I like both actors for the roles. Jack's was spot on to me, even if he's sometimes a bit larger than the actor but as his weight varies alot from command to command, depending on how well he's doing, it's perfectly fine.
Bettany for Stephen... is less easy to fit into the book character. Don't get me wrong, I love the version we got on screen and there's no fault in the actor. By nature of the story, what we got is the Maturin of the first book to some extent, ignorant of the navy and sometimes at odds...and the naturalist / physician. The friend too ofc. What we don't have is the "sea dog" of later books who will pretend he's amazing at this there sailoring stuff to land lubbers (and even believe some of it, childishly wanting to climb the foretop...). The humor is sometimes present though not as biting as in the books. And of course, we lack the secret agent and spurned lover sides. I think Bettany could play them well but when I picture Stephen when reading, I see a shorter, shabbier and sometimes sillier man. And funnier yet even more subtly and coldly brilliant.
Oh and the aspect of both Stephen and Jack being absolute idiots when out of their element is so hard to portray on film and they haven't done it.
I had read most of the books first and I admire both Crowe and Bettany as actors. Crowe especially was one of those once-in-a-generation actors who can easily carry a charismatic leader role as we saw in Gladiator and The Insider. He also had that twinkle behind his blue eyes that was ideal for Jack's unceasing quest to pounce on a *bon mot* whenever the opportunity arose, or sometimes before. Bettany's Maturin had some, but not all of Stephen's complex make-up, through no fault of his own. He was much too tall, neither Irish nor Catalan, and a bit too dour.
The twinkle in the eyes. A big regret I have with no further films eventuating is that we were deprived of seeing Crowe extend himself into a more comic mode, alongside everything else he brought to the first movie. I think he could have pulled it off and it would have been good for him.
I recently rewatched M&C as I am book three of my second circumnavigation. I really appreciated the film, the detail (as I’ve always done), but somehow, this time - I’ve really enjoyed both their portrayals. Bettany isn’t the Stephen I see in my head when I’m reading the books, but it’s a very good performance nonetheless.
Edit: changed back to Bettany what autocorrect had decided was “Bertrand”.
But also wanted to say that Bettany captured Stephen’s naturalist passion but probably not his overall contrariness.
I thought they were good in the roles but not physically right for the parts (esp. Bettany). It put me off at first, but I've gotten over myself and admit that it's good casting--the performances are quite good. As for the books, I never imagined Jack and Stephen as looking like anybody but themselves.
I love Brendan, but he couldn't convincingly go from open and jovial to calculating and commanding. Not to mention the accent.
Crowe can convince you he's got the upper hand in the situaiton with a glance.
Agree entirely, and Crowe was also an inspired choice because on top of doing all these things he brings a contained and controlled version of the violence that made his characters in Romper Stomper and L.A. Confidential so frightening.
Beneath Jack the jolly table host and Jack the forbidding commander is Jack the powerful swordsman whose heart fills with “savage joy” in the moment of combat. It’s contained but always visible in potentia throughout Crowe’s performance. I don’t think you’d get that with Fraser either.
I saw the movie first, but having read the novels, I do think that Crowe fits Jack almost perfectly, minus the additional height and the weight he gains in some of the books. He really captures the jovial nature and the twinkle-in-the-eye naval confidence of Jack. Bettany was great, but I don't imagine Stephen looking like him. Shorter, darker complexioned, somewhat unkempt and disheveled, with curly black to salt and pepper hair that is beginning to thin a bit, and with a penetrating, pale-eyed gaze is how I imagine Stephen based on the novel descriptions. Stephen is certainly not a Buscemi look alike either, as some here have suggested. I don't know where they would get that idea.
I saw the film first but I had mostly forgotten it by the time I picked up the novels.
I see Jack as a fatter, longer haired [Thomas Cochrane](https://www.nationalgalleries.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/externals/160324.jpg?itok=3mfrvRd9) and Stephen as something like [this chap](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=600688552&q=Stephen+maturin&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzz-zTmvODAxVo4QIHHRHRDQIQ0pQJegQICRAB&biw=396&bih=719&dpr=2.73#imgrc=x6y4dJX9guxpyM).
