Blubber
Didn't anyone on the set say, "You know, that whale's tail is retarded!"?

Moby Dick as a pure adventure story. How sad. Didn't anyone read the book? The deviations in this movie from the book are profound and completely dismast the story's importance. The director seems terrified of injecting mood and irony into his narration. His direction was uncreative and uninspired. What a waste.

Then there are all the sad details. For instance, sorry folks, Queequeg was not Maori. Wrong culture. Yes, believe it or not, the Pacific is full of very different cultures and Maori does not fit the Queequeg character. It's like making Ahab French. I preferred the 1956 Queequeg. Even though he was obviously a white actor, at least his character was indeterminate--as a character from Moby Dick should be. Moby Dick is not a simple adventure story with straightforward characters. And finally, why was this movie so afraid of doing the ending the way Melville conceived it? Probably because they were so deathly afraid of complicated meaning. Please, respect and dignify your audience with something more challenging. We can handle it.

Ted Levine as Starbuck and Hugh Keyes-Burne as Stubb were good cast decisions. The young actor playing Pip did a great job too. Those three, the carpenter and some of the other minor character actors belonged on the boat. The rest should have been thrown overboard, not necessarily for lack of talent, but for being the wrong person for the part. Stewart didn't pull off Ahab. It was a commendable attempt, but he didn't have the focus and moodiness necessary for the part. Stewart is British. That fact still rings through. Ahab in his soul is American. That's one of the major themes of the story. They should stay as close to foundations as possible. Just because he was the commander of the Starship Enterprise shouldn't make him top choice for Captain Ahab.

Henry Thomas was too nice and innocent. Ishmael was the narrator of Moby Dick and the narration of Moby Dick is full of profound insight, intelligence, humor, wit, and biting sarcasm. Ishmael was a character, at least he said so, who could be prone to running around town knocking the hats off people's heads, and he was also not the landlubber this movie portrays him as. He'd been to sea before as a sailor. Why change these kind of details? What were they so afraid of? This movie trashes everything important in the book, including the little details.

But besides that whale's tail, the movie had some good historical recreations that made it worth getting two stars. Now I want to get ahold of a copy of the 1978 version. I read elsewhere that the Ahab portrayal is pretty good in that one. Making a movie of "Moby Dick," though, seems to be as hopeless as hunting the White Whale. I doubt anyone will ever take us on a true brooding Melvillian Nantucket sleigh ride. In the hands of the right talent, though, there's very fertile ground in Moby Dick for a very creative cinematic experience. It's waiting for someone with the highest caliber of talent and insight. Anyone else should lay their hands off it.

They got it all wrong
I rented this remake with high expectations.

I was disappointed.

In four hours, they failed to tell half the story Huston and Bradbury got so perfectly right in the 1956 classic.

Huston's classic is a little dated, particularly in terms of special effects that look like the miniatures they in fact are. While the CGI whale in this remake is a refreshingly-convincing manifestation of a 60-foot sperm whale, it's not Moby Dick.

This movie is bright and colorful, and the whale's just a whale. The cast doesn't come across as seasoned whalers, it feels like actors playing weekend yachtsmen, thanks in no small part to a script that can't seem to respect the intelligence of its audience.

Moby Dick is a dark, slow story of building, brooding menace, which makes the moments of action all the more thrilling and terrifying.

This remake captures none of the atmosphere or colorful character or menace of Melville's classic. At its best moments, it's simply re-hashing moments that were were perfected 42 years before.

If you want to see Moby Dick, see John Huston's 1956 masterpiece.

Melville Light
This version certainly does not compare to the other version of Moby Dick, the 1956 version with Gregory Peck starring as the captain bent on revenge. Problems amount with this updated version mainly because it seems to be an attempt at dumbing down or stripping the story to make it more accessible to a wider audience. In making this happen, the producers seemingly beat us over the head with Ishmael's simplicity, Ahab's madness, Starbuck's reluctance and nonconformity, and Queequeg's cartoonishness. The ultimate result is a version which constructs the story accurately, but in a bare-bones way; we are left without much of the depth that Melville's novel depicts.

