MovieChat Forums > In the Heart of the Sea (2015) Discussion > Here's what's wrong with it in my opinio...

Here's what's wrong with it in my opinion

posted 8 years ago by Scotness
24 replies | jump to latest

This will probably contain spoilers and certainly contain strong opinions (because I love films)

But:

The CGI was crappy - too much studio green screen not remotely meshing with CGI backgrounds

The lighting was terrible - there were scenes on the open water where there were 2 direct light sources lighting each sides of some of the actors faces when there would have only been one - this just made it look stagey and fake and of course not mesh with the CGI backgrounds

The handling of the story was: this happened then this happened then this happened - there wasn't enough conflict where we don't know what happens next and are watching it played out in real time in front of us - I just felt that much more removed from their story - of course being told the story in flashback doesn't help either

The dialogue and characters at times were a bit clunky - do you really think after weeks with out getting a whale they'd get all melancholic when they finally catch one and it dies? They'd be screaming their heads off in glee. Or when they're on the island and Chase get's all philosophical with the Captain 'we are dust' etc -- way too clunky and premeditated from the writer

And who's story is it anyway? Chases? Pollards? Young Nickerson? Old Nickerson? There's even an element of it being Melville's. It was never really clear who's it was - if it was handled better it could have been all of them in concert except Melvilles ~ and the conflict and resolution could have been Chase and Pollard finally coming to an agreement and respect with Pollards statements at the enquiry

Of course there were plenty of things good with it:

The subject matter, and Howard's respect for it

What they were *trying* to do with the CGI - but the underwater CGI was very good as it was - the rest just sucked

I just can't believe they got a hundred million dollars for it - because the script lacks most of the elements that makes films popular - so why put $100M into this? - obviously because of Ron Howard's name - but if some unknowns had rocked up with this script I dare say the studios would have seen it in a clearer light.

None of this is to say it's a bad film just that the story and subject matter could have been dealt with in a better way, in my honest opinion - I look forward to hearing yours :-)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] frankwilkeson 8 years ago

Howard had no respect for the subject matter. If he did the film would not have been riddled with so many blatant historical inaccuracies. The Essex was not sunk by a white whale. It was sunk by a regular colored sperm whale. The whale disappeared after the sinking; it never stalked the whaleboats afterward. Herman Melville never interviewed Thomas Nickerson. Nickerson never kept his participation in necessary cannabalism a secret. Captain Pollard and Chase generally got along fine. Chase was never promised the captaincy of a ship before signing on as first mate. The ship owners never tried covering up how the Essex was sunk. Harpoons were not thrown one-handled like javelins. The harpoons seen in the film were incorrect to the period, indeed some of them were designs that have never been seen on earth. The list goes on and on and on.

[–] Scotness 8 years ago

Frank you're 100% right - after making my initial post I've read up on some of the historical inaccuracies and I agree with you totally - and retract that part of my original post!

[–] frankwilkeson 8 years ago

Philbricks's book is so well written you can easily visualize the story in your head as you read it. There script was right there in front of them. It needed no over-the-top embelishment. A little compression of the story here and there, a couple of composited characters, and they would have had something closer to 2012's "Kon-Tiki" which is a wonderfully paced sea-going film that allows the audience to be awstruck by the beauty of the ocean and respectful of its unpredictable savagery.

[–] bobknobbers 8 years ago

I really did not care about accuracies or inaccuracies of the movie. I sometimes wonder if people even go watch movies just for the entertainment anymore. Everyone has to be so critical if the story is true or not these days. I just saw this today after a month or so after it's release and hardly anyone else was in the theatre. Probably seeing Star Wars for the 4th or 5th time already. I went to this because it was a Ron Howard movie which are usually pretty decent and enjoyed the entertainment for 2 hours without being interrupted by a bunch of kids who run around or are restless.
I went during the day so only paid $7.00 so I can't complain. It was entertaining to me but not the greatest movie. Would I watch this again on Netflix or DVD??? Yeah...... I think so. There is other crap to see that I certainly won't

[–] Waldimore 8 years ago

So glad you say that. You draw inspiration from a book or historical event and then you make the film that you see in your vision. People should make their own version if they don't like it.