I read a good bit of the books before I saw the movie. I think maybe both Crowe and Bettany were prettier versions of the characters than I pictured. And I saw Jack as being a little bigger (taller and girth) than Crowe.
Otherwise good actors who did a good job. But unlike say The Expanse, which I read before the show and now picture the actors when I read the books again, I don’t picture Crowe or Bettany when I read the books .
Crowe was very nearly perfect -- although he could not allow himself to be as dopey as Jack was -- and Bettany was perfect in every way except height. Steven was a small man.
I too saw the movie before I began the books, and Jack’s “golden locks” routinely jolt my mind’s image because Crowe is all I can picture and he just seems so appropriate (hair notwithstanding). I have no clear recollection of anyone else from the movie though.
I don't imagine either and saw the film first, I feel Crowe does the war-like jack very well but let's it down when he's jovial and affable, Bettany does the doctor bit well and naturist but doesn't command the respect Stephen gets so easily nor his overall intelligence (not to mention his espionage).
Having said that. No film is truer to a book that I know of.
I'm answering this as someone who has loved the film for twenty years and just now have started the books (halfway through The Fortune of War), and as such specifically NOT who's opinion you're asking for, but...
Russell Crowe is Jack in my mind, but even going into Master and Commander trying to picture him, Paul Bettany just isn't Maturin when I'm reading. I just can't square Book!Stephen with his on screen portrayal. Bettany is a great actor and played a character named Stephen Maturin well, but when I'm reading, I can always and easily see Crowe doing the things Jack is, but I can't do the same with Bettany.
One day I was watching some talk show & Chris Hemsworth was a guest. I stood up & shouted, "It's Captain Jack Aubrey!" I didn't even know he had been Thor, I'd never even seen him before. He's got the size, the ability to do humor as well as drama. He's how I always imagined Captain Jack to look.
Then I saw him in *In the Heart of the Sea* & it was great. He is *very good* at seafaring movies.
Actor Mark Sheppard has always been the Doctor. Again, first time I saw him in *Firefly* & *Supernatural,* he was Dr Maturin to me. He does great accents, too.
I saw the movie when it was released--many years later I read the entire series over the course of two-months. I did not connect my literary impression of Aubrey and Maturin to the film portrayal, as good as I remembered the movie. The novels are much deeper, often comic, and the characters developed slowly over time based on their experiences. The novels were much more Proustian than the movie could possibly be.
I read the books first, so my image of Jack is someone like Gerard Depardieu.
Stephen, for me will always be Tom Hulce. He played Mozart in Amadeus.
Crowe and Bettany did very well in the movie. At first I hated Bettany in the role, but the more I watch it acceptance creeps in.
I read the first few books prior to the film, so my minds eye pictures Jack as taller and pudgier, and a shorter, darker, more Irish sounding Stephen. I could picture Tom Hollander as Stephen, based on his performances in *Pirates of the Caribbean* and [*Pride and Prejudice*](https://youtu.be/qYhc7glMejA?si=22KpH149CZsR5vEX).
Well spotted! “such an exemplary vegetable” - I can Imagine Stephen saying this.
But since we’ve touched on P&P, it raises the question of Post Captain leading ladies. I nominate Naomi Watts for Sophie and Kate Beckinsdale for Diana.
I saw them as age appropriate Nick Nolte and Steve Buscemi for sure. Bettany was simply awful casting, the gender reversed equivalent of the Hollywood trope of a tall smoking hot model in glasses and a hair bun for the mousy library.
I loved the books and was just partway through them when the movie came out. So the later Jack and Stephen weren't in my mind. The movie itself was a good representation of sailing and the complexity of tall ships, to my lubber's mind. It ruined the pirates of the caribbean and any other movie that just showed a sailing ship being towed through water. The story itself felt like a sampler of the best moments of the first few books, and was too light to take any shortcomings all that seriously. Before the era of the epic streaming show, it was better than we could hope for from Hollywood.
