IMDb RATING
6.2/10
2.5K
YOUR RATING
The sole survivor of a lost whaling ship relates the tale of his captain's self-destructive obsession to hunt the white whale, Moby Dick.The sole survivor of a lost whaling ship relates the tale of his captain's self-destructive obsession to hunt the white whale, Moby Dick.The sole survivor of a lost whaling ship relates the tale of his captain's self-destructive obsession to hunt the white whale, Moby Dick.
- Awards
- 3 nominations total
Browse episodes
6.22.4K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Well worth watching!
(7.5/10) My husband and I picked it up at our local rental place and we were surprised at how well it was done. Really strong performances from William Hurt and Ethan Hawke as Ahab and Starbuck, and the rest of the roles were well-cast, too. The filmmakers managed to capture a lot of the symbolism and themes of Melville's novel, and if you think about what was happening in Melville's time (civil war was brewing, American society seemed to be disintegrating), the mini-series makes it clear that the story was about much more than a Nantucket whaling expedition. Melville was issuing a warning to his fellow Americans that still has resonance today. We're Canadian, so it was fun to see that much of the movie was filmed in Nova Scotia. The whale special effects were a little weak at times, but otherwise, well worth watching.
Huh?
It seems that each filmed version of Moby-Dick is compelled to be worse than the one before and that each embodier of the partially disembodied Ahab must make his predecessor seem better, not just in the distance of time but also in distanced performance. Who will underperform William Hurt I hope never to see. Each scriptwriter also must feel a need to demonstrate the superiority of Melville's original, both in his concept and execution. The most recent version appears somewhat like a Second City take on Moby-Dick Meets The Outsiders: all the tortured Jugendangst! Ethan Hawke does do a good C. Thomas Howell sendup, but Hawke should rather be doing a good performance of a first mate, one who is one step below the ship's master. Even the Pequod gets nonverisimilitude. A square-rigged whaler gets turned into a bark. If people cared enough to write, finance, film, and present what is generally regarded as a if not the preeminent work of American fiction, why was care and cash not more carefully scripted and directed? Even the cgi attempt at the whale of whales had the look of an audition submission for an early ScyFy project.
Plot seriously mangled, but themes are intact
I just finished watching this and I don't have time to write an extensive review, but I will say a couple of things about this production.
Many, many liberties were taken with the plot. In fact the opening scene may blow you right out of the water. And Caption Ahab has apparently been swayed by New Age sharing and caring! But the essence of Melville's work may be considered intact if you take the view that he was a Transcendentalist, along with Whitman and others of that era.
If you hold to that interpretation of this production you may enjoy it on that level (see Jed Mckenna's "Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment" for more on that). In fact if you hold to the conventional interpretation- that of a psycho-social critique of man's hubris against Nature, you will also probably be satisfied at the thematic level.
A few fine scenes but Ahab's wild and fantastic speeches are missing - which to me are the greatest of joys.
The treatment of the finale is decent.
Good luck!
Many, many liberties were taken with the plot. In fact the opening scene may blow you right out of the water. And Caption Ahab has apparently been swayed by New Age sharing and caring! But the essence of Melville's work may be considered intact if you take the view that he was a Transcendentalist, along with Whitman and others of that era.
If you hold to that interpretation of this production you may enjoy it on that level (see Jed Mckenna's "Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment" for more on that). In fact if you hold to the conventional interpretation- that of a psycho-social critique of man's hubris against Nature, you will also probably be satisfied at the thematic level.
A few fine scenes but Ahab's wild and fantastic speeches are missing - which to me are the greatest of joys.
The treatment of the finale is decent.
Good luck!
linguistically soft on history
The story treatment, production, and acting are all very good. The casting is excellent. The dialogue moves well among the characters.
The long fiction takes a while to spin out when reading, and the writers have managed to retain the story in an efficient format. The historical background lays easily under the plot and dialogue and in short long shots. The character development and setup are worth the wait for the ocean drama.
doubt though that we would find, in the novel or in the time period, statements like "I didn't sign on for this?" and "Are you OK?". OK for example is a modern word that came about in the middle of the last century, not a hundred years before. Nevertheless, the modern attributes to add to the flow and so I don't object.
The long fiction takes a while to spin out when reading, and the writers have managed to retain the story in an efficient format. The historical background lays easily under the plot and dialogue and in short long shots. The character development and setup are worth the wait for the ocean drama.
doubt though that we would find, in the novel or in the time period, statements like "I didn't sign on for this?" and "Are you OK?". OK for example is a modern word that came about in the middle of the last century, not a hundred years before. Nevertheless, the modern attributes to add to the flow and so I don't object.
Sadly, an unnecessary remake
Unfortunately, this remake should have remained undone. Despite reputable actors, the film does not touch and the tension never arises. The directing and the screenplay is weak, e.g. suddenly we are informed that the Pequod has been to sea for 30 months(!), while it appears as they just left harbor. The madness of Ahab comes out as likable and understandable and the rationality and the sense of Starbuck appears theatrical. The three harpooners play inconspicuous parts in the film instead of adding to the tension. Ishmael - poorly played with a constant snug smile by Charlie Cox - looks simply ridiculous throughout the film. In summary a disappointing remake.
Did you know
- TriviaCast member Gillian Anderson first came to fame playing Dana Scully on the TV series The X-Files (1993). It was mentioned several times throughout the run of the series that Scully and her family were big fans of Herman Melville's book 'Moby Dick': her nickname for her Naval officer father was "Captain Ahab;" his nickname for her was "Starbuck;" and her dog, which she named Queequeg, was, like its namesake, also an eater of humans (the dog ate the body of its previous owner).
- ConnectionsReferenced in The Tonight Show with Jay Leno: Episode #19.190 (2011)
- How many seasons does Moby Dick have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Mobi Dik
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






