 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.82.238.89
Bought it on recommendations - good image and sound... good demo.. they said.Big duh... $29 down the drain. I don't think I will ever put it on again. Boring.
Follow Ups:
adg
Victor,I was a fan of Patrick O'rian through his Picasso biography, but have been astounded at the cult surrounding the Aubrey/Maturin novels. I have friends who wre obsessed by the story and lured by O'Biran's writings and deep historic detail. Then there was the cookbook and historical nautical appendix. With one friend I have been along visiting on about a dozen tall ships from Vancouver to San Diego. The cult has an amazing number of members. Suprisingly in some ways, it appears that over half of the hard core are women.
A few years ago, I read 100 pages of the first one "Master and Commander" and decided I didn't need another addiction- it is really compelling!
Tthe thing is, All my friends who read all the way through to the unfinished "21" - and it seems that no one that starts will not finish- saw the "Master and Commander" movie in the cinema and said vehemently- "don't bother." > Historically inaccurate, loses key episodes, combines and compresses characters and events, avoids the political and scientific content, etc., etc. In effect, "We liked the books so much, no movie could do it properly."
In the books, it is the personality and relationship of Aubrey and Maturin that drive the narrative. I can see from my small experience of the books that the movie could not relate that subtlty and so went to CG battle scenes with all else acting as filler. Also, the main pair had much different personalities- in the books they were shown as real Age of Enlightenment figures- intellect and action in harmony- and in the movie- well guys with jobs.
I liked a lot of the atmosphere created and the battle scenes rang true, but on the whole this ship was a pretty but empty hull.
A few days ago, at Barnes and Noble, I saw the complete novels in a collection for $150 and I think that is the way to ebjoy O'Brian in the most satisfying way. For Thanksgiving, I'll be serving the traditional Royal Navy entree of "millers"*** this year.
Cheers,
Bam
***oh, rats!
Similar to the "Audio Cult"? I can assure you the POB readers, while passionate, are hardly a cult. It's hardly a surprise people can still be seduced by a well told tale and the romance of tall ships.I've traversed the cannon thrice over the past 10 years, and I've been lurking about POB websites for years.Contrary to your friends' dismissal of the movie, many, MANY POB fans liked or loved the film. Of course, those POB fanatics who wished for a literal version of a single volume were disappointed, as were the people desirous of an old-time swashbuckler a la Errol Flynn.
I was not disappointed. I think Weir gave us something much more interesting than a literal tale or a romp. The relationship between Aubrey and Maturin is the core of the film, as it is in the novels. That relationship is used to explore themes of leadership, friendship and obligation. NO FILLER. Use your eyes and ears. The film tells its story visually, subtlely dillineating the subtext and themes even to the very corners of the frame. It is hardly a CGI actioner.
I'm OK with M&C not being someone's cuppa. But I get irritated when people dismiss this film becuae it wan't "like the books". I its essence, if not it's precise plot, M&C is very like the books. Indeed, the texture and details are very true to the details and spirit of the POB volumes.
A film is not a book. The language of cinema is visual - it must "show" not "tell". Rather than a literal plot from one novel, Weir gives us the essence of POB's themes, makes them his own, and gives us something new and rich. One film could never encompass the detail and complexity of a 20 volume sage. (20 books were out at the time of production.)
M&C is the thniking person's adventure film. I agrreee with the majority of critic's who called it hte best film of its kind ever made. I don't worry about literal minded fans who want to see a re-enactment of the books.
Ahoy Harmonia!Good points.
I concentrated on the furour surrounding the POB novels as adaptations are always controversial, but at least among the people I know, no controversy has equalled that for "M&C".
"Harry Potter" and "LOTR" are other obvious recent examples of books that caught on in a big way, then someone decides to film it and the arguments begin. I have never read HP but absolutely hated the movies- there's nothing more repulsive than smug, privledged English middle class children with magic powers!
But with POB, the readers are mostly educated adults and everyone is so drawn by the narrative and O'Brian's writinf style, the "cultist"- really serious people, just can not allow themselves to be swayed by the movies. I called this a "cult" as the PB readers I know had a reaction that was more than a bit automatic- I believe they feel obligated to dislike the movie. In music I do the same thing ocassionally- disliking Stotkowski's Bach transcriptions lets me feel superior, a purist, the original fan before it came on MTV.