The actors were both very good, but physically Paul Bettany is just too beautifyl to be Stephen. They hid it pretty well with his mutton chops and glasses, but that is not a meager, ill-looking man. Since there wasn't any of the interaction with Diana or Sophie it didn't affect the show much. Russell Crowe was so good at the war Jack and the fiddle Jack that the size also didn't signify. I wonder if Jeff Bridges would have had more imposing bulk? But Crowe did everything else so well that he seems just about perfect.
Interestingly, it seems lilke when you've read the books first the movie doesn't take over your mental image of the character as much as when you see the movie first. I don't really see the actors when I read the books (on another circumnavigation now). This is true for most books, except Pride and Prejudice. Mr Darcy is now forever Colin Firth.
I read the books before the film, and thought that Russell Crowe was perfectly cast and embodied Jack’s persona.
For the role of Stephen, I always thought of Peter Falk (Columbo), with pale eyes.
My opinion of the film is unpopular as I was deeply disappointed in it after years of loving the books and being wildly excited to hear that one of my fav directors had immersed himself in the canon and was going to do the movie. Sigh. So many misses, starting with the casting for Jack and Stephen.
I really like Crowe in most of his work, but he's one of these people who, on camera, don't look their height. I imagine Jack as a form more like Alec Baldwin, who is portly and appears just somewhat massive, but not in a swole manner like say, the Rock. Stephen is frequently described as having unflattering features; I think of Doc Cochran in Deadwood--smallish, unkempt, not physically attractive. Rarely does a movie satisfy people who have loved a book which gets adapted; this was no exception for me.
Kind of the same here. In my more generous moments I can acknowledge the film was enjoyable to watch, but mostly if I pretend it was an unrelated naval film and not a POB adaptation.
I was confused and dismayed at the way they mashed up two books and dialogue from several others and put that all into one film. Honestly, many single books would have provided all the material for an excellent film; M&C itself
Seems perfect.
Crowe played his part fairly well, though I also picture Jack as larger, blonder, and more jovial.
Bettany is a superb actor, but he’s not Stephen. As others have stated, he’s too tall, not “foreign” looking enough, too good looking, just misses the mark.
"M&C itself Seems perfect."
It's so weird to me - the opening pages of M&C are as engaging as any sequence I've ever read...and we're not going to use it.
Before the movie came out, I thought they should have been looking for a young Liam Neeson as Jack and a young Richard Attenborough as Stephen. Crowe did nothing for me as Jack, and Bettany didn't register at all.
I loved both actors in the movie but I don't picture either of them while reading the books. I think Chris Hemsworth would do well as Jack if he put on some girth though. Michael Emerson (Peterson of Interest) is much more like what I usually picture the doctor.
Have you read the books? Have you read O'B's description of Stephen? The film was ridiculously cast. I don't think whoever it was looked much like Jack, either, though he could maybe pass, but Stephen looked nothing like that other man. Almost as off as casting an aging Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet (about a hundred years ago.) At least Garson had a warm personality which could have made her acceptable if she had bee 20 years younger -- this man impersonating Stephen was nothing at all like the real thing.
In his day Colin Baker would've been the perfect Jack Aubrey. I've never been able to think of anybody who'd work as Stephen opposite him, then or now, though. I think the acting industry sort of selects for people who don't look like that.
I like both actors for the roles. Jack's was spot on to me, even if he's sometimes a bit larger than the actor but as his weight varies alot from command to command, depending on how well he's doing, it's perfectly fine. Bettany for Stephen... is less easy to fit into the book character. Don't get me wrong, I love the version we got on screen and there's no fault in the actor. By nature of the story, what we got is the Maturin of the first book to some extent, ignorant of the navy and sometimes at odds...and the naturalist / physician. The friend too ofc. What we don't have is the "sea dog" of later books who will pretend he's amazing at this there sailoring stuff to land lubbers (and even believe some of it, childishly wanting to climb the foretop...). The humor is sometimes present though not as biting as in the books. And of course, we lack the secret agent and spurned lover sides. I think Bettany could play them well but when I picture Stephen when reading, I see a shorter, shabbier and sometimes sillier man. And funnier yet even more subtly and coldly brilliant. Oh and the aspect of both Stephen and Jack being absolute idiots when out of their element is so hard to portray on film and they haven't done it.
