. When the crew was ready to head for home, so was I. It's best feature was its depiction of leadership-by-example within the confines of a vessel long at sea, and the capacity of the crew to respond positively. Expand
  82. DevonP.
    Nov 27, 2003
    1
    Terribly depressing movie in which one had difficulty caring for any of the characters. I must admit the scenery was gorgeous. Other than that, I kept looking at my watch waiting for this drek to end. A Pirates of the Caribbean it is not.
  83. PennelopeT.
    Nov 28, 2003
    0
    Hated this blood and gore boring epic. The characters were flat and never explained their drone existence in the filthy sea.
  84. PhilE.
    Feb 10, 2004
    0
    Attocious in every respect. Slow and without any emotion. As I watched this nonadventure film unfold all I could think of was the Dead Sea. This film should have been sunk before it was released. This ranks as one of the worst films of 2003. Avoid.
  85. RogerK.
    Feb 11, 2004
    0
    One of the dullest movies I have ever witnessed. Enough said.
  86. RonaldD.
    Feb 12, 2004
    0
    A row boat ride is more exciting than this poor excuse for a feature film. As a documentary, I would have changed the channel. Terribly slow and devoid of ANT character development. It makes me want to rush to my nearest library and burn the books.
  87. DarbyW.
    Feb 13, 2004
    2
    This movie gives a new meaning to water torture. Bland, trite, and idiotically slow. This lackluster boat adventure flick suffers from indifferent direction and inane writing.
  88. DebbieB.
    Feb 13, 2004
    0
    Easily the most overrated boring movie I have ever seen. Absolutely hated it.
  89. TammyD.
    Feb 13, 2004
    0
    If only a U-2 boat had magically appeared and sunk this disaster? What it doesn't make sense? It is as real as carrying timber to replace the masts after they have been destroyed by an enemy who blasted the ship with cannon fire but somehow didn't sink the ship or harm one hair on that precious replacement timber?
  90. BillyA.
    Feb 17, 2004
    0
    Talk about a complete waste of time and money then Master is it. I have never been bored more in my life. The screenplay was awful and almost laughable. The acting failed to invoke any emotion as the characters were lifeless and dull. Just terrible.
  91. KatieC.
    Feb 17, 2004
    3
    Lukewarm action-adventure with bland acting.
  92. HarrisonP.
    Feb 17, 2004
    0
    One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Boring is an understatement. Terrible writing and acting. The only decent thing was the cinematography. And if I want that I can buy a postcard. Just awful.
  93. CarlyA.
    Feb 19, 2004
    0
    This is a movie for simpletons. No creative writing, acting or directing. Awful and boring.
  94. Heidi
    Feb 23, 2004
    0
    quite frankly the most boring movie I have ever sat through. The screenplay was terrible, the acting was poor as was the directing. I really tried to feel something for the characters and was unable to do so. This movie was as bad as a two day old cold fish.
  95. KenD.
    Feb 25, 2004
    0
    There is no beating around the bush. This flick sucked from the opening scene to the antiseptic ending. Moss grows on a stone faster than this non action film moved.
  96. Ron
    Feb 29, 2004
    0
    This movie is about as dry as the deck of the boat was wet in the storm. Crowe's performance was, to say the least, boring as he pretty much had only one facial expression. His character wasn't a master or a commander. The movie was also emotionally empty. Every single sailor, minus the doctor, was the same as the next and no one who died I even remotely cared about. The plot This movie is about as dry as the deck of the boat was wet in the storm. Crowe's performance was, to say the least, boring as he pretty much had only one facial expression. His character wasn't a master or a commander. The movie was also emotionally empty. Every single sailor, minus the doctor, was the same as the next and no one who died I even remotely cared about. The plot was virtually non-existant... I give the director kudos for being able to turn an adventure movie into the most wasted two hours of my life thus far. What were the Oscar Academy thinking? Expand
  97. LindaH.
    Feb 29, 2004
    0
    I only wish this movie had been torpedoed within the first 5 minutes as it was the longest, most excruciating boring movie I have ever seen. How can any swashbuckling pirate movie be this slow. As for Russell and his one dimensional character and crew there are no words worthy of describing how awful and emotionless this film truly was. If this movie wins even one award tonight it would I only wish this movie had been torpedoed within the first 5 minutes as it was the longest, most excruciating boring movie I have ever seen. How can any swashbuckling pirate movie be this slow. As for Russell and his one dimensional character and crew there are no words worthy of describing how awful and emotionless this film truly was. If this movie wins even one award tonight it would be a complete and total disgrace. Expand
  98. LarryO.
    Mar 7, 2004
    0
    Awful.
  99. JesusC.
    Mar 9, 2004
    0
    Where was the adventure? This dog is the cure for insomnia.
  100. Amber
    Apr 11, 2004
    0
    Steff, I read your review and had to barf after laughing at how ridiculous your statement was? "Most Accurate" of the way seafaring was back then? Really? Please tell all of us how many sailing ships of that century carried extra masts in the hull just on the offchance that they weren't completely sunk? Let me help you out. The answer is ZERO. And isn't it remarkable that with Steff, I read your review and had to barf after laughing at how ridiculous your statement was? "Most Accurate" of the way seafaring was back then? Really? Please tell all of us how many sailing ships of that century carried extra masts in the hull just on the offchance that they weren't completely sunk? Let me help you out. The answer is ZERO. And isn't it remarkable that with the ship exploding into splinters that miraculously the mast escapes all damage from the cannon fire so that the ship can be rebuilt in the middle of the ocean. Steph, I wonder why the Titanic didn't have the replacement parts that according to you were available a few hundred years before? Come to think of it why didn't the space shuttle have replacement panels before reentering the Earth's atsmosphere, after all this disaster of a movie gave Russell Crowe replacement masts? This movie was an absolute dud in which none of the characters had any emotional connection with the audience. Yes indeed, it is a big ocean, but to call this fantasy flick "Most Accurate" of depicting that seafaring era is ridiculous. The screenplay had more holes than swisscheese. I would suggest that you do a little bit more reading before making such a laughable statement. If you liked this lame excuse for a movie that is one thing. But to portray yourself as being knowledgable about life at sea is a joke. This movie was one of the worst ever made. The fact that it bombed at the box office sinks it all the way to Davey Jones locker. Expand
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 42
  2. Negative: 1 out of 42
  1. 91
    It's a wonderfully crafted work, handsome, lively, stirring and utterly convincing in its depiction of the perils and thrills of sea life. But I'm not sure that my personal enthusiasm for it will translate entirely for viewers whose favorite movie about the high seas is, for perfectly good reasons, "Pirates of the Caribbean."
  2. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    90
    Master and Commander hooks you from its nifty opening salvo to its nifty closing punch line.
  3. 100
    Isn't just a fabulous seagoing spectacle. It's one for the ages.