Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Teyss It requires considerable audacity to adapt such a masterpiece of world literature, all the more so that the novel's quality greatly relies on its inimitable style: how can one transpose this on screen? John Huston succeeds by creating a distinctive visual style, cinematographically compensating what he loses on the literary side.Also, he builds a forceful story from beginning to end. The scenario was written by famous author Ray Bradbury together with Huston: a successful synergy between literature and cinema creators, despite tensions between the two men.*** WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS (INCLUDING OF THE ORIGINAL NOVEL) ***SCENARIOThe first quality of the movie is its efficient selection of scenes and dialogues. This is a real challenge: the novel is long, even after disregarding its "documentary" parts about whales, whaling, sea, etc. (cumulated, as many as 40 chapters out of 135). Hence the scenario had to make drastic selections. For instance, in the novel the Pequod comes across nine other ships (of which four encountered Moby Dick), while in the movie there are only two. Yet these represent the most striking meetings, with captains who respectively lost an arm and a son to the White Whale. Essential scenes are almost all present, without feeling like a "reader's digest" of the novel: the movie perfectly holds together, with a balanced pace.Also, the movie follows its own logic, which sometimes triggers a change in plot structure. Notably, Moby Dick first appears after 75 minutes (out of 110), which is early compared to the novel where he only appears in the last three chapters. This highlights the different internal logics of literature and cinema: in the novel, the late appearance is powerful because the White Whale remains a mystery until the very end. Herman Melville could compensate this delay with other scenes: encounters with ships who came across Moby Dick, dialogues and considerations about him, documentary-like descriptions of whales in general and that one in particular, etc. However, since the movie had to disregard most of these scenes, showing Moby Dick at the end only would have been anti-climatic.Conversely, the movie transfers the tempest to the penultimate scene while in the novel it is slightly before: cinematographically, it typically is a highly climatic scene, while literarily it is less so, especially considering that Melville uses the tempest as a counterpoint to other scenes.Last, the movie operates pertinent changes to the story, notably:Queequeg rallies from dying to save Ishmael from a dangerous fight (novel: rallies by his only willpower): it is visually more dramatic and credible;Ahab gives the gold coin to a shipmate (novel: first keeps it for himself): since the movie is shorter than the novel, it cannot emphasise Ahab's negative aspects, which are offset elsewhere in the novel;Starbuck wants to kill an awaken Ahab (novel: while he is sleeping): it is visually more dramatic and allows a following dialogue between the two men;Ahab's body is tied to Moby Dick at the end (novel: it is Fedallah's): visually, it is compelling since Ahab is a major character and his arm seems to incite his men to continue attacking the whale;After Ahab dies, Starbuck urges the men to continue attacking (novel: stays on the ship): it seems Ahab's lust for revenge has spread like a disease, even to rebellious Starbuck.IMAGEFirst, image has a special texture close to pastel, produced by adding black-and-white and silver layers on the usual colours. This has multiple impacts: it creates a unique tone, fit for adapting a masterpiece; it gives an "antique" feeling on line with the diegetic period; it looks like a painting, similar to the ones shown during the opening credits. All this has a purpose: "Moby Dick", amongst other things, is a tale where narrative distance is essential ("Once upon a time…"), which Melville masterly rendered by his unique style. Hence the movie re-activates the exceptional sensation generated by the novel: narration sublimes the fable; it creates a legend by itself. Additionally, shots are frequently saturated: close-ups, frame filled with faces, sails, ropes, etc. It is a paradox since most of the action occurs outside: broad shots are rare; we seldom see the sky. The movie opens in a forest and closes with a shot on a floating coffin. This saturation has multiple impacts:It aligns to the novel theme that the ship is a world in itself, with different ethnic origins and professions: we are immerged in the sailors' environment;It reinforces the fable-like feeling, since tales unfold at individual level ("They lived (un)happily ever after"). For instance the close shot on Moby Dick's eye echoes the one on Ahab's;It provides a baroque "thickness" to the opus, comparable to Melville's dense, ornate style.Last, acting perfectly illustrates the story. It is emphatic, on line with the novel's tone and themes. Most actors' physique and approach completely fit characters: we feel Ishmael, Queequeg, Stubb, Flask, etc. could not be different. Gregory Peck as Ahab is convincing, but probably not as much as Orson Welles would have been, who was initially envisaged for the role and eventually gave a memorable performance of Father Mapple.CONCLUSIONThe novel "Moby Dick" altogether encompasses adventure, epic, documentary, tale, parable, myth. The movie takes all these aspects on board, bar the documentary parts. Yet, it is not a masterpiece: it could have been a longer, full-scale epic three- or four-hour long, to better render the sheer magnitude of the novel and include some revealing scenes (for instance, other ship encounters or when sailors erotically wade in the oil). Also, the dated special effects somewhat reduce awesomeness: Moby Dick is not quite impressive and the ship sinking at the end looks like a model siphoned into a bathtub. Nonetheless, the movie remains a rare successful adaptation of an eminent classic.

