MovieChat Forums > Moby Dick (1998) Discussion > She Blows!

She Blows!

posted 19 years ago by jeremysale
22 replies | jump to latest

Although Patrick Stewart turns in a riveting and heart-felt performance as the revenge-driven Ahab, there is no denying that this movie stinks as bad as yesterday's blubber.

It's too bad that a project this ambitious could not have been turned over to an old sea salt like James Cameron. Although, truth be told, Cameron probably would have quintupled the budget with his salary alone. The world deserves a modern big screen treatment of this classic tale. Too bad this is what we got.

There is nothing wrong with the acting. Henry Thomas (yes, E.T.'s Henry Thomas) gives a noble performance as Ishmael. Gregory Peck makes a more than worthwhile cameo as the fire and brimstone-spouting Father Mapple. But once the Pequod sets sail, it's time to look for a lifeboat.

For a film that obviously spent a lot of time and money shooting in worldwide locales with first-rate actors on a gorgeous - if not overly decorated - period ship, somebody severely dropped the ball in the post-production department. Dropped the ball, stuck a harpoon in it and then dumped it overboard.

Underwater shots are laughable, computerized sperm whales breach like marlins and the only real special effects prop used (a high school-project whale tail) is about as convincing as a cardboard light-sabre.

The film is hacked together for television commercial inserts and has all the artistic pacing of a spooked horse. The anticlimactic ending turns Ahab's most powerful speech ("From Hell's heart, I stab at thee...") into an uncomfortable afterthought. And the seventeen dollars that appeared to be left for the special effects make for the most cringe-worthy ship sinking ever put to film.

Call me Ishmael. Call me whatever you want. Just call me when it's over.

[–] vixinoz 18 years ago

couldnt have said it better myself.

[–] REaceofclubs 17 years ago

Stock footage would have been better than the underwater scenes...

~Mistress Tarantino

[–] robi1138-1 17 years ago

I'm forced to agree...the acting is fantastic but the movie, overall, is rather boring.

[–] Tartagliajr 17 years ago

i have to agree with all of it. I thought it was good acting (anyone catch the small role of dominic pursell from prison break in it)... however, the dvd case states "amazing special effects." it looked like a half ass blue screen shot for most of the underwater scene....

Sad to say, I think 1976's ORCA had better effects, worse acting, but more appeal to the "Ahab complex."

[–] stevde2 17 years ago

Better effects? Please, this isn't Star Trek and didn't have the budget of Star Trek. It was a well made movie for what they had.

[–] PatChimes 16 years ago

I just watched the movie last week, awaiting its showing on UK TV with some trepidation in view of the comments on here.

A lot of the bitching is well justified, but overall I enjoyed it more than a lot of the formulaic TV movies that come our way.

I've never read the book, so I'm not in a position to judge whether or not it's true to the written version. In some respects, that doesn't matter because I can't be disappointed that they changed this or omitted that.

The whale effects aren't as realistic as a current movie could manage, but I accept the limitations in much the same way as I'll watch some Harryhausen effects & enjoy them whilst knowing they just aren't for real ...

The accents were probably the worst aspect for me, with individuals veering between Pirates-ar-har-me-'earties and cod (please pardon pun) New England accents with occasional forays into Irish and/or Australian.

[–] swatcatz 16 years ago

The thing about this book is that it will absolutely never translate well to film. The book is an absolute masterpiece, no doubt about it. But most of it is not about the hunt of the whale. Most of it is about whale anatomy or about specific aspects of the whale hunt (down to even the rope that they use to hunt the whale, though even this chapter has some profound meanings in it).

Yeah, special effects may have been lacking. The accents may have been bad. But the truth is, this is just the kind of book that should never be turned into film. It's an adventure story at heart, but what really breathes life into Moby Dick is so much more. And it doesn't translate to film. I don't mean to say that the book is always better than the movie or anything, but this is just one book that should be left alone. Sadly, as it is one of my favorite books.

