Jim le harponneur

I streamed an online version of this that was copyrighted Televista, Inc, 2007. I don't know how close to the original print it really was, but I assume it was pretty much the same as what audiences saw in 1926. If it is an accurate transfer, then, man oh man, this is the worst edited movie in history. The philosophy that guided the editing of this film must have been, if you can have an eight-second close-up of someone's face, why not make it eighteen-seconds instead? More than twice as good! Why settle for two reaction shots from a character if you can have five? Why have a character tell someone she love him just once when you can have the same scene repeated three times?

The pacing is atrocious, with a simplistic, conventional love story that reduces Ahab to a forlorn lover, completely scraps Ishmael, and doesn't even give names to most of the Pequod crew. This is most certainly not Melville's book, and the events that at all resemble the novel don't begin until over an hour and fifteen minutes into the film.

There are some decent flourishes at the end, including an innovative use of Ahab's peg leg that's original to this film and also some decent expressive acting from John Barrymore and Dolores Costello in the final scene. The version I saw also had some pretty sweet percussive music during some of the action scenes, though most of the score was fairly conventional stuff.

This is an interesting curio considering Melville's novel was a massive flop whereas this was a blockbuster success. There truly is no accounting for taste. This might satisfy the curiosity of Melville enthusiasts, but for a general viewer this movie is an absolute bore.

Ahh!!! This silent film was released to DVD by Televista. That means that the print will be god-awful--which is true of the two dozen or more silents I've seen from this company. HOWEVER, at least the films are being released, as the films were not available any other way. So, if you can bear with the fuzzy, scratchy and occasionally shaky print, you might want to try this film. But, if you want a film that is in moderately good shape...look a bit further.

Another very important thing you must know about the film is that it is sort of like the antithesis of the old "Dragnet" maxim "...the names were changed to protect the innocent". Instead, the original names of the characters were all there BUT almost everything in the story is different from the novel!! It is Moby Dick in name only--and it's an abomination to say this is the Melville tale. The many, many, many dissimilarities are too many to name in this short review--but suffice to say that the entire meaning behind the story is gone as well as the symbolism. Instead, it's just a mess...a mess that has huge sections about an abortive love affair for Ahab in which he loses the girl to his half-brother (who is crazy--not Ahab) and Ahab is portrayed as a sad and likable guy--NONE OF WHICH was in the book.

So, you can only enjoy this film if you can ignore that it is clearly NOT "Moby Dick" and you don't mind watching one of the ugliest quality prints money can buy! And, as a film which bears no similarity to the classic tale, it's okay...just okay. While there is some nice sea footage, there also is the gratuitous use of irrelevant whale processing footage at the beginning. Overall, it's really not worth your time.

Hmmm. This is what we would call a "re-imagining" nowadays. Herman Melville's classic "Moby Dick" underpins this far more romantic story as John Barrymore "Ahab" has to battle his brother "Derek" (George O'Hara) for the affections of "Esther" (Delores Costello) on land whilst joining in the battle against the great white whale from the novel at sea. I found the romance just a bit too drawn out and tedious, but when the film takes us to sea it comes alive with some cracking cinematography that depicts the dangers the sailors faced doing their jobs (including plenty of rats milling aboard amongst the injured and/or sleeping men). I can't say the print I saw was great, and the accompanying score was so soporific as to remind me of the music played at the dentist to calm me when I'm having root canal treatment! Barrymore is good, though. His maniacally obsessive expressions when tracking the whale (which, by now, has relieved him of his lower leg) are genuinely menacing - though clearly not so much for the whale. The ending is far removed from the book, too - and that removes much of the potency from the the whole thing, leaving us with a rather slushy maritime drama that just doesn't have enough of action and adventure for me.

Young sailor Ahab (aka John Barrymore) loves lovely Dolores Costello, but his black hearted brother Derek wants her too. So, when the dangerous SEA BEAST (aka Moby Dick) raises its vicious head from the briny deep, awful brother is around to make sure Barrymore suffers at the hands of the white whale. Will true love triumph, or will Barrymore's Mr. Hyde makeup as the obsessed Capt Ahab scare off lovely Dolores?

