In the Heart of the Sea

A classic adventure voyage, filmed with enthusiasm. You have to fall in love with In the Heart of the Sea, otherwise you will be bothered by the green screens and the insufficient depth of some characters. The main trio is excellently cast, the characters are written very well and you will have no problem experiencing trouble with a big white whale. No shortage of action, but Howard is best in details and crushing situations. Baños’ music is stylish and catchy. Call me Ishmael. (04/12/2015)

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. (07/12/2015)

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)

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)

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)