Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

kayaker36 For some strange reason Texas-born Henry Thomas affects an Irish brogue in his portrayal of Ishmael, the narrator in Melville's towering novel written in the second person. It is this young schoolmaster's first experience with the sea but former child actor Thomas takes the wide-eyed innocent thing too far. But this time at least the part went to an actor of appropriate age.Patrick Stewart is best known to American audiences as Capt. Luc Picard in the syndicated TV series "Star Trek--The Next Generation". As Captain Ahab, speaking in accents midway between British and American, he really does seem like a Nantucket man out of the 1840's. He is diabolic, obsessed, yet sea-wise and with considerable personal magnetism. As first mate Starbuck, husky, stolid Ted Levine gives the performance of his career. He plays the part in an understated fashion, does not try for any period accent, yet there is real conviction in his portrayal of a man of conscience who knows he is serving a captain who will lead the ship and crew to destruction yet is bound by his oath of fealty.A genuine South Pacific Islander, Piripi a New Zealender of Maori descent, plays the harpooner Quequeg in this production. He has a fine speaking voice and turns in a creditable performance despite some occasional over the top routines.The scene where the two, Quequeg and Ishmael, go aboard the **Pequod** at its berth in Nantucket harbor and are questioned by the owners is particularly well acted. It is evident that these are sharp businessmen for all their Quaker dress and speech.As this was a made-for-television production, the special effects are less spectacular than even the Hollywood filming forty years earlier.

g-p-mcgill The big mystery of Moby Dick has always been "What possessed Ahab?" In this treatment one has to ask "What possessed the writer and director?" When John Barrymore was making movies they new that as long as he was on the screen, no one cared what they called the darn thing, and no one cared if the "flicker" and the book was two different stories. But what possesses a modern writer to take one of the greatest classics in the English language and slice & dice it into this kind of pastiche? Knowing that 98& of Americans have NEVER read it, is not equal to "plausable deniability" UGH! Some excellent film work, otherwise (make the face QueQueg makes!)

Neal Scroggs I must reiterate the remarks made by Mr. Vaugh Birbeck. This made-for-TV version of Moby Dick misses the mark by a mile and then some. All of Birbeck's points are valid, but I'll add a few of my own.Moby Dick is about a lot of things – obsession, revenge, objective evil, the nature of existence – the novel is so pregnant with meaning both within and below the text that it has become a byword for significant literature. It is the perennial head-scratcher which has introduced generations of students to the richness of the English language as an artist's palette of tones and colors. Captain Ahab is Socrates run amok. He has seen beneath the façade of mere things to glimpse a sublime Truth, which isn't simply a benevolent deity, but a horror show of forces vast, inscrutable and infinitely hostile.But Moby Dick is also about whaling. On top of everything else it's a story of mariners and ships and the trade of whaling as it was experienced by Melville himself. Director Franc Roddam doesn't seem to realize this. Evidently he has so little regard for the source that he doesn't feel the need to make the Pequod a real ship from a real place on a real whaling voyage with real whalers aboard. Instead we get a rather unconvincing studio prop for a ship, miscast actors with slipshod direction for a crew, and the classically trained Patrick Stewart struggling with a wretched screenplay that preserves little of Melville's language. Watch the 1956 John Ford production with Gregory Peck in the role of Ahab instead. Even though it is only 116 minutes long Ford's direction of a masterful screenplay by the brilliant Ray Bradbury really gets under the skin of the novel.

d-millhoff 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.