In the Heart of the Sea

A notch down in quality after Rush, of course, but you wouldn’t have expected otherwise with this slow historical tale. Howard knows how to get the sea atmosphere right, and he knows how to work with a generous production design. Pity about the CGI, is not only artificial at first glance (it almost always is), but also not very pretty to watch. But the treatment of the original story is generally on par, and unlike its contemporary on the same level, Bridge of Spies, also occupying cinemas, this film has a lot more life, personality and emotion. Roque Baños will be the new Hans Zimmer in a few years. (06/12/2015)

A digital sea, a famously moving camera, and useless protagonists. Howard's confident dexterity handles things for the first half, but the second half, when the waves calm down, is accompanied by his traditional pain - zero passion. The characters speak from behind fake beards and swollen lips, but there’s really no emotion to it. Fail. 2 and a ½. PS: The digi visual is the ultimate cornea-burning bullshit. (04/03/2016)

The problem with this movie is that it was made by Ron Howard. So before I even put the movie on, I was expecting a cinematographic quality. In the end, I ultimately got it. But it was worse with the plot that actually tells a story about how people destroy nature and how nature, because it can, returns the favor with the same force. So not only did I not hold a grudge against that whale, but even the fishermen didn’t bring out any emotions in me. Not even in the moment when they were dying in a long and disgusting way on the remains of the ship after a month in the middle of an ocean. But Ron is a director with a capital D and despite this, he prepared a few unforgettable scenes and quality moments you cannot overlook. But still, the story and the emotions connected with it knocked the movie down to being average, which proves how easy a story can affect an otherwise quality movie. (01/06/2016)

What is a letdown for me is that "story-telling" line provides disproportionately more interesting characters (and also actors) than the "narrative" line where only shallow characters show up. And while Hemsworth carries the movies, at least because of his charisma, Walker doesn't. What is an even a bigger letdown is that it is often so obviously digital. There are not so many movies where it is so obvious that the actors are standing in front of a green screen in the studio, and all the rising waves and sea vermin are added subsequently. But even this can be done in such a way that you will not know it, but this is not the case. This is highlighted by the fact that, with a few exceptions, the camera zooms in on the actors’s faces and bodies in these scenes, which is rather unusual. Fortunately, there aren't that many these scenes, and as soon as it takes place in classic interiors and locations, it suddenly works much better. And why did I use a word letdown when talking about these two shortcomings? Because otherwise it's true classic (maybe too much though) manly old school maritime adventure movie about survival. (04/12/2015)

Ron Howard makes great movies and average movies, and this one falls into the second category. I was particularly struck by how uninteresting the ocean scenes were and how they lacked atmosphere, as these were supposed to be the main attraction. Either they were blatantly digital, so much so that the special effects were reminiscent of a rear projection, and they were also uncomfortably strangely colored, or the characters were supposed to recite dramatic replicas during them, but instead they spewed out of their mouths phrases heard hundred times over. And I just waited for what would come next and how or when it would end. Another negative is the casting of Benjamin Walker, who was not good enough for the role of captain and who Chris Hemsworth was much better than without even trying, and the fact that the great Cillian Murphy got only a supporting role. A pity. (21/03/2021)