En el corazón del mar

Ron Howard no hace películas malas. Él simplemente de vez en cuando no da en el blanco. Las pocas escenas de la mesa, donde comienza y termina la historia, son más fuertes que el viaje mismo. El guión en el ballenero continúa con un conocimiento poco revelador de los personajes y los pone en conflictos predecibles. Además, no consigue sacar de su lugar en la historia lo que podría sacar y, en general, no sabe exactamente qué quiere contar en primer lugar. Hay más temas, pero ninguno de ellos es el motor de la película. Tenemos un conflicto entre el capitán y el primer oficial, la búsqueda de la riqueza que culmina en una tragedia, o la reflexión sobre hasta dónde está bien ir para salvar la propia vida. Pero todo se insinúa rutinariamente y no hace avanzar la historia. El elemento más discutible de la película es lo de matar a los animales, que debe convertir a nuestros personajes en héroes cumpliendo su gran papel, para que puedan volver a casa con sus familias. La actualidad no está muy a favor de tal constelación de historias. La película se mira bien. Los espectadores se pondrán muy contentos. Pero no es una película tan cautivadora como esperábamos de Howard. Todo lo atractivo para los espectadores fue mostrado en los avances, y el trabajo con los personajes, que supuestamente debía darle un arco dramático, es más débil. (03.12.2015)

I rooted for the whale. (07.06.2016)

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. (01.06.2016)

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)

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. (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)

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% (25.01.2016)

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)

The first half of the movie completely exhausted me and I thought that Ron Howard made a stupid film about one loser wanting to hunt a whale. And he gave it perfect visuals. But then came the second half, which redeemed the reputation of the first, and I was watching a different movie, a movie that didn't want to follow Hollywood conventions. At that moment, it was good. (06.03.2016)