I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Just what I expected

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

MOBY DICK is a solid combination between human drama and sea adventure. This movie is probably the most faithful adaptation of the popular novel by Herman Melville. A sailor comes in a small fishing town in New England. He becomes one of the sailors on the whaling ship. Despite sailor stories that the captain is a freak whaling is successful. However, one day the captain starts to mention the mysterious white whale ...The story focuses on a man and his obsession. Motivation, which establishes very good and dramatic plots, is highly questionable. Despite the captain's consuming hatred and passion for revenge, I think that the motivation of the crew by the captain is the biggest flaw in this film. This is kind of a symbolic representation of the "profound" dialogue that only deepens human agony. Mr. Huston has filled dark atmosphere with a certain amount of mysticism that enhances the feeling of agony and emptiness during the sea wanderingHuman drama is the harmonious combination between effort, error, hope and despair. Sea adventure ends with an expected incident that in the final climax is not impressive. A lot of time and effort was spent on visual effects and it should be respected.Gregory Peck as Captain Ahab is tall, thin and a pretty unconvincing character as a notorious captain, who is torn between his own obsession and revenge. He poisoned the whole crew with his craziness. Characterization is average, due to the complex story. Richard Basehart as Ishmael is a young whale man, observer and storyteller. Leo Genn as Starbuck is the voice of reason. Friedrich von Ledebur as Queequeg is a grotesque phenomenon who is skilled with a harpoon and predicting the future. Orson Welles as Father Mapple got his 5 minutes in the movie. The friendship between the two great directors resulting in an unnecessary appearance.This is an ambitious project which resulted in a solid film about revenge, self-destructiveness and fight against one's own destiny.

This has long been a favorite of mine, but I have a question about the aspect ratio of this film. IMDb's "Technical Specs" page for Moby Dick lists *two* different aspect ratios: 1.37:1 (DVD release) and 1.66 : 1.Now - we all know that many films that were originally shot in widescreen (1.66:1) were then cropped to 1.37:1 for television. For many years, I searched for a widescreen version of "Moby Dick" on DVD or Blu-Ray. I had all but given up, when a user review of "Moby Dick" appeared on TCMDB which claimed that a widescreen DVD *had* been released in Europe (PAL & region 9). Another reviewer on the same page claimed to have seen the film in widescreen on TCM. A search of TCM's website turned up four clips from this film - and sure enough, they're in widescreen. At least one of these clips (Fr. Mapple's sermon) is also available on youtube - BUT - the youtube clip is *not* in widescreen; it appears to be have been copied from the DVD. If you compare them, you'll find something very strange. Normally, "pan-and-scan" DVDs are produced by cropping out the left and right sides of the original widescreen images. But in the case of Moby Dick, it appears that the opposite has been done - the widescreen images were produced by cropping out the top and bottom of the 1.37-1 images. In other words, it appears that Moby Dick was originally shot in 1.37:1, and then cropped to create a widescreen version which has never been released on DVD (at least not in the US). Can anybody shed any more light on the original aspect ratio for this movie? Is there really a widescreen version of this film? And if so, does it contain more information than the DVD version? Or less? (The TCM reviews that I referenced are here: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/17660/Moby-Dick/user-reviews.html TCM's widescreen clips here here: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/17660/Moby-Dick/videos.html and the youtube clip of Fr. Mapple's sermon is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rWV8sBZ9ho)-----------------------------Followup: Amazon is selling an imported Blu-Ray which claims to contain the widescreen version of the 1956 version of Moby Dick. There are a bunch of screen shots from the BluRay on "home theater forum.com" (see note below). I compared those screen shots with similar images from the DVD (which is in the old academy ratio). Sure enough, the widescreen images on the Blu-Ray appear to have been created by cropping the top-and-bottom off of the DVD images. ("Tilt-and-scan" instead of "Pan-and-Scan").For some reason, IMDb won't let me post the name of the website with the Blu-Ray screen shots. They say "it's a very long word, which is not allowed". If you want to see the screen shots, paste the link below into your browser, delete the spaces from "home theater forum" so that it's all one word - then hit "enter".www.home theater forum.com/topic/332782-moby-dick-1956/

I enjoyed the heck out of this movie. It's an honest attempt to bring the great novel to the screen, and there is no reworking or Hollywoodizing of it. The story progresses and the characters are believable.There is, however, a continuing flaw in many movies when an actor of the wrong age is cast for a particular part. This gives us things like a 22-year-old kid playing Superman and 70-year-old Robert Mitchum playing a World War Two Navy captain. (Captains are typically in their early 40s.) That happens here. Gregory Peck effectively conveys the obsessive madness of Ahab, but he is just plain WAY too young. Melville's Ahab is 58, which was considered old in the middle of the 19th century. Peck himself is said to have noted he was not right for the role and that it demanded more than he had in him at that age.Here's a thought.This happens in reverse in another superb seagoing film, "The Caine Mutiny" (1954). Humphrey Bogart, then over 50, plays a 30-something Navy LCDR. Again - Bogie nails the part, but he's just plain WAY too old.What if we go back in time and have Bogart play Ahab and Peck play Queeg? Bogie would be marvelous as the mad, obsessive Ahab, and Peck could bring off the dark, disturbed, unbalanced Queeg just right.Both are marvelous movies with terrific lead characters - but both stars are twenty years wrong in age.Get the DVDs and view both and see what you think.

The beauty and strength of this version of Moby Dick is first of all it was originally filmed in black and white. You know they say when you photograph/film a man in color you photograph his clothes. When you photograph a man in b/w you photograph his soul.Secondly, and most importantly, is the ability of the film to capture the very essence of Ahab's obsession and how he is able to instill that obsession into the very souls of the crew, as if they were lined up, with anticipation, waiting their turn to be possessed . Total mesmerization. Even after Ahab's death.The fear you have as a viewer is watching the enigmatic space between the crew and Ahab slowly shrink till he has consumed them and they will follow his quest blindly with no sign of logic or reason.Obviously the writer hopes we identify with Ishmael, the only survivor, which he is, not because of any luck or good fortune, but because he is supposed to represent the thin line between free will and whatever demon any man can become obsessed with to his utter destruction.