TLDR: I liked The Whale, all things considered. This is a touching, sometimes difficult-to-watch, but frequently interesting and engaging movie, anchored by a stellar performance from Brendan Fraser. He really shines here. But, the movie is a bit too melodramatic and unsubtle for its own good, and can be a bit one-note, especially given it's runtime.
The Good:
1. Brendan Fraser. If a Best Actor win wasn't enough, let this lowly IMDB critic confirm it: Fraser is amazing in this movie. His performance isn't just "sad" and it isn't just him crying. He transforms into this character and expresses a pantheon of emotions; it's a truly remarkable and powerful performance that is worth the watch alone. Fraser's Charlie is a broken man, but a smart, kind, and fundamentally optimistic one. He's a complex and interesting character, and one I found myself really rooting for. Fiction is the ultimate empathy machine and while you don't have to love Charlie, I think it's fair to ask you understand him and where he's coming from.
2. The rest of the cast (mostly). Hong Chau is great in this movie as Charlie, I also (mostly) liked Sadie Sink as Ellie. Sink's raw talent shines through, yet again, even if her character can be unbearable at times. Ty Simpkins rounds out the cast as Thomas, a missionary from an Evangelical church, and gives a pretty good, and likeable performance.
3. The "stage play aesthetic." This film feels very much like a stage play, and I wasn't surprised to learn it was based on one. While some might decry its lacking cinematic quality, I actually really liked the confined setting, repeating stage play cues (i.e. The knock), and general pace of the movie. At points, I sort of felt I was watching a play, and I liked that quality of it.
4. The philosophy (mostly). I think this film has a nice outlook and explores some big questions in an interesting, if sometimes melodramatic way. It's actually quite astonishing how much the film really ends up being about given its setting and subject matter, and while I don't think all the positions are satisfying, A for effort.
5. The make up and set design. I feel like I could smell Charlie's house whilst watching this movie. Yes, the set is simple but it really feels like a place someone is living, as opposed to a set. Charlie...looks fantastic. The make-up and prosthetics truly transform Fraser.
The Bad:
The Good:
1. Brendan Fraser. If a Best Actor win wasn't enough, let this lowly IMDB critic confirm it: Fraser is amazing in this movie. His performance isn't just "sad" and it isn't just him crying. He transforms into this character and expresses a pantheon of emotions; it's a truly remarkable and powerful performance that is worth the watch alone. Fraser's Charlie is a broken man, but a smart, kind, and fundamentally optimistic one. He's a complex and interesting character, and one I found myself really rooting for. Fiction is the ultimate empathy machine and while you don't have to love Charlie, I think it's fair to ask you understand him and where he's coming from.
2. The rest of the cast (mostly). Hong Chau is great in this movie as Charlie, I also (mostly) liked Sadie Sink as Ellie. Sink's raw talent shines through, yet again, even if her character can be unbearable at times. Ty Simpkins rounds out the cast as Thomas, a missionary from an Evangelical church, and gives a pretty good, and likeable performance.
3. The "stage play aesthetic." This film feels very much like a stage play, and I wasn't surprised to learn it was based on one. While some might decry its lacking cinematic quality, I actually really liked the confined setting, repeating stage play cues (i.e. The knock), and general pace of the movie. At points, I sort of felt I was watching a play, and I liked that quality of it.
4. The philosophy (mostly). I think this film has a nice outlook and explores some big questions in an interesting, if sometimes melodramatic way. It's actually quite astonishing how much the film really ends up being about given its setting and subject matter, and while I don't think all the positions are satisfying, A for effort.
5. The make up and set design. I feel like I could smell Charlie's house whilst watching this movie. Yes, the set is simple but it really feels like a place someone is living, as opposed to a set. Charlie...looks fantastic. The make-up and prosthetics truly transform Fraser.
The Bad:
- The philosophy. At the same time, I think this movie frequently veers into melodrama. Fraser's whole speech about um...college not mattering because what matters is (*checks papers*) that you can write a short sentence about yourself is what REALLY matters...was cringey, to say the least. The movie is extremely on the nose at times and sometimes feels like it's hand holding the audience. Aronofsky typically makes quite challenging movies, and I have to wonder if the studio insist he make this clearer and more straightforward.
- One note. Another thing, and consider this a minor negative, but aside from a few moments of levity, this is an otherwise pretty miserable movie. I don't know, felt like given the run time, we could've used a bit more variety.
- Sadie Sink and her Mom. I understand why Sink's Ellie acts the way she does, and I feel she is redeemed in the end, but OH MAN, is she one of the most irritating teens I've seen on screen in a while. Samantha Morton's Mary on the other hand...gave one of the most "play like" performances in the film, with even her voice sounding weirdly clearer and louder than others in the film. It's as if she's...on stage or something, and maybe it was intentional, but her scene just felt off to me for that reason.