In the Heart of the Sea

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)

An old-time story of the most classic vintage produced using the most modern filmmaking methods. And not so as to build the period illusion as well as possible, but rather to best demonstrate the capabilities of high-frame-rate digital cameras, their compactness, mobility, and almost infinite aperture settings and post-production effects. As a result, the film does not at all resemble historical adventures like Moby Dick or Master and Commander, but rather technological experiments like Pitof's Vidocq or Korea's 71: Into the Fire. However, lenses smeared with digital drops reflecting the sun, cameras mounted on mobile objects, or first-person shots, even from the position of a whale, are exactly the kind of creepiness that I can enjoy. In the Heart of the Sea is at times a surreal visual experience that can't be fully enjoyed except in super-sharp HD resolution, because at times there's so much going on onscreen that the lower quality will compromise clarity. The detailed work with particle effects (all the water splashes, droplets, debris, dust, etc. are sharp even in motion) makes the experience somewhat comparable to films like The Gamer or Pacific Rim. The only blemish on all that joy is the hunk for every occasion and rapist macho (sorry, that’s what he really looks like that) Chris Hemsworth. (23/03/2016)

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)

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. (02/06/2016)

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)