It's possible becuse of loyalty to the orginal creator =POB to have this kind of reaction- the mechanism seems to be that the movie-makers are just cashing in on something wonderful and subtle that was made popular within a small circle.
As I mentioned, I have very small experience with the books, but as much as I liked the papable battle scenes and historic detail, I thought the A&M parts were both miscast, especially Crowe who just doesn't exude the beautifully wrought intellect of the book Cap't- I kept seeing him as an actor pretending passion and culture.
But yes, comparatively, M&C is a thinking person's adventure. I only wish it was a deeper adventure, but that would mean a much longer movie..
I like very much your comment on Aubrey and Maturin, "That relationship is used to explore themes of leadership, friendship and obligation." Very well said.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Thanks, Bam, interesting observations.I agree that the captain/doc relationship is only presented in a quick sketch format, but that in itself didn't bother me, as it was just a sideline in the film... an important one, perhaps, but still not the major area, and their rather superficial conflict did not detract me from absorbing the rest of the movie.
Of course, having not read the book, I do not have any emotional investment of the cult members.
it was worse than boring...
To infinity and beyond!!!
n
( huh? )
Very carefully. (Estimated speed...course as of last sighting, sound from bells and commands etc...)This was referenced from similar reports of sea skirmishes from the period but obviously dramatized to up the tension and mystery of the French ship as the demon predator.
n
( huh? )
NT
Music is Emotion
nt
.
You don't want to get me started on LoTR. If you haven't seen Peter Jackson's cinematic treatment of Tolkein's trilogy then you don't really have an informed opinion, now do you? Most folks I know appreciate LoTR; they're NOT children! Most are well educated and would take umbrage to your remark. These films are highly respected as an artistic achievement and a faithful adaptation of modern literary classics. If it isn't your taste, that's fine, but if you haven't seen the films than how can you form an educated opinion; that's shoddy reseach, my good magistrate.As for patrick's inane comment below, we know the kind of Grey Poupon foo he & Victrola (his master's voice) get their rocks off watching, but they shouldn't get their jollies by putting down other folks tastes in films with references to cretinism and the like. I doubt patrick even knows what the word cretin means unless he has a thyroid condition, which is entirely possible of course. Do you really want to be sucked into a marriage of inconvenience with these two without an prenuptual agreement? ;^)
AuPh
Easily the most ridiculous film of the decade.
substitute kaka for crap and apply to LOTR- and I strongly agree with the sentiment.
I have no problem with people calling something crap. It's Garvin who does.
I guess I'm not up on the internal feuds that are going on. I like the statement at face value. People have opinions, and I do myself. Sarcastic or not, I like the statement as it was written.
I have no problem with someone calling something "crap." Only with those people who cannot tell us why something is "crap", and then when another explains why it is not "crap", the brilliant rejoinder that it is "crap." Give me analysis, not conclusions. Shed the light on your inability to do more than simply shout conclusions.
Tragically, your uninformed opinion provides almost all of the olive-brown parrot foo deposited here and the threads don't scroll fast enough to sweep it all under the virtual carpet. The pretentiousness of your praise for so much foreign "soap opera" cinema while denouncing a well crafted epic like the LoTR trilogy (i.e., a series of films which lifts the human spirit and challenges the imagination of the viewer), smacks of chutzpah worthy of immediate dismissal and ridicule. Why don't you tell us how great Tvarsky's Solar-plexis (Solaris) is again? You know, the one with the seemingly endless tunnel sequence that had Sominex contemplating a lawsuit! Or better yet, you and patrick can pop another cork on some Vichy water and wax poetic about some Grey Poupon French romantic snoozer that few, if any, give a rat's patootie about. Yeah, that's the ticket!AuPh
The same tune with so many variations ad nauseatum ...Try to explore other alternatives of thinking and writing, once we have read one of your missives we read them all.
You are boring.
