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)

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)

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)

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)