ShareThis Page
Review: Ron Howard’s ‘In the Heart of the Sea’ is adrift |

Review: Ron Howard’s ‘In the Heart of the Sea’ is adrift

| Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:15 p.m
Warner Bros.
Chris Hemsworth (right) and Sam Keeley in a scene from 'In the Heart of the Sea.'

Ron Howard’s “In the Heart of the Sea” is a curious beast. The ambitions are as big as a whale; the results are an earnest wreck. It could possibly work if you think of the movie as a metaphor for the story it’s trying to tell, but that’s a little too meta for something that should be fairly straightforward.

It’s ostensibly about the real expedition that inspired Herman Melville’s “Moby-Dick” that Nathaniel Philbrick wrote about in his nonfiction book. But despite a promising start, something is lost in the spectacle and the framing device, which ultimately undermines the story.

Howard uses Melville as a character (played by Ben Whishaw) and his curiosity about the mysterious circumstances of how the whaleship Essex sank as the audience’s entry into the story. He’s looking for big answers about the unknown. So, he finds Tom Nickerson (Brendan Gleeson), the ship’s only remaining survivor, who’s drinking his life away. At his wife’s pleading, and Melville’s promise of generous payment for one night’s conversation, Tom starts to spill about the events of 30 years ago, when he was 14 (played by Tom Holland). It’s best not to do the math.

This is the story of two men, he says: A captain, George Pollard (Benjamin Walker), and his first mate, Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth).

Pollard is the son of the expedition’s proprietor. He’s wealthy, arrogant, entitled and inexperienced. Chase is the real seaman — a working-class Adonis with a classist chip on his broad shoulders. He’s also arrogant, but has the skills to back it up.

Chase flexes his hero muscles early, bounding up a ladder to cut free a tangled sail, and the captain responds with ill-advised bravado in leading the men full-speed into a squall. But the “who leads” question is abandoned quickly and without much resolution after the whaling starts.

Perhaps the most striking scenes are those that deal with the process of catching a whale, from spearing to the gory disemboweling. But whales are scarce on the ship’s normal route, and they must sail on to get enough oil for their bosses. It’s thousands of miles off the coast of South America where they encounter the big one, which locks on the Essex with a Terminator’s resolve.

Hemsworth is best when he’s by himself — either barking orders or doing something physical. Of all the actors he shares scenes with, it’s Cillian Murphy as his second mate who brings out something resembling emotion. But we never really care about the lead, so there’s little hope that we’ll be interested in the rest of the men when it becomes solely about survival.

Indeed, most of the second half is spent drifting with them on lifeboats. In these interminable minutes, we don’t get anything resembling an understanding of how they survived (or didn’t) either mentally or physically. Future Tom Nickerson isn’t much help either, and Melville is already too focused on his own literary ambitions to actually ask the big questions he told us he was seeking.

“In the Heart of the Sea” tries to be about so many things — ambition, capitalism, greed and survival. In the end, it feels most interested in how Herman Melville got his classic. The pieces are there, but apparently it’s up to “Moby-Dick” to assemble them, not Ron Howard.

Lindsey Bahr is a film critic for the Associated Press.

Categories: Movies TV
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.