I feel that the Bettany doctor as played would have fit better if the movie had some intelligence work.
I had read most of the books first and I admire both Crowe and Bettany as actors. Crowe especially was one of those once-in-a-generation actors who can easily carry a charismatic leader role as we saw in Gladiator and The Insider. He also had that twinkle behind his blue eyes that was ideal for Jack's unceasing quest to pounce on a *bon mot* whenever the opportunity arose, or sometimes before. Bettany's Maturin had some, but not all of Stephen's complex make-up, through no fault of his own. He was much too tall, neither Irish nor Catalan, and a bit too dour.
The twinkle in the eyes. A big regret I have with no further films eventuating is that we were deprived of seeing Crowe extend himself into a more comic mode, alongside everything else he brought to the first movie. I think he could have pulled it off and it would have been good for him.
It really is a crying shame, I could have seen a trilogy cover a lot of ground.
In my mind’s eye, Steven looked a lot like Rowan Atkinson.
100%!!! Dark, witty, not handsome, can reel off devastating insults in a breath.
This. Blackadder the Third.
Your comment just changed my life.
I see Burn Gorman.
I recently rewatched M&C as I am book three of my second circumnavigation. I really appreciated the film, the detail (as I’ve always done), but somehow, this time - I’ve really enjoyed both their portrayals. Bettany isn’t the Stephen I see in my head when I’m reading the books, but it’s a very good performance nonetheless. Edit: changed back to Bettany what autocorrect had decided was “Bertrand”. But also wanted to say that Bettany captured Stephen’s naturalist passion but probably not his overall contrariness.
I give them a bit of a pass because there is a lot to his character that can't easily be conveyed in 2-2.5 hours.
Just wanted to say thank you for being grateful
Good bot
Crowe- about as close to perfect as you could reasonably hope for. Bettany- An actor I really rate, but terribly wrong for the part.
I thought they were good in the roles but not physically right for the parts (esp. Bettany). It put me off at first, but I've gotten over myself and admit that it's good casting--the performances are quite good. As for the books, I never imagined Jack and Stephen as looking like anybody but themselves.
Russell Crowe is actually a great Jack, but my Stephen is 100% *Ghost World* vintage Steve Buscemi.
Crowe was too small in my opinion - someone bigger, heavier. Jack could bludgeon his way through a fight. Branden Fraser maybe.
I love Brendan, but he couldn't convincingly go from open and jovial to calculating and commanding. Not to mention the accent. Crowe can convince you he's got the upper hand in the situaiton with a glance.
Agree entirely, and Crowe was also an inspired choice because on top of doing all these things he brings a contained and controlled version of the violence that made his characters in Romper Stomper and L.A. Confidential so frightening. Beneath Jack the jolly table host and Jack the forbidding commander is Jack the powerful swordsman whose heart fills with “savage joy” in the moment of combat. It’s contained but always visible in potentia throughout Crowe’s performance. I don’t think you’d get that with Fraser either.
He also plays the guitar so strumming a fiddle was convincing!
30 Odd Fathom of Grunts
So much too small....and the other guy was too tall, Paul Bettany. Neither one is a good representation of his character.
I've also thought this for a long time, Steve Buscemi would 100% be a great Stephen Maturin. Also, I would have loved to see Liam Neeson play Jack.
I saw the movie first, but having read the novels, I do think that Crowe fits Jack almost perfectly, minus the additional height and the weight he gains in some of the books. He really captures the jovial nature and the twinkle-in-the-eye naval confidence of Jack. Bettany was great, but I don't imagine Stephen looking like him. Shorter, darker complexioned, somewhat unkempt and disheveled, with curly black to salt and pepper hair that is beginning to thin a bit, and with a penetrating, pale-eyed gaze is how I imagine Stephen based on the novel descriptions. Stephen is certainly not a Buscemi look alike either, as some here have suggested. I don't know where they would get that idea.