[–] jcpo 16 years ago

I agree with swatcatz, even now while it's running on my TV via the ION channel. I particularly dislike the cinematography and made-for-TV production design: all bright blue skies, perfectly laundered costumes (those brand new black velvet coats!), glistening surfaces. Very disappointing. Show me the world these people lived in! Back to the book and John Huston's 1956 film.

[–] davis1603-1 16 years ago

The book is a "masterpiece"? I often wonder what people see in the book, it is one of the longest, most boring text I've ever read - and I did so just to be able to say that I have. The only book I can say that is worse is Bram Stoker's Dracula. Classics be damned, the book is a very, very wearisome.

The movie was good, Patrick Stewart was born to play Ahab, Ted Levine does an admirable job playing Starbuck. I was looking forward to more of how Ishmael and Queequeg get to know each other the first night - especially how Queequeg gets dressed under the bed. I actually laughed out loud when I read it. It was worth watching once and maybe again on some odd night.

[–] PatChimes 16 years ago

Even though the general concensus (and I know some posters like it) seems to be not so much "She blows!" as "She sucks!", I still think I'd watch the film again.

My mother also apparently owns a copy of the book ... guess maybe I should make the effort to read it. Although it sounds like I could probably gain a qualification in theoretical whale-hunting if swatcatz is accurate!

[–] wrfarley 16 years ago

I agree with most of the posts, but think the acting was over-wrought, as well. Watch the Huston version instead.

[–] MrsStarbuck 14 years ago

The book is a "masterpiece"? I often wonder what people see in the book, it is one of the longest, most boring text I've ever read - and I did so just to be able to say that I have. The only book I can say that is worse is Bram Stoker's Dracula. Classics be damned, the book is a very, very wearisome.

I guess it all comes down to personal taste, because it's absolutely my favourite book of all time. Structurally, I find it quite similar to LOTR (or more specifically, The Two Towers), in that it has short periods of intense action, followed by longer periods where nothing much seems to happen.

To me, this structure mirrors the journey that the characters are undertaking. Ishmael talks at length about how a sea voyage will involve endless days with nothing to see or do, and then all of a sudden they'll encounter a whale out of nowhere, and it'll be action stations. That's one of our clues that the so-called 'boring' passages aren't simply there to numb the mind of the reader, but instead to mirror the narrators thoughts and experiences.

The end effect of this structure, to me...and this is why it's my favourite book of all time...is that when you finally finish reading it, you feel like YOU'VE just returned from that voyage. You feel the same sense of elation to have made it to the end. LOTR has a similar effect on me at the end.

Of course, this isn't the only reason that I love the book. The characters are everything. Ahab, while on the surface simply a bitter and obsessed old man, below the surface he is so much more, and we only get tantalising glimpses of his fierce intellect, his courage, his passion.

Starbuck (my favourite character) starts out as something of a...I don't want to say coward, but when he refuses to join in the exceitement towards the hunt for Moby Dick, the reader may be left feeling like maybe he doesn't have the same strong backbone and sense of adventure that his crewmates do. Ahab obviously feels this too.
But as the book progresses, Ahab's opinion of Starbuck changes, and so does the readers, so that in the end (in my favourite scene, where Ahab and Starbuck discuss their lives back home, and Ahab finally sees the 'good' part of himself reflected in Starbuck) he becomes the true hero of the piece.

And Stubb...well Stubb is, in my opinion, simply one of the most joyous characters ever created (and I mean joyous to read...although he's a fairly happy soul too). His dialogue is brilliant, and every time he was on the page I had a huge smile on my face.

It's a true experience reading Moby Dick...and one that I think everyone should go through :)

[–] murdoch1111 10 years ago

@davis1603-1 » Sat Dec 1 2007 21:06:07

Perhaps some day your reading ability will improve and you will be able to see that the book is one of the greatest masterpieces ever produced in America.

[–] MrsStarbuck 14 years ago

The thing about this book is that it will absolutely never translate well to film. The book is an absolute masterpiece, no doubt about it. But most of it is not about the hunt of the whale. Most of it is about whale anatomy or about specific aspects of the whale hunt (down to even the rope that they use to hunt the whale, though even this chapter has some profound meanings in it).

