PDA

View Full Version : Titanic


wusmmik
11-28-2005, 05:52 AM
Titanic wr.and dir. James Cameron, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet

My video pick is a blast from the past. Apparently, the movie channels are regenerating interest in this one because of a three-disc DVD that is scheduled to hit stores soon. So, before you gorge yourself on that..catch an unadorned viewing of one of film's modern masterworks.

I sat down to watch Titanic skeptically, thinking that ten years ago its backstory and hype combined to make it the highest grossing film of all time.
I remember the torrent of stories about its megabudget ($200 million) and how the filming was tortuous for all parties. But then, I remembered how entrancing it was to see it in the theatre.

So, skeptics rise up and watch this review.

Titanic is the masterwork of modern filmmaking. No film in recent history has successfully combined story and special effects into such a cohesive whole.
The only films that come close are The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Titanic trumps the false epic sweep of "The English Patient", by resorting to old-time escapist moviemaking.

Cameron's script is the real star of this one. His inspiration to tell a story around this major tragedy, could have easily turned into pathetic muck (or worse straight Oscar bait). Instead, he frames the story around the retelling of one of Titanic's survivors, Rose. This eloquence is extended through the entire exposition of the film. We see the opulence and beauty of the Titanic, the class system, we meet characters and encounter situations that evolve into a love story that is heartbreaking. Like Romeo and Juliet, Titanic is a classic tragedy and no matter how Shakespearian you think it may not be..
Titanic is..and it is a story that begs to be told again and again.

The exposition is near-perfect. We gawk at the detail of the sets, the amazing digital rendering and regale in the passengers Cameron sketches in for us. Kate Winslet, as young Rose, is the heart of the film..we see everything through her eyes. She is a pillar of strength, but also vulnerable and disenchanted. One night, after a tumultous meal with her nefarious fiancee (played with classic mustache-twisting evil by Billy Zane), she considers shuffling off this mortal coil by leaping off of Titanic into the waters below. She is saved from this the cavalier Jack Dawson, Leonardo DiCaprio offering the perfect balance for Kate. What follows is a love story that can be told again and again, with no exhaustion.

Cameron, as the director (and co-editor), leads us through their love story dropping in scenes of foreshadowing here and there. This last viewing, left me amazed that Cameron, at the time not an Oscar-level director, could get such great performances out of a supporting cast that on paper is far from Oscar-worthy. He hits all the right notes with actors like Suzy Amis and David Warner, moving them and so many around like chess pieces. In the first hour of Titanic, Cameron proves his worth as a storyteller.

Once the exposition ends perfectly with Jack and Rose's consummation, the real disaster begins. I will keep this part brief, because honestly it deserves repeated viewing. The technical work that goes into the sinking of the ship is amazing. No matter how much money they spent ($30 million on the tank and special studio alone in Mexico), it was worth it. As you watch the ship turn up into the North Atlantic sky, observe the level of accuracy the hundreds of digital wizards put into effect here. What you see is made absolutely heartbreaking because of the characterizations and the smallest details.

The film's conclusion is unbelievable..in a good way. The myriad of shots of passengers floating in the water to their icy death is unreal. The magnitude of this disaster and the brief love between Rose and Jack left me speechless.
Cameron's eye for detail returns here as we watch Molly Brown try to rally her new self-absorbed rich friends...and they do nothing. Jack and Rose float in the water as people freeze to death all around them. No matter how much you may know about the digital rendering of their cold breath you may know about, watching this last act of the tragedy unfold will likely weaken the heart of the biggest skeptic.

In the end, Titanic stands as a great example of filmmaking at its finest. In this cycle, you will probably see a whole new generation of viewers enjoy it for the first time..but more importantly, those of us who saw it originally return to amazement.

Lylabean
02-19-2006, 09:17 PM
I remember when Titanic came out. We went to the theatre like 4 times before there was a showing we could get into! It was sold out for weeks. And when we finally did get it we had to sit on the very front row.

I worked with this guy who went and saw Titanic six times! Another co-worker razzed him good about that...hehe

Lynn

deidrehallfan4ever
09-26-2006, 01:20 PM
Five stars! I loved that movie...

HubCityMan1912
09-27-2006, 06:58 AM
I was one of three people in the State of Mississippi to be a member of the Titanic Historical Society (founded in Boston in 1963) in the mid-'70's...The 1997 movie version--which I have viewed one time (at the theater in December '97)--gets maybe 4 stars: The high-tech "special effects" were/are stupendous and unsurpassed...BUT, unacceptable and unneccesary disappointments include: 1) All that shallow/immature/soap opera running around by the fictional couple in the bowels of the ship takes away from the authenticity/accuracy of the actual event--for the obvious sake of further "entertaining" a "modern" audience, yet the real event needs no "embellishment" (if you really know/understand/care about what actually happened)...This unneccesary approach just to be "hip"/"trendy"/"with it" also takes away from the real-life agonizing suspense/dread/impending doom (of contact with the freezing water [28 degrees] and therefore death) that was prolonged for two hours but ultimately experienced in abject HORROR by 1517 men, women, and children during the actual tragedy...2) Director Cameron spends a quarter-of-a-billion dollars yet ommits completely the real-life drama of the potential rescue ship--the Californian--lying just 10 miles away! WHY?...3) Director Cameron spends a quarter-of-a-billion dollars and cant even get the tune to the final [famous] song right: He has the band (and a few people) playing/singing the hymn "Nearer My God to Thee" to the American tune [music] instead of the British version of the tune (same/similar words) that was actually sung as the cold waters of the North Atlantic rolled over the Boat Deck that April Monday morning in 1912! WHY?

