Rating: 
Summary: better sound quality than most DVDs
Review: Basically, I wanted to say that of all the dvds I have purchased, this film has the richest sound. I thought that to be very odd because this was a made-for-tv movie. I was wondering if anyone else experienced this?
Rating: 
Summary: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS FILM,SEE THE HOUSTON 1956 ONE!
Review: Between lousy directing, and pointless wide camera angles, and a total disreagard to the book, (Unlike previous film and TV episodics) this was so bad, that I forced myself to sit through the entire video, just to see if it ever got better, or resembled the book in any way. I don't think anyone read the book on this production, or even bothered to read the cliff notes. A real waste of the actor's time, and ours.
Rating:
Summary: Patrick Stewart and the 7 Dwarfs
Review: Boy, what a lousy Moby Dick! Patrick Stewart is terrific. That is it, period. The effects with the whale are fine, but when the cabin boy is drowning, the water is only up to his chest. When will the REAL Moby Dick be on DVD? Now that the Coen Brothers have paid tribute with the ending of "Oh Brother", one can get one's hopes up again. Save your money for that.
Rating: 
Summary: I'm sure that they meant well...
Review: Gee, it started out so well; this version of Herman Mehlville's classic novel of obsession and revenge begins with an earnestness that suggests it might actually do justice to it's literary inspiration. But unfortunately, that is not to be the case. The inherent problem with bringing Moby Dick to the screen is that the book is such a massive work that combines sea-going adventure and complex characters with an almost textbook discussion of whales and their habits. Whether you've read the book or not, you are probably aware of the story. A young wanderer signs on to a whaling expedition under the command of a legendary captain seeking to avenge his maiming by a a white whale. John Huston made a semi-classic version in 1956 that succeeded far better than this despite one of the few so so performances by Gregory Peck.The problem with this particular production is that it suffers from a bad case of "mini-series syndrome" -- a headline actor, plenty of time to tell the story and a limited budget to work with. Patrick Stewart certainly does his part. As Captain Ahab he displays a range of psychotic emotion that somehow eluded Gregory Peck in the '56 version (one of Peck's few disappointing performances). Ahab is a difficult character to portray without going over the top, but Stewart succeeds, quickly banishing the viewer's expectations to hear him refer to the First Mate Starbuck as "Number One" or issuing an order to "make it so" ala his alter ego Captain Jean-Luc Picard. Stewart's Ahab is as scared psychologicaly as he is physically. But in Stewart's hands you can somewhat understand the sailing and leadership ability of Ahab while bemoaning the course of destruction that he is pursuing. Another actor that stands out is Piripi Waretini in the role of Queequeg. His portrayal is far more enigmatic than the almost cartoonish "savage" portrayed in the earlier movie. But from there the quality of performance by the remaining cast drops precipitously. Henry Thomas is okay as Ishmael, however Ted Levine as the ill-fated Starbuck seems to be acting with his jaw wired shut. Mr. Peck is wasted in the almost cameo role of Father Mapple. Ironically, the seagoing visuals of the older film are far superior to those of this more digitized version. While the whale is more believable, the shipboard storm scenes look like they were filmed at a movie studio theme park, and sadly, they get worse as the film progresses. Was there a problem with the budget? Watch it if you will, there are far worse things to put in your DVD player. And if it stirs your interest sufficently enough to read the book... that is a very good thing!
Rating:
Summary: I was rooting for the whale in this one
Review: Having seen both versions, the first with Peck as Ahab, I would have to lean towards the original. The new version with Patrick Stewart had it's moments, but Peck as Father Maple looked like he was in a daze and didn't know where he was (or who he was) Peck's performance was rather disturbing. The actor who played Quee-Queg in this newer version was more like a cartoon. The actor in the 1950's version was far more convincing.
Patrick Stewart wasn't a bad choice for Ahab, but to me it was more like Stewart PLAYING AHAB v.s. BEING THE CHARACTER. I kept expecting him to shout "ENGAGE" rather than "THERE SHE BLOWS".
For students of the book, the original 1950 version was closer to the text. This new version had far too many added bits for the purist. If you enjoy remakes, (I don't know why) then go for it. If you are a stickler for detail, pass it
Rating: 
Summary: Vastly superior to the Huston version
Review: I find it puzzling at how much people love the 1956 film version of Moby Dick, and bash the 1998 film in its favor. Franc Roddam's version of Moby Dick is not a remake of Huston's highly overrated film. To say so is like saying that Herman Mellville didn't write the book. This movie is better than most other made-for-cable flicks I've seen, and though it is not without its flaws, it has more dramatic punch and stronger performances than the Huston version. Gregory Peck can be a teriffic actor (To Kill a Mockingbird), but Ahab is far from being his greatest performance, let alone among his greatest roles. It's one of his worst, in fact. Come on, who would believe Ahab as an enemic, muttering (and as Pauline Kael put it) stock company Lincoln? Patrick Stewart is much more convincing in the role, and puts more energy into his work. Roddam changes the sequence of events in the book, but it's told in more detail and is truer to Mellville's book, whereas Huston skims over the material and leaves us with a rushed and unsatisfying story (people who say it is much more faithful to the novel have either never read it, or are relying on what they read from some abridged junior edition). If a person who's not seen the 1998 version, and reads the numerous reviews in favor of Huston's bland film and Peck's awful performance as Ahab, here's a review with a differing viewpoint.
Rating:
Summary: Weak remake
Review: I found this recent remake of the classic very weak. Stewart's potrayal of Ahab didn't have any of the power of Gregory Peck's 1956 character. The camera work was also terrible. Land is clearly seen in several scenes where the men are supposedly many months out to sea.
Rating:
Summary: Highly entertaining
Review: I guess I'm in the minority, but I enjoyed this production quite a bit and highly recommend it. Patrick Stewart makes a terrific Captain Ahab, seething with a personal obsession with the white whale, and the rest of the cast is quite good, too. The film is faithful to the book and the production values are excellent. Highly entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Simply awful
Review: I know its very hard to bring a book like Moby-Dick to the screen, but at least John Houston tried in the 1950's. This made-for-TV adaptation makes me wonder if the screenwriters and director even read the original book. Not only is the character of Queegueg depicted incorrectly as a Mauri of New Zealand (in reality Melville based the character on the Nuku-Hivans), but he is treated as a buffoonish and stereotypical "savage" which is completely at odds with the dignified character that Melville created. Additionally, the filmmakers dreamt up a bizarre scene where the Pequod is stranded in the ice of the Antarctic! They must have been reading Mary Shelly's Frankenstien at the time. Patrick Stewart's performance as Ahab however, is wonderful, but that's the only redeeming feature of this overblown mess.
Rating:
Summary: Very Action packed and cool
Review: I like this movie. I like the part when Moby Dick attacks. I think the captain is weird.
|