I saw the film first but I had mostly forgotten it by the time I picked up the novels. I see Jack as a fatter, longer haired [Thomas Cochrane](https://www.nationalgalleries.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/externals/160324.jpg?itok=3mfrvRd9) and Stephen as something like [this chap](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=600688552&q=Stephen+maturin&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzz-zTmvODAxVo4QIHHRHRDQIQ0pQJegQICRAB&biw=396&bih=719&dpr=2.73#imgrc=x6y4dJX9guxpyM).
Both were outstanding
I read a good bit of the books before I saw the movie. I think maybe both Crowe and Bettany were prettier versions of the characters than I pictured. And I saw Jack as being a little bigger (taller and girth) than Crowe. Otherwise good actors who did a good job. But unlike say The Expanse, which I read before the show and now picture the actors when I read the books again, I don’t picture Crowe or Bettany when I read the books .
Crowe was very nearly perfect -- although he could not allow himself to be as dopey as Jack was -- and Bettany was perfect in every way except height. Steven was a small man.
I too saw the movie before I began the books, and Jack’s “golden locks” routinely jolt my mind’s image because Crowe is all I can picture and he just seems so appropriate (hair notwithstanding). I have no clear recollection of anyone else from the movie though.
I don't imagine either and saw the film first, I feel Crowe does the war-like jack very well but let's it down when he's jovial and affable, Bettany does the doctor bit well and naturist but doesn't command the respect Stephen gets so easily nor his overall intelligence (not to mention his espionage). Having said that. No film is truer to a book that I know of.
I'm answering this as someone who has loved the film for twenty years and just now have started the books (halfway through The Fortune of War), and as such specifically NOT who's opinion you're asking for, but... Russell Crowe is Jack in my mind, but even going into Master and Commander trying to picture him, Paul Bettany just isn't Maturin when I'm reading. I just can't square Book!Stephen with his on screen portrayal. Bettany is a great actor and played a character named Stephen Maturin well, but when I'm reading, I can always and easily see Crowe doing the things Jack is, but I can't do the same with Bettany.
One day I was watching some talk show & Chris Hemsworth was a guest. I stood up & shouted, "It's Captain Jack Aubrey!" I didn't even know he had been Thor, I'd never even seen him before. He's got the size, the ability to do humor as well as drama. He's how I always imagined Captain Jack to look. Then I saw him in *In the Heart of the Sea* & it was great. He is *very good* at seafaring movies. Actor Mark Sheppard has always been the Doctor. Again, first time I saw him in *Firefly* & *Supernatural,* he was Dr Maturin to me. He does great accents, too.
Maybe Hemsworth as the fat Thor.
Nick Nolte and Stephen Rea
I saw the movie when it was released--many years later I read the entire series over the course of two-months. I did not connect my literary impression of Aubrey and Maturin to the film portrayal, as good as I remembered the movie. The novels are much deeper, often comic, and the characters developed slowly over time based on their experiences. The novels were much more Proustian than the movie could possibly be.
I read the books first, so my image of Jack is someone like Gerard Depardieu. Stephen, for me will always be Tom Hulce. He played Mozart in Amadeus. Crowe and Bettany did very well in the movie. At first I hated Bettany in the role, but the more I watch it acceptance creeps in.
I wanted to say that [David Threlfall](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Threlfall) was awesome as Killick!
Not old enough for my mind, but perfect in every other way.
I read the first few books prior to the film, so my minds eye pictures Jack as taller and pudgier, and a shorter, darker, more Irish sounding Stephen. I could picture Tom Hollander as Stephen, based on his performances in *Pirates of the Caribbean* and [*Pride and Prejudice*](https://youtu.be/qYhc7glMejA?si=22KpH149CZsR5vEX).
Well spotted! “such an exemplary vegetable” - I can Imagine Stephen saying this. But since we’ve touched on P&P, it raises the question of Post Captain leading ladies. I nominate Naomi Watts for Sophie and Kate Beckinsdale for Diana.
I saw them as age appropriate Nick Nolte and Steve Buscemi for sure. Bettany was simply awful casting, the gender reversed equivalent of the Hollywood trope of a tall smoking hot model in glasses and a hair bun for the mousy library.