With all due respect/appreciation for (and much agreement with) the impressive review/reccomendation by WUSMMIK, after all is said and done: If you want to see a realistic rendition of how the actual [last 10 minute] sinking of the ship looked and sounded--along with some 2 hours of very colorful/entertaining (but hardly historically accurate) scenes/episodes prior to that terrible event, watch the '97 version...But if you want to see and experience a much more accurate "true to life" recounting of the actual event--with a far more authentic "look" and "feel" of the people who actually experienced this horrible ordeal, watch the '58 British (black & white) version famously titled "A Night to Remember", faithfully based on the Sir Walter Lord book of the same title...It's definitive in that regard--as Cameron's big-budget '97 version coulda/woulda/shoulda been!

iheartellisons
10-16-2006, 07:22 PM
I saw Titanic in the theatres three times - but that was because i never saw it in full the first two!! The first time, the movie cut off when the Titanic was in the air about to plunge, and the second time, the sprinklers went off in the theatre!! Finally the third time i saw it and loved it. it makes me cry every time!

dave06668
10-16-2006, 08:00 PM
why did that 11 yo boy and that 35 yo woman get together?thats what they look like to me,i just dont buy it.

The east man
10-23-2006, 03:27 AM
I was one of three people in the State of Mississippi to be a member of the Titanic Historical Society (founded in Boston in 1963) in the mid-'70's...The 1997 movie version--which I have viewed one time (at the theater in December '97)--gets maybe 4 stars: The high-tech "special effects" were/are stupendous and unsurpassed...BUT, unacceptable and unneccesary disappointments include: 1) All that shallow/immature/soap opera running around by the fictional couple in the bowels of the ship takes away from the authenticity/accuracy of the actual event--for the obvious sake of further "entertaining" a "modern" audience, yet the real event needs no "embellishment" (if you really know/understand/care about what actually happened)...This unneccesary approach just to be "hip"/"trendy"/"with it" also takes away from the real-life agonizing suspense/dread/impending doom (of contact with the freezing water [28 degrees] and therefore death) that was prolonged for two hours but ultimately experienced in abject HORROR by 1517 men, women, and children during the actual tragedy...2) Director Cameron spends a quarter-of-a-billion dollars yet ommits completely the real-life drama of the potential rescue ship--the Californian--lying just 10 miles away! WHY?...3) Director Cameron spends a quarter-of-a-billion dollars and cant even get the tune to the final [famous] song right: He has the band (and a few people) playing/singing the hymn "Nearer My God to Thee" to the American tune [music] instead of the British version of the tune (same/similar words) that was actually sung as the cold waters of the North Atlantic rolled over the Boat Deck that April Monday morning in 1912! WHY?

With all due respect/appreciation for (and much agreement with) the impressive review/reccomendation by WUSMMIK, after all is said and done: If you want to see a realistic rendition of how the actual [last 10 minute] sinking of the ship looked and sounded--along with some 2 hours of very colorful/entertaining (but hardly historically accurate) scenes/episodes prior to that terrible event, watch the '97 version...But if you want to see and experience a much more accurate "true to life" recounting of the actual event--with a far more authentic "look" and "feel" of the people who actually experienced this horrible ordeal, watch the '58 British (black & white) version famously titled "A Night to Remember", faithfully based on the Sir Walter Lord book of the same title...It's definitive in that regard--as Cameron's big-budget '97 version coulda/woulda/shoulda been!

Must say I did actually enjoy the film, but like yourself, I have a great fascination with the Titanic, and it sometimes gets annoying when you see stupid errors.
Another thing about the film, having been born, raised, and still living within 3 miles of where the Titanic was built, we feel the film didn't capture the sense of pride that the workers in Harland and Wolff shipyard felt when the great ship left Belfast. And the despair when we found she had sunk on her maiden voyage.
One of my old teachers (unforunatly died earlier this year) John Parkinson, ( A prominate member of the local Titanic society) whos Father worked on the Titanic, he would tell us stories of when his Dad would take him every Saturday down to the shipyard to see how it was progressing. Then when news came through that she had sunk, the whole of Belfast was in depression. He said that was the only time he saw his father cry, and he wept like a baby.
I know nothing to do with the film, but just another viewpoint on this amazing story

TRV25
03-07-2007, 11:54 AM
Wow- i cried so hard in this movie that the people in front of me turned around and asked me to shut-up. It's very good. Just really long.

Baxter54
03-07-2007, 12:38 PM
Chick flick. However, it is a good movie though. If you are a guy, just don't admitt it around your friends.