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. (12/07/2015)

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. (01/30/2016)

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. (03/04/2016)

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% (01/26/2016)

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. (06/02/2016)