In the Heart of the Sea movie full length review - "The Whale Isn't The Only Monster Here"
Ron Howard's new dramatic invention is so confusing and complex that falls short of making a quality product. How it is actually the movie as complete ?
Many ways to define this project can be used although it become countless ways. Could be defined as the last work of the enigmatic director, An adaptation of the novel that inspired the classic "Moby-Dick". Could be defined as the mix between non- fiction and drama, thing that can't be combined quite right because it loses the center point of the movie which it's fully the drama of a best-seller tragedy. Could be defined as instructive, development was incredibly slow and It seems to teach us that a whale is not just a small animal, it's the God of the seas and for this reason the human beings should not be interested in whale oil or in any of its strong attractants, managing to create a teaching in the global fisheries mind.Could be defined as a story about the survival of a group of brave men (to the style of "The 33" they had families and wanted to either go home) led by a macho and wealthy captain George Pollard (Benjamin Walker) it as cliché would not have affinity with the role of Hemsworth (Owen Chase). Finally, Could be described as an opportunity to show the corporate ethics, where the survivors are forced to lie about what happened, fearing that the company does not cover agreed costs. It is not exaggeration, this, manages to capture each of the previous designated items but at the same time fails nothing, What does this mean? The project director was so ambitious that to mix so many elements for achieve an award fell into the void spilling any possibility of a prestigious Academy Award. OK, "In The Heart Of The Sea" would be a quaintly dark paint with thinking philosophically of Directors as 'Steven Spielberg' or 'Werner Herzog' but Howard had a completely different view, for this reason it is that so far his best film is 'Apolo 13'.
The point of break of all the film is this, wanting to be everything at the same time the film is converted into short-movies separated in sub-genres of a central theme "A marine attack on a whaling ship" but the central point of its break is its narrative, having Melville goes to the house to interview, ask and write down what happened that day (Brendan Gleeson in the present-day scenes, Tom Holland as his younger self) for the creation of his successful book that tends to reduce his own writing to transcribe the happened on 1820s, often interrupted for memorable action scenes, for example of this the beautiful work of directing, cinematography and editing at the time of the splendid onslaught of the mammal. Sometimes this could be screenwriter Charles Leavitt's attempt to create a cinematic equivalent to Melville's tendency to interrupt his narratives with with passages and literary events that surprised us to read.
As soon as it completes the scene, feels a vacuum feel to see the result of a succession of mistakes and successes to the terrible sub-narrative. Without a doubt it's anachronistic and incoherent, the moment where the whalers if they did well to kill the whale (seriously not, It's 1820 not 2015, Mistake #1) or the bits where the afflicted whalers explain to the young Melville that the whaling industry was so successful and triumphant as today the oil industry (seriously not, Perhaps they sent you a message on Facebook or WhatsApp or you get an e-mail where you explained that a man decided to open a hole in the ground and extract a liquid called "oil", It's 1820 not 2015).
Okay, it is impossible that contemporary writers unearth their minds of the demons of present and do we immerse in the years 1820 without details of the topicaly, since it is very difficult that the facts of the past surprised for own merit. This is not to say that the old is not lucrative and amazing knowing that some of the best historical movies and TV series shine for its details and pragmatisms of the represented time.
Touches that seem to be ironically forced into cinematography - such as the character of Hemsworth, Owen Chase, Owen tries to spear the vengeful whale for the second time but freezes after staring into one of its large and curious pair of eyes, seems foolish here. Are we to believe that a man who has lasted his entire life hunting whales (for a promotion to captain) goes to cow having in his hands his life and the crew??? All is a collusion fully planned, something that water, a good body and a whale may not remedy.If another director took the mandate of the boat and the whole film would have been different.
Perhaps wasn't the project itself that failed, considering all the potential to be a wonderful and memorable drama, It was the way and decision by Howard to portray a majestic painting with a brush that no longer serves.
Similarly, the film is still acceptable and enjoyable anyway, for its unique photography (Anthony Dod Mantle), the general cast is useful and the magnitude is its production. It should be remembered that much of maritime action has merit thanks to the Essex, and the beautiful and magnificent whale is made by CGI. Something that was pretty real and naturally enjoyable.
Unquestionably, "In The Heart of the Moby-Dick" should be the title of this film, having been an interesting thriller, a disjointed film, an almost exact copy of the book of auto-help and one look wrong. How would have been this movie with another narrative? Perhaps had come out of the port? Amenably attractive exciting and inscrutable, "In The Heart of The Sea" never manages to collect its greater role.