[–] kpassa 8 years ago

Nickerson never kept his participation in necessary cannabalism a secret.

That's because cannibalism as a means of survival was considered acceptable at the time. That was in the book.

[–] Gradly 8 years ago

I don't know if the movie touted as 100% adaptation of the true story or it's only inspired by true events, anyway, I don't think if they just stick to those actual historical events you mentioned would result in a better or more interesting movie. Not all people familiar with the story but what it matters is to make the movie better, and keep tension. True story doesn't guarantee great movie and people expecting a great movie not a historical lesson out of the experience

[–] carsons-1 8 years ago

I just hope Nathaniel Philbrick didn't sell out to get this movie made...

[–] concasegidio 8 years ago

OP is *beep* right 100%

also, because of the rating i assume they couldn't show any crude scene...because when my friends convinced me to go see this at the cinema i was expecting horror scenes, too...u know, cannibalism...but nothing, just freaking nothing can save this missed shot for Howard.

[–] cortby-162-669100 8 years ago

I felt it was not great but Okay. I guess I noticed some of the faults you mentioned and realize more now. I was curious about the historical accuracy.
The one big continuity error that irked me was some of the shots showed the ship having plywood. I'm pretty sure plywood did not exist in 1820. (invented 1865)

[–] ibbi 8 years ago

Yeah, the look of it was not very nice. Neither well shot, nor able to overcome the fact that everything looks so very CGI. That and the framing device were my problems with the story. I actually thought most of the Essex tale was really well handled.

They've got cars big as bars, they've got rivers of gold

[–] puirt-a-beul 8 years ago

You make some good points imo, Scotness.

The CGI was a disappointment. I tracked down the trailer after seeing an interview with Ron Howard, where he said he wouldn't have done the film if he hadn't been won over by the test CGI, and what an amazing, convincing job they'd done ... and I have to say, my response was, "That's it?!" for similar reasons to yours. And now I've seen the full movie, my thoughts are no different: it was pretty good CGI, but for me it was CGI I was constantly aware of; it was never convincing of reality.

Ditto, I have to say, Ron Howard's staid, somewhat old-fashioned, direction. I would have really disliked seeing the story turned into a standard Hollywood action flick, but there were what could be described as action scenes, and for me they never got exciting nor suspenseful. Nor did Howard's direction convey the choreography of those scenes (such as the whale attacking the ship) very well, something I always find frustrating and that lets me drift out of a film.

For me the biggest problem was the structuring of the script. At first I didn't actually mind the changes to the history -- current American film language relies on such shorthand as was injected into this story to stand as exposition, and I've no doubt most of it was done to create parallels in the audience's mind between this story and Melville's. They weren't about to make a film that held strictly to Philbrick's researched history; not in Hollywood, anyway. But I was surprised the film was little more than a string of "and then they ..." scenes; it didn't seem to achieve any layers, any complexity to its narrative -- when the boats put back to sea, for instance, leaving Cillian Murphy's character on the island, I found myself actively thinking, "What was he even in the film for?!" So much of the film felt so inconsequential, and when the whale reappeared, for example, I wanted to feel that dread sink into the pit of my stomach, but I honestly felt nothing.

I think that's a good way to sum up my disappointment with the film: I honestly felt nothing, even though I really wanted to.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] tj-94 8 years ago

Unless a film is either really bad or totally butchers the original intent I don't nit-pick the details. I'm drawn to tales of desperate survival, not necessarily the film depictions so I really wanted to see this film. I thought it was watchable although it didn't knock my socks off. My biggest complaint is the depiction of starving people. 3 months without anything to eat (except each other) would not leave you looking as well fed as these guys were depicted.