Whale chased into shallow cove needs the help of Peter Strauss to survive. Dialogue and dynamics are weak but the ending fooled me. Good for animal film fans.
5 Reviews
Needs to be seen end to end.
neongen5 September 2019
Good TV movie about local rednecks (me) trying to shoot a stranded humpback whale with "city folk, strangers" getting' in the way.
jbaronde27 February 2011
Barely remember this and uncertain if it is exactly the movie I am thinking of. There is a humpback whale stuck in a bay because of current low tides but there was high tides when the whale went into the bay. When discovered by locals in small, harbor town, some of the gun nuts or hunters want to go shoot it as it would be pretty awesome to say you shot a whale in the bay near your town. Think of THAT head on your mantle!! Some non-locals who happen to be there for some reason....I think it was they were ship wrecked, step in, reluctantly, to stop them from shooting the whale and try to get the whale back into the ocean. I don't remember how it ended or what happened but there is some good drama btw the redneck hunters and the visiting "whale savers".
I was a young kid when I saw this and later got a high fever up to 105-106 F from some virus or hot summer heat. I started hallucinating and starting picturing this movie happening in the window of my bedroom and was freaked out about how we could fit all the fish and whale in my bedroom. My mother was very worried about me and thought I was possessed by the devil because once during this illness i apparently turned and told her "Mom, I hate God!" Well, a few days later on the way to the doctor and sitting in front of an air conditioner, my fever broke and I was fine. I only remember the hallucinations about the fish and this movie. It took me forever to remember what the name of the movie was and thanks to IMDb.com I believe this is it.
I am a hunter and enjoy guns, but am not a fan of killing endangered species and don't condone shooting humpback whales in your local harbor just because you can. My earlier comments were satirical and tongue-in-cheek. It is possible to enjoy guns without being ridiculous about it...but then you don't get to be on TV or the NRA because they only accept crazies and those good for TV ratings. Common sense and reason aren't good for TV ratings.
Anyhow, wish I could find a copy of this movie so I could watch it again.
I was a young kid when I saw this and later got a high fever up to 105-106 F from some virus or hot summer heat. I started hallucinating and starting picturing this movie happening in the window of my bedroom and was freaked out about how we could fit all the fish and whale in my bedroom. My mother was very worried about me and thought I was possessed by the devil because once during this illness i apparently turned and told her "Mom, I hate God!" Well, a few days later on the way to the doctor and sitting in front of an air conditioner, my fever broke and I was fine. I only remember the hallucinations about the fish and this movie. It took me forever to remember what the name of the movie was and thanks to IMDb.com I believe this is it.
I am a hunter and enjoy guns, but am not a fan of killing endangered species and don't condone shooting humpback whales in your local harbor just because you can. My earlier comments were satirical and tongue-in-cheek. It is possible to enjoy guns without being ridiculous about it...but then you don't get to be on TV or the NRA because they only accept crazies and those good for TV ratings. Common sense and reason aren't good for TV ratings.
Anyhow, wish I could find a copy of this movie so I could watch it again.
Awkward and stilted retreading of tired clichés
ttaskmaster30 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I am shocked...
For once, a Peter Strauss film that has not been interesting in the slightest.
This is one of those that I'd call 'pocket money' films, in that the lead actors usually only sign up because they need some extra spends for that second yacht, or something. But being a bit of a fan of Peter Strauss, I know he tends to take roles based on the script and whether the role appeals. Him being quite a philanthropist and this essentially being a film about saving whales, I can see why he took it. I suspect the same from the likes of Richard Widmark, too.
I only picked it up because it has Peter Strauss in it. As a film overall, I think it fails to deliver. The supporting characters are quite one-dimensional and serve as plot vehicles only. The main cast are fairly single-tracked and there's almost no character development.
What threw me the most is the lack of dynamic between Charlie Lyndon and his family. There's a nice scene at the beginning which does set him up as having a bit of a loner mindset, but for the rest of the film it's like they were completely superfluous aside from a couple of scenes where they just wanted him to give up and go home. For a married man, I'd have thought he'd rely more on his family for support, rather than have them hanging around while he goes off on a crusade... but maybe that was the point.
There was more of a dynamic between Lyndon and the doctor. Indeed, at one point I thought this would be the start of an affair between them and the final parting shows this might have been the case.
I found the dialogue clichéd and unimaginitive, with the acting that delivered it utterly stilted. If I were to guess, I'd say the actors were forced to stick rigidly to some swiftly written script and not given a single inch within which to actually act. I've seen other works by each of the main cast and I know they both have done and later did do far better than this.
