Moby Dick

Rating:
Summary: The white whale isn't
Review: The annimation for the white whale was lousy. The original with G. Peck is a classic & you can't do a remake to match it. The attempt to give underwater scenes with the white whale sending the ship to the bottom stunk.

Rating:
Summary: Moby Dick
Review: The obsessed Captain Ahab travels the sea in relentless search of Moby Dick, the white whale that took his leg. Through the duration of his personal hunt, Ahab acknowledges nary a thought of responsibility or regard to his ship and crew. Directed by Franc Roddam (who also adapted the script from Melville's novel), this newest screen treatment of Moby Dick rearranges many of the sequences of events from the book, and even mixes up the dialougue between characters in some spots. Nevertheless, despite these odd changes, Roddam's effort is an entertaining piece of work. Patrick Stewart is simply remarkable in his portrayal of Ahab. Ted Levine, Henry Thomas, and Hugh Keays-Byrne also turn in fine performances. Originally aired on USA Network as a three-hour miniseries. The DVD version of this movie comes in at 145 minutes. The first VHS edition had a running length of 120 minutes and was later re-released at 145 minutes. Gregory Peck, who played Captain Ahab in John Huston's 1956 film version of the novel, won a Golden Globe Award here for his cameo role as Father Mapple

Rating:
Summary: One of the best movies I've ever seen
Review: The original Moby Dick book is in some cases better than the movie.... that's true.... but the actors (instead of Patrick Stewart (normally i really love him) his role was good, but tooo nervous and toooo crazy... it didn't sypathize with the other roles... e.g. Starbuck, Ismail ...) the whale was stupid and awful, like in a very low budget film... could be much better... but it's worth to buy it and to watch ....! that's my opinion ... bye and enjoy the time you see moby dick

Rating:
Summary: Awful, Melville rotates more rapidly.
Review: The tragedy of this film is that, as Patrick Stewart intones in the supplementary material, the vast majority of those seeing it will never read the book. Stewart implies that that is a good thing, and if the film were an artistically and factually valid adaptation of the novel, that would be true. However, it isn't. Why anyone would be motivated to read the novel by seeing this film is beyond me.

There isn't space to go into all the deliberate errors and distortions, but a few will suffice to demonstrate the damage done to Melville's masterpiece.

Ishmael had been a teacher, true, but he had also had three previous voyages as a seaman on merchant vessels, which Capt. Peleg treats with scorn as being completely unlike service on a whaling vessel. The point is, Ishmael is definitely not the green neophyte protrayed in the film.

Peleg was a Quaker, as were most of the Nantucket whaling captains, although it is not clear in the novel if Ahab is also a Quaker. However, Peleg, who is clearly identified as a Quaker, uses "thee" and "thou" as second person singular in his conversation with Ishmael, not "ye", as in the film. This may seem a minor point, but it was a major issue for Quakers, many of whom had been martyred for their faith in earlier times. One of the many ironies noted by Melville in his novel is that men who would not raise a hand against another man even in self-defense were engaged in the horrible, brutal, bloody, terribly dangerous business of killing sperm whales for their oil, a point the movie misses entirely.

Melville describes a mutiny on the ship Town-Ho, but while Starbuck contemplates shooting Ahab with a musket, after wrestling with his conscience he backs away from murder, and never openly threatens Ahab. Although Melville does not say so, there is evidence in the novel to suggest that Starbuck is a Quaker, which of course would heighten Starbuck's dilemma.

There were no fights among the crew of the Pequod.

No one deserted the Pequod.

Why put Fedallah in the film, if you're going to leave out his prophecy and death? Also, he was a Parsee and Ahab's boat crew were Filipino ("Manilla-men"), not Chinese.

These distortions wouldn't be so bad if they didn't serve to turn the film into a sort of young person's adventure story. The novel deserves better, something made for adults, on the order of Master and Commander.

Melville is no doubt now rotating even more rapidly in his grave than he was in 1956, when the first film version was made.

Rating:
Summary: Call me Insane...
Review: This is one strange version of Moby Dick. Patrick Stewart's Ahab is not a man thirsting for revenge to the point of obsession. Instead, Stewart plays Ahab straight out of the insane asylum. The dialogs between Ahab and Starbucks must have been an attempt to create a play-like, stylized dialog, but instead, it came across as a lot of mad ravings. I've read the book many times, and I viewed Ahab as a man with an obsession, not a man who is a street lunatic who just happens to command a whaling ship (when he is not being abducted by aliens.)

Sorry to have to slam Stewart, who I love as an actor. He did indicate in press interviews that he was very insecure about playing Captain Ahab. I guess it shows. I can however, wholeheartedly compliment the Maori actor Piripi Waretini who plays Queequeg (my favorite character in the book) and Ted Levine was very fine as Starbuck. This film, though interesting and a bold attempt, just doesn't capture the real sense of Moby Dick.

Rating:
Summary: Philosophical, wonderful movie!
Review: This movie is superb. I would compare it with "Farewell my Concubine", "Dracula" , and "Titus" in its level of artistic cohesiveness. Highly recommended if you enjoy movies that combine story telling with philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: Close to the real thing
Review: this movie may not be getting the credit it deserves. True, Gregory Peck played a great role in the earlier version and people have been disappointed with Patrick Stewart's portrayal of Captain Ahab. The truth is, Mr. Stewart's character is more in line with the Captain of the Essex from which this story originated. Gregory Peck was far more aggressive in character than Captain Pollard of the Essex. Read the books about the Essex and then watch both versions of Moby Dick. I think you will have a better opinion of this later version.

Rating:
Summary: TERRIBLE MOVIE
Review: What a waste of 2 hours. Nothing gets accomplished at all! You watch some terrible graphics, watch everyone die, and they didn't even kill the freaking WHALE!

That made me mad.
This film accomplishes nothing.
There is no point at all to this movie.
Don't waste your time, money, and energy.
Leave, quickly!

Rating:
Summary: Hideous
Review: Wow. I love Patrick Stewart, I love Moby Dick. I think this movie does an incredible disservice to the book. If you have read the book, It's hard to stomach, if not, you may very well enjoy this as a movie. The problem is that the movie is dishonest to the book not only in plot, but in character, symbolism, and basically all major themes. Passages from the book are borrowed with no surrounding context, becoming meaningless but impressive-sounding speeches. Meaningful characters, events, and symbols are changed into shallow plot devices. It's not the chinese boat crew, it's not Queequeg's hair, it's not even the curious sidetrip to antarctica (???), it's that important elements of the book are mercilessly twisted into interesting screen shots or one liners that look or sound deep, but are either meaningless in the context of the movie or, worse yet, entirely change the meaning into something other than Melville's. The main problem with this movie is the title - for it is a false Moby Dick. It's an entertaining film in its own right, although certainly with many problems (like said line which are impressive but without context) but it is Moby dick in neither plot nor theme. I will admit that this is not a novel that can easily be done justice on screen (it just doesn't translate well), but what this film does is inexcusable.