On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:20:34 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:30:31 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:28:39 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:49:15 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:28:16 +0000, Don White wrote:

There's been a bit of talk about 'Master & Commander' and "capt
Hornblower' off & on here. Meet the original.....
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/483801.html

"Master and Commander" covers chapter 2 (approximately) of a
Cochrane biography I read a few years ago...

/Martin

Are you referring to the movie or the book?

The book!

The film has very little in common with the book apart from
the title. As bad as it gets IMHO.

/Martin

I'd have to go back and see the movie again, but I think
it was taken from a few parts of several of the Aubrey series.

I recognised maybe two details from "Master and Commander" (the only
in the series I have read) and all the rest was pure Hollywood
as far as I could see. The main characters were so badly changed
that nothing of what is in the book was left.

And then you have things like that British and French naval units
never fought in the Pacific during the Napoleonic era or when they
play music together at the end of the film it is a piece that
was written much later in the 19th century. Just to pick
two nits.

My main problems with the film are really how one-dimensional
they managed to make the main characters and how they turned a rather
exciting, action-packed novel into not so exciting, pasteurised
Hollywood product.

Sorry for the rant.

/Martin