Still, with my reservations ( mainly because I do teach English literature), this is a version that does have some entertainment value and certainly gives some accurate information to both the characters and the story. There are some enlightening and funny scenes, such as the first meeting between Ishmael and Queequeg in the sleeping quarters and the scene with Queequeg answering for Ishmael as they board the Pequod. Starbuck's character is successfully depicted as a man who reluctantly goes with the mission of hunting the white whale despite his longing to return safe and sound home. As others have noted, Patrick Stewart illustrates Captain Ahab a little over-the-top in terms of his mental balance, but he does have a certain feel to the Ahab we encounter in the novel: he is quick to judge, narrow-minded, revengeful, and unrelenting, and Stewart embodies all of these characteristics in his portrayal.

Understandably, a two-hour movie cannot illustrate the depth at which the actual book works. We don't really get the chance to scrutinize the magnitude of Ahab's vengeance, his opposition to the laws of nature, and the essence of this futile voyage of revenge. Still, for what its worth, this film does have some credibility and merit, and certainly can be used as a tool for both Melville and the novel itself. And, if those aren't your cup of tea, it still has entertainment and moments that make it worthy of viewing. This is Moby Dick and Melville, but stripped a bit down.

3 1/2 stars

English teacher gives this DVD a "C"
My American Lit class had reached Civil War era literature toward the end of the semester. While I wanted to give them a taste of Melville's classic novel, there was no way they would be able to read a 600 page book in time for the final; so I decided to show the DVD instead. I originally wanted to show the Gregory Peck version, but our school's Media Center only had Patrick Stewart version. I had asked a fellow colleague about showing this DVD, and she said she had a positive experience with it when she showed it to her students the previous year.

Well, while I can't say it was a horrible experience (Students were, by and large, attentive to the movie), it wasn't particularly well done. The acting was uneven: Queequeg and Father Mapple (played by Peck in a cameo role) were very good, but the other characters weren't overly convincing. The most surprising part of the DVD, however, was how poor the special effects were. Given today's technology, I had expected more than a fake-looking tail and the same rubber hump coming out of the water over and over again. Even the kids found these "effects" laughable.

The opening scenes of the DVD were actually quite good. The kids found it humorous when Ishmael suddenly finds out that he is to share his room (and his bed) with the menacing looking Queequeg. This part of the DVD compares favorably with the Peck version, but it's all downhill from there.

The bulk of the blame rests on Patrick Stewart's portrayal of Ahab. Other reviewers have lambasted his performance, and while I can't say it was terrible, he doesn't have the charismatic malevolence to pull it off. The Audience wonders how someone so unconvincing can suck the Pequod's crew down into his own madness; therefore, the acting becomes artificial and the Audience, rather than imagining being part of the story, remains a distant observer. Starbuck, too, seemed more confrontational than I remember when I read "Moby Dick" in college. Secondary characters (Flask, Tashtengo, Dagoo) were almost non-existant; by that, I mean if you hadn't read the book, you wouldn't know who they were in the DVD. There were also certain scenes I didn't care too much for (Trapped in the Artic ice; Storm with St. Elmo's fire), but overall, a decent movie.

Definitely, a VERY difficult book to adapt. Director did keep as much action as possible, so my students weren't bored with the movie, but if I had to do it all over again, I much prefer the Gregory Peck version (which I recently viewed). Your money is better served buying THAT version rather than this one.

IT'S A BIG PEG LEG TO FILL!
It's always interesting to watch actors in their attempts to overcome the stigma of being typecast. I suppose it is a serious problem. After all, apocryphal accounts abound about actors who, having played a too memorable part in a movie, such as the woman who played the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz, end up unemployed because no one can see them as anything else.

Enter Patrick Stewart. Of late he has thrown himself at such improbable and botched roles as Henry II in a remake of THE LION IN WINTER and Ebenezer Scrooge in A CHRISTMAS CAROL. As bad as these two mistakes were, neither comes remotely close to his misguided decision to assume the role of Ahab in the new MOBY DICK. What emerges is failure before the opening credits have even run their course. I've said it before; you just cannot remake or replace perfection. Gregory Peck's masterful portrayal of Ahab in the 1956 production of MOBY DICK set a standard that has become a generic when discussing or considering the character of Ahab. Period! As good an actor as Stewart can be, as evidenced by his character-defining work in STAR TREK and his portrayal of a Western King Lear in KING OF TEXAS, he just doesn't even come close to pulling it off here. Instead his performance is totally laughable if not consummately pathetic!

I hope that this is the last attempt to supplant the original. Mr. Stewart needs to take a deep breath and accept that he just isn't fit to remake every classic role under the sun. And when it comes to this story, and there's certainly no shame in admitting it, it's a big peg leg to fill!

THE HORSEMAN