In the Heart of the Sea

It's beautiful to look at. Neither the excessive digitalisation, nor the insistent knowledge that this is artificial soundstage spectacle of the purest kind prevented me from getting carried away by the dynamic visual design, which Howard has been doing well for a long time. I also didn't mind the retrospective with frequent cuts to the narrator, on the contrary, it added a welcome dose of humanity and believability to the story. What bothered me, however, was the script, or rather most of it, which, instead of focusing on one strong theme that with peripheral secondary motifs, jumps furiously between completely different perspectives, thus fragmenting the story into several rather harshly connected intellectual episodes. It shifts between a testimony about the corrupt whaling business of the 19th century, a psychological battle between two dominant crew members, a mythical adventure against a formidable enemy, and a physically painful survival drama, but in the end, it cuts corners everywhere and is nothing more than a routine Hollywood recitation of an ambitious multi-layered story that looks beautiful on the big screen but would not have caught on at festivals for even a slightly discerning audience. 65% (25/01/2016)

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)

Personally, I really like visually spectacular films that take place at sea (e.g. Titanic and Life of Pi), so I was really looking forward to In the Heart of the Sea and I am definitely not disappointed. The film effectively blends two timelines to form a nice and consistent whole. What was actually behind the birth of one of America's most famous novels? Where does truth end and fiction begin? The film doesn't lack both decent technical execution and a well-chosen cast, plus it all stands on a good premise. In short, a film that is definitely worth seeing in the cinema to properly enjoy all the aforementioned qualities. (30/01/2016)

Ron Howard delivers an unexpectedly gritty survival drama with memorable scenes. A decently thought out story, an excellent Chris Hemsworth, a captivating demonic whale, solid visuals, working emotions and a decent dramatic line between the captain and the first officer are all here. There are a few uncomfortable scenes that are also a delight. The second half is already more tedious compared to the first, but I still have positive feelings about the film. The sea is cruel! 75% (13/12/2015)

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)