It's nice to meet another fan of the book, swatcatz. Moby Dick is absolutely my favourite book of all time.

Having said that, I DO think that somewhere, a fantastic film can be made out of it. But only in the hands of a director who understands that it's not simply an action film, but, like you say swatcatz, is SO much more besides.

Casting is key, obviously. I haven't seen this (Patrick Stewart) version of the film yet, only the Gregory Peck version, and although I found that one enjoyable, mainly because I'm a HUGE fan of Peck, I didn't feel like any of the other characters were done justice.

Peter Jackson has shown with LOTR that a long and involved book CAN be made into a great film (or films) when treated with the respect it deserves.

Starbuck is key. Like Sam Gamgee in LOTR, he ends up being the hero of the story, and I didn't like Leo Genn's Starbuck at all. Does Ted Levine fare any better? He will always be Buffalo Bill to me unfortunately.

Stubb also is a wonderful character, and on the page has some of the best dialogue I have ever had the pleasure to read (second only to Atticus Finch). Again, I didn't like Harry Andrews's interpretation.

I fully intend to watch this version of the film soon (it's been on my shelf for some time), but I have a feeling there is a more masterful version just waiting to be made (and dare I even suggest Peter Jackson again?)

[–] slcd-bcn 13 years ago

You're absolutely right. I haven't seen this movie yet, but when I read the rope chapter in the book, my thought was, "Well this is certainly one book they can't make into a movie." I mean what would they do? Either have a really long shot of a rope and maybe Ishmael narrate or give somebody a long monologue about rope, and that's not the only chapter that would be impossible to film.

I'm glad its' that way though. The strange thing about this book is that in its' largeness and intricacy it forces readers to read it merely for the challenge therein. To get to the end of the book is a feat all by its' lonesome, because you have to read the rest of it first. This encourages people to actually read (and potentially analyze, as that's part of what makes this book great, although it's a good tale when you don't) for fun, which is the reason I think books ought to be written.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] murdoch1111 10 years ago

@ swatcatz » Fri Nov 30 2007

You are more than right when you say, "The thing about this book is that it will absolutely never translate well to film." I've made the same point many times, to no ultimate avail.

[–] gap255 16 years ago

Just caught this version for the first and last time last night. It's amazing to me how much better the special effects of 1956 were!! This qualifies as the worst effects of the 90's. In fact, only the Clash of the Titans effects were worse!

[–] TrevorGod 16 years ago

I thought Clash of the Titans had much better effects; and, if we are talking about the same clash of the titans, it was made in 1981.

The effects in this were still better than the acting.

Queequeg comes off as a cheezy version of a classic "professional" wrestler from the 80's, like "Macho Man" Randy Savage, or Jake "The Snake" Roberts.

Gregory Peck gets to redeem himself after his poor showing in the 1956 version. His version of Father Mapple is much better than his Ahab; unfortunatly, the Father Mapple played by Orson Welles in 1956 was far better than Gregory Peck's version.

Flask was played in an unhealthy combination of laughable and irritating.

I thought Patrick Stewart was the only actor to turn in a decent performance.

What was the reason for Ishmael never having been to sea before? They even needed to change the opening lines to make this character change fit.

[–] Androctus 16 years ago

I found some of the new representations of the characters irritating campared to their '56 counterparts, Flask especially. The fact that the old movie is so ingrained from my childhood probably has something to do with that, but yeah I found Flask particularly bothersome, like when their having their "secret" meeting about deposing the captain and he's still shouting like he's addressing someone up in the crow's nest.

On a side by side comparison though I find the performances of the 1956 version stand out better, especially Welles. His Mapple was probably one of the best deliveries of all time.

[–] murdoch1111 10 years ago

@jeremysale » Sun Dec 26 2004

Your review is brilliant. Thank you for your comments.

[–] quantumcat-14-937417 8 years ago

The film is hacked together for television commercial inserts and has all the artistic pacing of a spooked horse.

That is what I most remember from this movie. The pacing killers. I watched it on Dutch TV and still the fade outs when there was a commercial break expected were very noticeable, and very much interrupted the pacing. Annoyed the hell out of me.