LouHomey From my favorite movies..

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

TanQ I'm a sailor and being a sailor I love sailing movies. I also loved Moby Dick, a book that's touching, humorous, thrilling and a deep exploration of the human condition. I was excited to finally get a chance to watch this film, thinking it was an adaptation of that great book. Within the first few lines of dialogue I thought, wait a minute, this writing is terrible. Then I realized this wasn't Moby Dick.The story of the Essex, the whaling ship that inspired Moby Dick, is a harrowing tale of survival. In the Heart of the Sea is not that story. Instead, it's a bland and meandering tale. I don't know how they managed to take a survival story with truly horrifying elements and reduced it to this CGI screensaver but I have some suspicions. Ron Howard should have been my first warning. He's a director that could make the Battle of Stalingrad feel like two hours waiting in a cafeteria line. It's truly appalling. Anyone who's been on a sailboat knows how dynamic the experience can be. They also know how sedate it can feel, as well. Howard focuses on the sedate. He truly has no idea what to do with drama and I can't understand how people keep letting him direct things. Instead of depth and subtlety, we get pedestrian and direct. Another problem is Chris Hemsworth. Hemsworth is the perfect superhero actor. His ability to spout throwaway catchphrases is commendable. His attempts at drama, awkward at best. I would like to think that part of the problem was the script, it's just awful. But better actors have done more with less. Nicholas Cage can turn crap into gold. Hemsworth just looks confused and unsure of himself. He may become a great actor, but I think he'll have to find a direction other than drama. People may defend this film, although I don't know how. I think the biggest flaw was they tried to take a harrowing tale and turn it into a popcorn adventure story. It just doesn't work. When I think of other true stories done far, far better I think of Alive, the 1993 film of a plane crash in the Andes - a gripping tale that gets over the action filled plane crash and focuses on the survivors actions until their rescue. Even Blind Spot. Hitler's Secretary, a documentary where an old woman talks for an hour and a half in a monotone in German was far more gripping than In the Heart of the Sea. Thinking about this, I now think I understand the greatest problem with Howard's film. It tries so hard to give itself some sense of importance by dwelling too much on it's connection with Melville's masterpiece. It forces the whaling aspect of the film while completely missing out on what whaling was all about. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that no one connected with this film had actually read Moby Dick. If they did, they would realize how much of the book is on whaling and why. I'm sure Howard just looked and thought "Moby Dick is a story about whaling so we have to have whaling stuff." He completely misses that Moby Dick is a story about revenge and madness but the Essex is a story about survival. So instead of the survival we get this forced connection with Moby Dick. It's dull, rambling and pointless. Skip this movie.

morrison-dylan-fan After watching the marvellous 1976 film Bartleby,I started looking for other Herman Melville-related projects. Trying to sail in a different direction to the famous productions of Moby Dick,I was intrigued to find a flick about the inspiration behind Melville's book,which led to me meeting the real Captain Ahab.The plot-1850:Wanting to build on the outline for his next set-at sea novel, author Herman Melville tracks down Thomas Nickerson,a former cabin boy who is the only living survivor of the sinking of the Essex. Pushed with money by Melville,Nickerson begins telling his tale.1820:Cashing in on the whale oil gold rush, whaling company includes some quick additions to the Essex so it can go whale hunting. Hiring Nickerson as a cabin boy,the company get Owen Chase as First Mate and George Pollard as Captain. Going deep into the Offshore Grounds,the crew try to catch a white whale,but fail to,and are left with a broken ship. Stranded in the middle of the sea,the crew enter the heart of darkness of the ocean.View on the film:Racing down from the race tracks of Rush with the same lead actor and cameraman,director Ron Howard & cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle ride the wave of "Golden Age" Hollywood epics, where sweeping crane shots over the beautiful Canary Islands and very well done earthy CGI make the ocean go as far across the screen as the eye can see.Harpooning the crew into the depths of the sea,Howard washes the bright blockbuster blue away for over saturated burning yellows and blood reds dehydrating any memory of adventure from the crew.Altering the fascinating real story behind Nickerson's autobiography (he wrote it in 1876,and it remained lost until 1960!) the screenplay by Charles Leavitt/ Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver brings to shore the friction Chase and Pollard over who should be the captain,whilst the crew keep their eyes on the task at hand. Carving out the boys own Adventure into incredibly dark themes that include suicide,the writers give the months lost at sea a real weight,where the dialogue,and the life drain out of the survivors.Reuniting with Howard, Chris Hemsworth gives Chase a salty gravitas,which Hemsworth uses as a uniting glue among the others. Following orders from Benjamin Walker's slick Pollard, Tom Holland wonderfully grinds down the wide-eyed innocence of young Nickerson,as he enters the belly of the beast.

emilywes56 It seems there is a misleading here. This movie is not based on the classic book of Moby Dick, but on the book that was published in 2001, called "In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex". I really enjoyed the movie, but it has nothing to do with the story of Moby Dick. It is a bit of a fraud to be honest. Someone just published a similar story like Moby Dick with another name and of course not the same context (Moby Dick is superior and one of the best books ever) so that they could present us a movie with happy end, likable characters etc. For me, this dishonor the writer of Moby Dick, Herman Melville. The movie moved me and I really enjoyed this story, I loved how nature is depicted and that for once again humans are greedy creatures that do not respect other beings. But that does not change the fact that director wanted an easy movie, and not one that would be based in the ruthless reality about sea, nature and man.

Francisca silva irarrazabal Why the hell would anyone want to make a movie about how these stupid men try to kill one of the most beautiful creatures that existed The planet and are about to get FUC**NG extinct?? like what the hell......this happened about 100 years ago, and they made a movie about this!? why??? It's disgusting and horrible to see how this peaceful animals get killed... they were at the border of extinction for the freaking oil.. for humans... what the hell seriously. I saw a part of the movie, the whales were all together swimming around this freaking monsters just being beautiful beings... there was even a baby whale... i mean why putting a baby whale (even if it's by freaking computing animation) whats the point of that? ... just bad. bad movie