;^)> > > "The same tune with so many variations ad nauseatum[sic] ..." < < <
Yeah, ...maybe ...just maybe you're beginning to get a clue, but if that is the case then you should inform your tag-team mate, Mr. V-chip-on-his-shoulder, ASAP. You see, there's no reason to vary one's comments when all we see is the same tired coprolitic sh*t from you guys! Don't kid yourself, you and Victor are the ad nauseum champs here.
> > > "You are boring." < < <
Ah, since you're speaking subjectively, quite possibly, but my topical posts aren't directed to just one or two people. BTW, objectivity isn't something we've come to expect from either you or Victor, so I'll rely on a wider consensus if you don't mind.
LoTR is a magnificent series of films; they're classics, PERIOD. If you don't like 'em for whatever reason(s), that's fine, but trashing works of artistic merit with ridiculous comments about cretinism personally insults everyone who appreciates Peter Jackson's epic achievement. I'll politely add that you & Victor should try to get over yourselves and learn to respect the tastes of others, especially if you want folks to give the works you feel passionately about a second thought.
AuPh
And I new you would not missed it! Kaka....Hein? You are so predictible!
But in a way you are fascinating the way you turn things around.
And the pervers way you tend to isolate people is Faschistoid.
Every one is entitle to have fun with debile films.
You too.
Particulary you.
Something must be lost in translation. My Webster's New World Broken-English Dictionary has no listing for "debile." At first, I thought maybe this is a pun, but naw, that requires cleverness. So, patrick, would you care to elaborate?AuPh
You can always ask me, I'll help you... even if you don't deserve it.Yes, LOTR is a horrible dreck. It was irritating in the extreme. But you may keep polishing that turd.
Victor, questions which beg to be asked:
(1) Which LOTR was "horrible dreck and irritating?"
A) If Part I was horrible dreck, then was Part II and III horrible dreck and irritating?B) If so, then why would you watch Part II and Part III knowing they were likely to be horrible dreck and irritating?
C) If not, then why comment on films you never saw?
D) If you you did not see all three films, then at what point in the film(s) you did see did you realize that it (they) was (were) horroble dreck and irritating?
E) If you realized that, let's say, based on your superior movie watching skills, that it (they) was (were) horrible dreck within 10 minutes, why would you continue to subject yourself to horrible dreck for more than another 2 1/2 hours, plus sequels, particularly when there are so many Masterpiece Theaters to be watched.
;^)BTW, I don't require a Russian interpretor to explain the ins and outs of over-the-top ramblings from Frenchman living in Germany. Multi-culturalism only goes so far, dude. :o)
AuPh
Patrick will.For the mind weak. But I wonder that you could not translate it.
Oh yes of course!
Apparently you're taking cleverness classes; good for you! But FYI, de only bile I see on this forum are posts contributed by you and Victor pushing Grey Poupon Euro-films like crack cocaine while dissing popular films and their viewers without just cause.AuPh
A rude debile.
;^)
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
nt
(nt)
nt
In this case (nt) stands for "nice try" as your trap apparently caught you instead, having been baited for weasel. ;^)Now how about addressing my speculation in my earlier post (i.e., in regard to cretinism, "One can only surmise what apparently did this to you.")? If you can't bring yourself to do that, then how about answering the question I posed in the subject line of this post!
BTW, next time, don't try asking questions to which you already know the answers (i.e., Have you bought the trilogy on DVD?) as a set-up for personal innuendo and more bashing of Director Jackson's wonderful epic.
Regards,
AuPh
Seen? Should I say no? No you want me to say yes as you know I have saw it, but it was out of curiousity and because I had free tickets. Happy?
Yes every one is some time a cretin. Some more some less.
Guess?
If that is the case, and by your own admission it DOES appear to be the case, then you are basing your narrow-minded viewpoint on incomplete impressions of Jackson's LoTR trilogy. You're kind of like folks over here who go around griping about the government, but rarely vote!AuPh
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Gee - tin and I actually agreed on it! Padre also was not enthused.
New York Times, quite a review to what I think.
- http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?oref=login&title1=Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (Movie)&title2=Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (Movie)&reviewer=A. O. Scott&v_id=280223 (Open in New Window)
Sorry that you did not like it!
I won´t repeat the arguments why I did like this film...Hehe
I will re-read your comments today. Positive reactions were common to this film, although on imdb there are quite a few people with reactions similar to mine. I usually read those only after viewing the film, but if you take a look, you will know what I mean.
