I don’t think that “Titanic” is a bad film at all; I’m just not sure that it is as great as everyone say it is.
Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »
What´s the big deal about "Titanic?" Sure it´s the highest grossing film of all time, gathering over 600 million dollars domestically, it enjoyed a phenomenal run at the box office, spanning months, and is heralded by many as one of the greatest epics ever created.
So then why do I think it´s just an average film? At its core, "Titanic" is just an overblown, melodramatic period piece that plays more like a soap opera than a historical narration.
The story tracks Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio), a poor boy who manages to procure on the unsinkable Titanic through less-than-reputable means. Jack is an artist who knows his fortunes lie in America and is following his dreams. On the other hand is Rose (Kate Winslet); betrothed to Cal (Billy Zane at his maniacal best), she is sailing toward the confines of marriage to a man she does not love. Unsurprisingly these star-crossed lovers meet on this ill-fated voyage across the sea, fall madly in love and go through a rollercoaster of emotions that as any viewer knows, is all for naught.
Perhaps that is my biggest beef with the film itself; its lack of poignancy. Going in I knew the love wouldn´t last. Even though I love the idea of crossing classes for love, that this is one that can never be.
That doesn´t mean that there aren´t some brilliant moments contained within this overlong, melodramatic narrative. While DiCaprio and Winslett never connect satisfactorily to this reviewer´s mind, they do share a moment on the bow of the ship, the famous scene where Jack teaches Rose how to "fly." Additionally, the early sequence when Jack rescues Rose from her suicide attempt works wonderfully, though more for the banter than the sense of danger.
I would be remiss to make any comments on "Titanic" without talking about the design. From bow to stern, the unsinkable truly came alive for me in this film. Beautiful and awe inspiring, I honestly believed that this was the ship of legend that went down those 90-odd years ago. Unfortunately it was populated with a bunch of amalgamated, stock characters who serve only to fill the gaps between Jack and Rose´s encounters. Whereas the 1953 film was obviously less dynamic than its modern equivalent, I felt a greater sense of attachment for the people who filled the cabins, saw them grown and change; something that did not happen in Cameron´s film.
In retrospect, however, I do think I understand what exactly director Jim Cameron (Aliens, Terminator 2) was doing with this film; he was creating a cinematic period piece. Essentially, "Titanic" is Rose´s memory of what happened on that fateful night and the events that lead up to it, thus the limited perspective. Of course that doesn´t explain how she knew so much of what happened to Jack when she wasn´t around, but that´s rather inconsequential. Her memory, too, is likely marked by what she´s seen since then, and in order to process the details rationally she has to omit broad characters in favor of simple ones.
The problem is that, when the inevitable tragedy occurs, I don´t feel anything for most of the people who died. Aside from a few scenes (which are my favorites) in the lower decks where the third-class passengers are locked away from the eyes of the easily-offended, most of the passengers are neglected. When they fall to their deaths when the ship splits in two, I feel nothing more than a pity that they died. A wider focus on the people in the ship could have helped elicit a broader sense of tragedy, but that is not the film that Cameron was making. This is a simple story, one that is easily predictable, set against a dynamic historical background.
"Titanic" is beloved by many and most have at least heard of it, if not witnessed it themselves. I forwent its theatrical release and rented it some months later with my brother, both of us feeling thoroughly under whelmed and wondering what the hubbub was all about. Though I´ve been overly critical in this review, I don´t think that "Titanic" is a bad film at all; I´m just not sure that it is as great as everyone say it is. It certainly earned every award it won because most were in technical categories, and the only other real contender for Best Picture was "Good Will Hunting," which had its own problems.
"Titanic" is a phenomenon. Those who love it will not likely be dissuaded by my criticisms and newcomers will view the film with all the trappings that it´s accumulated over the years. I just hope I could shed a new perspective on a film that will likely hold as much reverence in history as the event it depicts.
Video:
The 2.35:1 Anamorphic widescreen presentation is a smidge underwhelming. It looks washed out and lacks the definition I would expect from an epic film like this. Certainly it needs to posses a touch of unreality to pull off both the special effects and period look of the story, but the colors look off and nothing pops off the screen. It´s not bad but simply feels off.
Average user rating (1-5):
[release]16504[/release]