bankofmarquis After seeing the trailer for Ron Howard's upcoming flick, IN THE HEART OF THE SEA, I had an urge to rewatch a movie that I thought was a classic from my childhood - John Huston's 1956 production of MOBY DICK.Boy, I'm glad I did.It is always a worry when I go to revisit a movie that I fondly remember from my childhood. I was trying to remember the last time I saw this movie and I think it has been at least 30 years. Did this movie hold up? Did it age well?I am glad to say the answer to both questions is YES!Huston's production has aged, for me, like a fine wine. I think that some of this is because it seems to me that he took the dialogue right from Melville's novel, which means the dialogue was dated back in 1956. It is not anymore dated now, it just seems like it was dialog that was actually spoken back when the activities of this movie took place.Huston's direction is strong and sure handed. He, obviously, had a vision and drove hard on this vision. I particularly liked his use of pastel colors (especially in the background), it gave this movie a washed out, old look to begin with and that look has aged well. True, the special effects are dated, but to me, that just adds to the old time charm.I've heard negative comments on Gregory Peck's performance and I just don't agree. I know Peck, himself, said he wasn't old enough to play Captain Ahab. I disagree. He commands the screen in every scene he is in. He is someone that I believe these other sailors would follow no matter what. Richard Basehart makes a fine narrator to this story. His Ishmael is an observer of the events that he is recording. This made sense to me. Special mention should be made of Orson Welles' 5 minute scene as Father Mapple. He gives a sermon that shows the strength of Welles as a performer. It was fun to watch it.8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis).

Scott LeBrun The classic seafaring novel by Herman Melville gets adapted for the big screen by author Ray Bradbury and producer / director John Huston, and is just as entertaining as another big budget literary adaptation of two years previous, the Disney production of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". A likable Richard Basehart stars as the narrator Ishmael, who signs on as a crewman on a whaling ship, feeling an irresistible urge to go to sea. His captain is the stubborn Ahab, a man blinded by his need to get his vengeance on Moby Dick, the enormous snow white sperm whale who maimed him. As we will see, Ahab is willing to go to any lengths, and push all of his men to their limit, in the pursuit of his goal. His first mate Starbuck (Leo Genn) is dismayed, believing no good can come of such an obsession. Meanwhile, Ishmael comes to discover a good friend in the stolid cannibal Queequeg (Friedrich von Ledebur). Worth a mention is the fact that this dark, ultimately downbeat tale was initially a hard sell in Hollywood without any substantial female roles, and that Warner Bros. only agreed to make it on the condition that a big star like Peck should get the main role. Even Peck himself had felt that he was miscast, not having enough years on him (he was 38 at the time), yet he shows a real commitment to immersing himself in the role and reciting the prose from the novel. There's much to enjoy here, from an atmospheric recreation of New England in the 19th century, to the production values (the Pequod is vividly created for film, having previously been used in the Disney version of "Treasure Island" and gotten a makeover), to the quite good special effects (I was wondering how Moby Dick himself would look in this film, and came away satisfied) to Philip Saintons' thunderous score to a cast full of very talented actors. Basehart and Genn are excellent, as are James Robertson Justice (as Captain Boomer), Harry Andrews (as Stubb), Mervyn Johns (as Peleg), Seamus Kelly (as Flask), Royal Dano (as Elijah), and Orson Welles in a memorable, captivating cameo as Father Mapple, whose speech about Jonah and the whale sums up the themes of the story. The desaturated pastel colour effect of the movie is the work of cinematographer Oswald Morris, and it helps to give this movie a wonderful old fashioned feel. Hustons' insistence on shooting on an actual ship on the actual ocean would cause cost and time overruns, and while this would unfortunately result in a less than successful film in a financial way, it stands up pretty well today and does deserve some respect. Eight out of 10.

tomsview Movies set in the age of sail used to be a Hollywood staple. Unfortunately the ships were often under the command of captains who revealed the inadequate screening procedures of their superiors. The moment they sailed, the captain's repressed mania and anger management issues came to the fore."The Sea wolf", "Two Years before the Mast", "Wake of the Red Witch" and the 1935 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty" all featured despotic if not actually deranged ship's masters. By the time "Moby Dick" came along in 1956, the genre was familiar to movie audiences that knew sea monsters were more likely to be found on a ship's bridge wearing gold braid on their caps. John Huston's "Moby Dick" is about the last voyage of the whaling ship Pequod, and its captain, Ahab, who obsessively hunts a huge white whale that had taken off his leg in a previous encounter. Ahab subverts the crew to his cause but the final confrontation between man and beast leaves only one survivor, Ishmael played by Richard Basehart who also serves as narrator of the tale."Moby Dick" is so full of weird characters that they would not seem out of place at a "Star Trek" convention. Apart from Ahab, there is Queequeg the tattooed Polynesian harpooner, wharfside prophet of doom Elijah, and Orson Welles as the ominous Father Mapple.Huston, who had struggled to make this movie for years, enlisted science fiction writer Ray Bradbury to help craft a screenplay from Melville's novel. They made many changes including a significant one to the ending with Ahab entangled in the ropes on the whale's back. In the novel this was the fate of a lesser character while Ahab's death was not as spectacular – the movie version works better."Moby Dick" had two obstacles to overcome; the first was the casting of Gregory Peck as Ahab and the second was the demand placed on the technical crew to deliver a believable, final confrontation with Moby Dick.Huston wanted his father, Walter Huston, to play Ahab, however, the studio wanted a more bankable name. Peck was a popular, romantic star of the 1950's, but critics questioned his suitability for the role. 60 years later, the baggage that Peck carried is gone. Now his performance can be evaluated on its own terms, and Peck has grown into the role.The other challenge was to make the White Whale convincing. Unfortunately most of the action had to be shot in studio tanks. Splashy and artificial, the tank scenes lack the scale of the real ocean. Despite this, many of the scenes with the whale still have power, especially Moby Dick cruising along with old harpoons sticking in his back with ropes trailing behind him.The result was a unique movie experience. Huston's "Moby Dick" breathed life into its strange story and unusual characters. The movie was inspired by a great work of literature, and was made by a great artist of the cinema. It is a flawed masterpiece, but a masterpiece nonetheless.