Well on this film like on " Lost " it goes from very good to very bad.
I can not accuse the small pace of this film because of your temperament, as being some one who did get through " Solaris "...You should have been immune...Hehe.
M & C is very enjoyable for me even if real developments are missing.
BTW in France it has been very well recieved even from the " Cahiers " which, of course, do not make it better, I only wanted to mentionned that.
I am sorry but I reaaly thought you may have some fun out of it.PS: Forget every thing I said about " Lost " don´t look at it...Hehe
Of course the slow pace didn't bother me, IN ITSELF. Problem was what filled it was not too well done. In Solaris it was important, here you felt they had to fill the gaps.Let me clarify my reaction - I was more upset because I was expecting more, not because of the absulute merit of the film.
On its own it is a solid and highly professional work, albeit boring. I was simply expecting more, so perhaps my judgement was colored by this fact.
It is certainly good that film was made, and it is much better than perhaps 98% of films we get each year. It's just that it didn't have the grab.
Too late on Lost... it is already in the plan! :-( Shake in your boots!
Well I was teasing you with " Solaris "..( hehe remember ) I would be not foolish enough to compare both of them...Even I still have to do my home work and have to re-watch it.
I can understand why you did it find boring, it just failed to attract your attention, and I thought it would as it did for me.
But in the end I see it like you do, 98 % ....is more I would tell!PS: I am shaking....But " Lost " is really a good film, on a scale of ten for Hollywoodian´s films it would get a two " Master " a four.
From what I know about it it will probably score higher. Remember - I watched a part of it, so you can't fool me 100%! Only about 70%.If most Hollywood films were of the Master or Lost caliber life would be so much more pleasant.
An eight and a six for Master! Sorry I used the German way of thinking! ( a one is very good and a five is the worst )
a bit off topic but how did you manage to pay $29 for it? Seems very, very high. Given your strongly focused taste on film (not saying bad taste, but specific likes and dislikes) I'm surprised you didn't rent this first and then decide whether or not to keep it.
It was the collector's widescreen boxed set bought at Best Buy store. I didn't shop for it, I simply needed it for the night so I grabbed it on my way to the office. The regular set was I believe $19.99 there.As I said, based on what I read about it I thought it would become a safe multiple viewing... OK, call it a demo if you will.
So let's talk about movies.I thought Master and Commander was a great film. What do you think it lacked?
Elliot
About one third into the movie I turned them on. It helped in several spots. Their accent... my accent... all that noise didn't make it easy to understand some words.I also often turn the subs on on Russian movies.
You should try it too sometime.
Well, we are obviously not talking about some artistic endevour, just hopefully an edge-of-your-seat advanture film. It wasn't.It completely lacked any tension or intrigue. No mystery, no unexpected... just one cliche after another, all professionally quilted together.
For a great battle film it fell way too short - it most definitely wasn't a Waterloo or War and Peace. And since that was its main claim to fame it had little else to offer. It didn't have the excitement of better action films like Ronin.
So I thought overall it was a solid C. Maybe B-.
OK, I see what you're saying. I guess I just saw it differently. I think it transcended it's genre and worked as a character study that merged with and into a certain amount of action. In other words I thought it succeeded at being more (or less) than the typical action/adventure film. To each his own...
Elliot
It almost restored my faith in commercial cinema.
All along I felt like I could get up and leave at any moment without much regret, and come back later to finish it when I would have time... days later if necessary. With some actions films if you have to go to bathroom, you run, and you leave the door open so you would miss as little as possible. With this one it was indifferent.
M&C isn't really an "action" film. It's more a slow burn, filled with detail, take you back in time kind of adventure. Which suited me perfectly.I should also say that I'm a long-time fan of the books the film is based on, and I was quite pleased with Weir's and John Collee's (screenwriter) take on the Aubrey/Maturin series. (Which, BTW, doesn't adapt any one book.)
I think the marketing for the film promised a big actioner, Gladiator-on-the-sea kind of blockbuster, which it is not.
Salon.com and David Poland's Hot Button had the best reviews of the movie.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