Overall, the film works well enough for, say, a Sunday afternoon and it has that feel of a 1980s straight-to-video release. Perhaps good to watch with young children. But beyond that, there are many, many other Peter Strauss films more worthwhile.
For once, a Peter Strauss film that has not been interesting in the slightest.
This is one of those that I'd call 'pocket money' films, in that the lead actors usually only sign up because they need some extra spends for that second yacht, or something. But being a bit of a fan of Peter Strauss, I know he tends to take roles based on the script and whether the role appeals. Him being quite a philanthropist and this essentially being a film about saving whales, I can see why he took it. I suspect the same from the likes of Richard Widmark, too.
I only picked it up because it has Peter Strauss in it. As a film overall, I think it fails to deliver. The supporting characters are quite one-dimensional and serve as plot vehicles only. The main cast are fairly single-tracked and there's almost no character development.
What threw me the most is the lack of dynamic between Charlie Lyndon and his family. There's a nice scene at the beginning which does set him up as having a bit of a loner mindset, but for the rest of the film it's like they were completely superfluous aside from a couple of scenes where they just wanted him to give up and go home. For a married man, I'd have thought he'd rely more on his family for support, rather than have them hanging around while he goes off on a crusade... but maybe that was the point.
There was more of a dynamic between Lyndon and the doctor. Indeed, at one point I thought this would be the start of an affair between them and the final parting shows this might have been the case.
I found the dialogue clichéd and unimaginitive, with the acting that delivered it utterly stilted. If I were to guess, I'd say the actors were forced to stick rigidly to some swiftly written script and not given a single inch within which to actually act. I've seen other works by each of the main cast and I know they both have done and later did do far better than this.
Overall, the film works well enough for, say, a Sunday afternoon and it has that feel of a 1980s straight-to-video release. Perhaps good to watch with young children. But beyond that, there are many, many other Peter Strauss films more worthwhile.
Read the book
petewood-599518 March 2021
It's sad that only two movies have been made from the works of Farley Mowat, Canbda's master storyteller. Never Cry Wolf is much better.
This movie whitewashes a rather complex situation. Good outsider v. evil locals. The truth is that Mowat comes across as a bit of a jerk in the book. Many of the locals resent the attention he brought to their small coastal Newfoundland town. And I can't say I blame them.
Was the way the locals treated the whale wrong? Admittedly, yes, but the impression I had was that Mowat turned the locals into proxies for the entire wasteful and somewjhat criminal whaling industry. The Newfoundland locals didn't hunt whales and, for the most part, lived somewhat in harmony with nature. They didn't overfish and lived fairly simple lives.
They shouldn't have shot at the whale, but whales getting caught in coves was pretty rare. Mowatt himself admitted that. And there was a pretty good chance the trapped whale would have starved to death anyway.
The locals behaved horribly to the whale, but in the grand scheme of things they proved over and over again that they were not the bad guys.
Skip the movie. Read the book.
A film for the sleeping, that is when the humans take over.
mark.waltz28 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
When this TV movie is focusing on following the whales trapped in low water areas, it is fascinating. Unfortunately, there is far too much footage involving the family led by Peter Strauss and Dee Wallace who are fighting to keep the locals from shooting the whales and their efforts to get the government involved. The danger with the whales being slowly starved to death in the low tide is explained by their inability to turn around to get out to the deeper seas, and the efforts of Strauss, Wallace and their kids to help the gorgeous humpback whales is certainly honorable.
The problem is the film is extremely overly long and often ponderous and thus boring. Good location photography and a sweet musical score does help, but in dealing with the subplots involving the people, the whales are short changed as they are much more interesting than the real actors. You can't direct whales. You can only shoot them and document what they are actually doing, and that's much more fascinating than the actual story. It's a difficult film to retain interest because the most interesting elements are dealt with early in the film and then shoved to the side with only infrequent views of these marvelous sea mammals who will have the viewer enthralled with their squeaky song and sudden burst of water out of their spout holes.
The problem is the film is extremely overly long and often ponderous and thus boring. Good location photography and a sweet musical score does help, but in dealing with the subplots involving the people, the whales are short changed as they are much more interesting than the real actors. You can't direct whales. You can only shoot them and document what they are actually doing, and that's much more fascinating than the actual story. It's a difficult film to retain interest because the most interesting elements are dealt with early in the film and then shoved to the side with only infrequent views of these marvelous sea mammals who will have the viewer enthralled with their squeaky song and sudden burst of water out of their spout holes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
