Load of rubbish!!
... View MoreGood start, but then it gets ruined
... View MoreGreat example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
... View MoreThis is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama
... View MoreThis is an unsuccessful effort with fine actors and beautiful views of the sea and sailing vessels. It is by far the most disappointing performance I have seen by William Hurt, an actor who has given us many fine performances. I suppose it is too much to hope that there will ever be a film that actually spends time on the essential things in the novel, since they are not that cinematic in nature. The most effective part of the film is the representation of Nantucket, replete with a scene from a church service. The ship's masthead on the pulpit is quite striking and authentic. Otherwise, this film struggles to take a new approach to an old subject, but the result is sometimes ludicrous. There are several instances of modern-day idioms which make one cringe, given the context of nineteenth-century speech (e.g. "I'm just messin' with you"). The crew members are shown gleefully singing sea shanties as if this is the real reason they have gone to sea, the camera zooms in on their faces so the audience will see how awestruck they are at the sight of a whale, and the computer-generated image of Moby Dick is just plain laugh-out-loud ridiculous. The crew shouting "Moby Dick, Moby Dick, . . ." sounds like something from a football pep rally. (You almost expect them to spell it out next "M-O-B-Y-D-I-C-K"). Ishmael's narration of the story is minimal, so much so that it seems almost out of place. The totally invented part about the child lost at sea and miraculously found is never explained or rationalized. How did he suddenly become separated and how could Ishmael possibly have known where to look? The film begins with a soon-to-be neurotic and obsessed Captain Ahab having dinner peacefully at home with his wife and child. The ship sets out from Nantucket for some reason. (In the book it is New Bedford. What on earth did this change hope to accomplish?) In short, this movie is part action film, part cartoon.
... View MoreThe best thing about this adaptation is the cast, featuring decent actors in even fairly minor roles, e.g. Gillian Anderson who plays the captain's wife, and Donald Sutherland who plays the preacher. Eddie Marsan, an extremely underrated actor, is probably the star turn here, playing a very thuggish Stubb. Starbuck (Ethan Hawke) and Queequeg (Trujillo) are also well portrayed.However, the film falls down on the two main (human) characters Ishmael (Cox) and Ahab (Hurt). Cox isn't bad, but he's also not that good either. William Hurt, though is miscast. He mumbles through a lot of the performance, and does not look fanatical enough. Sometimes when he's delivering angry speeches, he comes over as a kind uncle. Shame really, since Hurt has turned in decent performances elsewhere.Both Nantucket and the Pequod are recreated well. The CGI is respectable, showing that a decent amount of money was spent on the production. However, cynics will notice that with the exception of a single storm scene, the ship seems to sail on ridiculously calm seas.Moby Dick doesn't transfer to the screen well, as many of the book's fans constantly remind us. This adaptation is one of the better ones. This version is probably not as good as the Peck film, but I think it's better than the Patrick Stewart miniseries. (Stewart - again a good actor, was miscast as Ahab). As for the liberties taken with the storyline - I think these have been exaggerated - the inclusion of Ahab's wife is a major change, but not as intrusive as you might think.
... View MoreHollywood has been making Moby Dick movies for almost 100 years. Why, after all this time, has nobody gotten it right? John Huston tried, and did the best of anyone. Peck was the right man for the job and the script was pretty solid. Enough cannot be said about Orson Welles' turn as Father Mapple. But it had its flaws. Richard Basehart was completely miscast as Ishmael.In this version, there was a misfired attempt to to give Ahab a back story, complete with a wife and child and a kind disposition. It completely destroyed the core of the character. Ahab was reclusive, mean and bitter. We only should hear murmurings about him initially, not see him giving advice to his son at the dinner table or kissing his lovely wife as they relax in the parlor.And what was that ridiculous nonsense about Ishmael saving Pip from his abusive owner at the beginning? Was it simply a device to get him to say the opening "Call me Ishmael" line? When the makers of these films try to give progressive qualities to the heroes... well, it simply comes off as forced. Melville does a wonderful job of it already. His interactions with Queequeg, especially in the beginning, are tremendously touching. This was almost completely ignored in this version, replaced by Ishmael acting as another clichéd White Savior.Also, quite inexplicably, the location of the docked Pequod was changed from New Bedford to Nantucket. What was the point of that?, I kept asking myself.The cast all seems happy to be there. Gillian Anderson does her best to continue to act like she's British. Hurt, as Ahab, is fairly impotent. Ethan Hawke's hastily grown mustache did the bulk of the heavy lifting as Starbuck. The rest came straight from Central Casting.What does this have going for it? Weeeell. . . Charlie Cox was OK, if a little stiff. Slightly better at it than Henry Thomas, I should say.Watch this if you love Moby Dick, but don't expect too much. Certainly don't watch this one if you're trying to write an essay for your high school English class. Your teacher will know right away you were too lazy to read the book.
... View More"Moby Dick" is my favorite novel. I have read it many times. William Hurt and Ethan Hawke are two of my favorite actors. So I had high hopes for this movie version. My hopes were diminished slightly in the opening scene where Ishmael, the main character, saves Pip, the future cabin boy, from a beating on the way to Nantucket and brings him along. That scene never happened in the book. Pip doesn't show up until they are all on the ship, but I know that some liberties need to be taken in a translation from novel to movie, so I dismissed it. Then my hopes were completely dashed over the next 3 hours. In those 3 hours there were about 15 minutes worth of film that were actually taken from the book. It is as though the screenwriter read the back cover of the novel, where it says that it is the story of an obsessed captain chasing a white whale and wrote a completely new story based on nothing but that. One of the more obvious things is that, in the book, Ahab, the captain, doesn't even appear until days into the sea voyage when he finally emerges from his cabin. In the movie the first half hour or more involves him at home with his wife and son, neither of which are even in the book at all. Even the climactic ending has been changed a great deal. It would take up too much space to write about all the other things that are completely different from the novel. Basically this is not a film version of "Moby Dick" at all, it is an invention of the screenwriter, based on a similar idea.Forgetting all that, the movie itself, as a movie, is just not that good. The direction is OK and the performances are all relatively good, except for Hurt, who is, as another reviewer said "hammy" and "cheesy". He should have played a sandwich instead of Ahab. The special effects are sub par, considering what can be done nowadays. The whales shown often don't even make a splash when they dive under. They just disappear. The plot is thin with none of the characters really developed in any way, except perhaps for Starbuck the first mate, who is the only one in the movie who seems to even realize what is going on. Two earlier versions, the 1956 version with Gregory Peck and the 1998 version with Patrick Stewart, despite their own flaws were much better movies and more faithful adaptations of the novel than this one. So watch those, or even better read the book.
... View More