Purely Joyful Movie!

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

There was no spirit to this film. It was watchable, but not in any way compelling. If the intention was for viewers to feel some emotion with regard to what was said at the inquiry at the end then the film did not achieve that aim in my view, as it made no difference to me either way.For a far better tale of fishermen in the relatively recent past I would suggest Perfect Storm which drew me into the story completely.

IN THE HEART OF THE SEA is an energetic and old-fashioned high seas adventure directed by Ron Howard and based on the same true story that inspired Herman Melville to write MOBY DICK. Unfortunately this leads to an extensive framing narrative involving Brendan Gleeson's salty old sea-dog and Ben Whishaw playing Melville, seeking material for his next novel. At times the narrative will be in the heart of the action before jumping back to the present, but they should have dropped this flabby extension of the running time all together to focus on the main story. It's the usual tale of survival at sea against the odds, with a battle against an abnormally large whale making up the heart of the narrative. Unfortunately, Howard gets obsessed with CGI here and at times the film is nothing more than a series of shots of actors against a green screen interacting with CGI. Still, the human drama is quite engrossing, and the cast is surprisingly good; Hemsworth flexs his acting chops unshackled from THOR, while Cillian Murphy, Joseph Mawle, Tom Holland and Frank Dillane all get their moments to shine.

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.

A prequel to a work of fiction. The conflict between the captain and first mate, mentioned near the beginning of the movie is not borne out by the rest of the movie. In fact, all the characters are secondary to the whale whose presence dominates the story. It's all about the whale that refuses to die and trashes an entire ship. The movie does a good job in depicting the challenges associated with whaling and why it was such an important industry. Chris Hemsworth offers an excellent portrayal of the first mate, Chase, who is at odds with the captain, Pollard, who got the job through nepotism. The movie tries to play up the class differences separating the two men, but the captain isn't arrogant enough nor the first mate resentful enough to generate any intense drama. Whether all the crew will survive is another question, and it is that aspect of the story that gives the movie its dramatic power. These men risked their lives to fuel the country and were the heroes of their time. The movie shows that and for that reason is worth watching.