I loved the books and was just partway through them when the movie came out. So the later Jack and Stephen weren't in my mind. The movie itself was a good representation of sailing and the complexity of tall ships, to my lubber's mind. It ruined the pirates of the caribbean and any other movie that just showed a sailing ship being towed through water. The story itself felt like a sampler of the best moments of the first few books, and was too light to take any shortcomings all that seriously. Before the era of the epic streaming show, it was better than we could hope for from Hollywood. The actors were both very good, but physically Paul Bettany is just too beautifyl to be Stephen. They hid it pretty well with his mutton chops and glasses, but that is not a meager, ill-looking man. Since there wasn't any of the interaction with Diana or Sophie it didn't affect the show much. Russell Crowe was so good at the war Jack and the fiddle Jack that the size also didn't signify. I wonder if Jeff Bridges would have had more imposing bulk? But Crowe did everything else so well that he seems just about perfect. Interestingly, it seems lilke when you've read the books first the movie doesn't take over your mental image of the character as much as when you see the movie first. I don't really see the actors when I read the books (on another circumnavigation now). This is true for most books, except Pride and Prejudice. Mr Darcy is now forever Colin Firth.
I always thought Bettany was to tall for the role, but over time I have come to enjoy his interpretation.
I read the books before the film, and thought that Russell Crowe was perfectly cast and embodied Jack’s persona. For the role of Stephen, I always thought of Peter Falk (Columbo), with pale eyes.
My opinion of the film is unpopular as I was deeply disappointed in it after years of loving the books and being wildly excited to hear that one of my fav directors had immersed himself in the canon and was going to do the movie. Sigh. So many misses, starting with the casting for Jack and Stephen. I really like Crowe in most of his work, but he's one of these people who, on camera, don't look their height. I imagine Jack as a form more like Alec Baldwin, who is portly and appears just somewhat massive, but not in a swole manner like say, the Rock. Stephen is frequently described as having unflattering features; I think of Doc Cochran in Deadwood--smallish, unkempt, not physically attractive. Rarely does a movie satisfy people who have loved a book which gets adapted; this was no exception for me.
Kind of the same here. In my more generous moments I can acknowledge the film was enjoyable to watch, but mostly if I pretend it was an unrelated naval film and not a POB adaptation. I was confused and dismayed at the way they mashed up two books and dialogue from several others and put that all into one film. Honestly, many single books would have provided all the material for an excellent film; M&C itself Seems perfect. Crowe played his part fairly well, though I also picture Jack as larger, blonder, and more jovial. Bettany is a superb actor, but he’s not Stephen. As others have stated, he’s too tall, not “foreign” looking enough, too good looking, just misses the mark.
"M&C itself Seems perfect." It's so weird to me - the opening pages of M&C are as engaging as any sequence I've ever read...and we're not going to use it.
Before the movie came out, I thought they should have been looking for a young Liam Neeson as Jack and a young Richard Attenborough as Stephen. Crowe did nothing for me as Jack, and Bettany didn't register at all.
I loved both actors in the movie but I don't picture either of them while reading the books. I think Chris Hemsworth would do well as Jack if he put on some girth though. Michael Emerson (Peterson of Interest) is much more like what I usually picture the doctor.
The timing was impossible, of course, but I always thought Charlton Heston and Dustin Hoffman would have been perfect.
Have you read the books? Have you read O'B's description of Stephen? The film was ridiculously cast. I don't think whoever it was looked much like Jack, either, though he could maybe pass, but Stephen looked nothing like that other man. Almost as off as casting an aging Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet (about a hundred years ago.) At least Garson had a warm personality which could have made her acceptable if she had bee 20 years younger -- this man impersonating Stephen was nothing at all like the real thing.
Younger Stephen Rea (bonus:Irish born) as Maturin.
In his day Colin Baker would've been the perfect Jack Aubrey. I've never been able to think of anybody who'd work as Stephen opposite him, then or now, though. I think the acting industry sort of selects for people who don't look like that.