Since the print I watched had both dreadful music, and a frequently washed out picture, it is impossible to evaluate this movie fairly. It is quite slow (slow enough that I questioned whether it was recorded at the right speed), and the first two-thirds of the movie are devoted to the younger Ahab, his true love for Dolores, and the machinations of the villainous Derek. That part is, except for a few moments of hot romance, and the whale hunt, quite dull. The second part, featuring Barrymore's Mr. Hyde as Ahab, stays on the right side of risible, and thrives on Barrymore's ability to be as scary as Lon Cheney. Some rousing storm scenes, and a final confrontation between Ahab and Derek make this part quite fun in a rousing old movie way.

This is worth seeing, if you like Barrymore, who is excellent throughout. But you might have more fun if you fast forward things through the many tedious bits in part 1.

Herman Melville's 'Moby Dick' is famous for nothing if not being overly long and self-indulgently verbose. In adapting the tale to film, 'The sea beast' nonetheless dares to go a step further by altering and adding narrative elements. The core of the feature remains a sea-faring adventure, for sure, though while the additions do make for a more well-rounded experience as movie-goers are accustomed to, I'm just not sure the trimmings were necessary. This is one issue with this 1926 picture; another is that surviving prints would seem to have been so degraded before they were preserved digitally that the very image to greet us is too often substantially washed out, obliterating detail. This is true for footage of the characters or environment, but it's even more noticeable when the camera focuses on text - a passage from a book, a handwritten note, or even intertitles - and the visuals are so diminished that it's almost if not entirely impossible to read that text. Even though much can be inferred from the surrounding footage that is suitably intact, that reduced integrity means that we simply lose some plot.

That's the bad news. The good news is that 'The sea beast' is otherwise an outstanding, somewhat grand production. This is in no small part to the credit of star John Barrymore, whose stardom and pull with the studio clearly influenced filming. True, he accordingly had some help, given a little bit of alcoholism, a little bit of unmanaged personal appearance, and a relationship with co-star Dolores Costello. Yet in the lead role of Ahab Barrymore most definitely illustrates marvelous range, nuance, and physicality, giving a great performance that allows the viewer to feel his every emotion and twinge of pain very keenly. He's hardly alone, of course, and other cast members give able displays of acting to complement and complete the experience, including certainly Costello and George O'Hara - but there's no mistaking who is chiefly in the spotlight.

This is to say nothing of superb production design; every small facet that helps to build a feature looks swell. Costume design, hair and makeup, and set design and decoration all rather impress; as if Barrymore's practiced skills weren't enough, or his personal habits, the work put into accentuating Ahab's transformation paid off handsomely. Director Millard Webb demonstrates a sharp eye in arranging some shots and scenes, making the saga all the more vivid and engaging. Rupert Hughes' contribution as editor is quite fine. The adapted screenplay concocted between Hughes, Bess Meredyth, and Jack Wagner is a bit more thorny. The effort to give the tale a more familiar narrative structure does serve its purpose well, with the trade-off that the movie may feel a tad overstuffed. The augmented human drama does pair well with the more robust moments of adventure - though in a picture of a hair over 2 hours, sometimes it seems like the latter is deemphasized. All the pieces do come together reasonably well; I'm just unsure if it was the best possible cinematic interpretation of Melville's classic in the 1920s. This is most specifically true not least of all nearer the end when the two components are intermittently and unconvincingly woven together until the screenplay gives the tale a questionable ending that Melville did not.

If all these are too many words, however - if it sounds like I'm nitpicking - then let me be more succinct. I think 'The sea beast' is very enjoyable, communicating a compelling story with considerable detailed labor from the crew and a terrific lead performance. I also think the adaptation's grasp exceeded its reach, as the two main threads of its narrative do not entirely gel, and the inclusion of each limits what both could otherwise be. Its strengths are welcome and gratifying; its weaknesses are unfortunate. The film's value only just outweighs its detractions such that I'd give this a firm recommendation for any who come across it; would that it were deserving of higher enthusiasm.

Not a feature for those who already have difficulties with silent films - but for anyone else, this still holds up fairly well even all this time later.