drama suspenso
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
THAT SCRIPT - I - the significance of rain
Added 10/11/2009
To be honest, this is more critique than review, so if you're thinking of buying the DVD having yet to see the movie, I suggest you skip this and go straight to the next review or the ADD to BASKET button, which if you do you won't regret. But let's face it, just about everyone's seen this movie and if you have but are still considering purchasing the DVD as a gift or to have as a permanent copy, then you may safely read on because there's no intention here to put you off. On the contrary, I wish to extol the movie's virtues having had what could best be described as a Saul to Damascus conversion regarding a movie curmudgeons such as my x-self seemed to just love to hate.
A great spectacle hampered by a poor script. That appears to be the general feeling about Titanic, and one I used to harbor myself, but nothing could be wider off the truth, now, in my opinion. This script is as highly polished as the floor Cal Hockley slid upon as he chased Rose and Jack through the sinking ship. Those who rate the script poorly are, for one thing, likely confusing script with dialogue and for another, finding fault where there is so little. They're also forgetting, else not aware to begin with, that the characters' spoken lines are the lesser part of the script. They should realise that every picture, sound, mood, every jaw-dropping scene, every moment of joy, love, terror, every smile, frown, wince, lip-waver, and expression of fear on the characters' faces, has been written into the script. Then there's the characterisations, plot, pace, action, backdrops and coincidences, which are all carefully managed, weighted and envisaged by the scriptwriter. And they must all mesh with each other as they must with the dialogue. So this is in defense of a great script and that part of it subject to the most undue criticism, the perfectly formed love story.
When Rose deWitt Bukater sailed under the statue of liberty into New York harbor at the end of her voyage, it was lashing with rain. And significantly, though you'd be forgiven for missing this, Rose wasn't seeking shelter from the rain. Does anyone think the rain wasn't part of the script or that rain wasn't necessary to the story? It seems a trivial detail but to the scriptwriter the rain in the scene is everything. I'd go further and say the movie doesn't work without it. Rain cleanses. It reflects a change of mood. In terms of script dynamics alone, the rain marks the passing of time, and not just the sailing time of the rescue ship, Carpathia, from the disaster zone to New York, but also the eighty-four years separating the stories of young and old Rose. Rain is never just rain. It always has a function in a script. It's a dramatic device specifically chosen and precisely timed by the writer. Whether historically it rained or not as Carpathia docked is neither here nor there and matters not to the teller of this story. Here, more than anything, the rain symbolises a new beginning and the end to young Rose's story with the statue of liberty itself offering its own significance. The rain's also our cue to let Rose go, but without its cleansing, almost baptising effect, she cannot begin to make a new life for herself. Rose has to move on and we have to let her, as though we are steering the script with our expectations. Without the rain, Rose cannot become old Rose.
The script is near flawless, even given the almost cartoonish characterisations of Billy Zane's Cal Hockley and sidekick, David Warner's Lovejoy. But when I ask myself how such a man as Hockley, the spoiled, handsome and eligible heir to a major fortune would react to the provocation of his beautiful young fiancée falling for the charms of some scruffy kid, I expect the answer would be pretty angrily. The dastardly villain might seem a cheap device, but for me it works exceptionally well in Titanic. Watch how long the character tries to maintain his composure and win Rose around - but his shallowness, cowardice and jealousy can't help but surface like scum in the end as he effectively sinks himself in Rose's esteem. Simplistically drawn he might be, but Hockley falls just the right side of believable and with that equal propensity for charm and flying off the handle makes all the right moves for a classic villain...
(more at UK...)
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
bleedin' shame
Added 10/5/2009
Bleedin' shame director James Cameron was such a ninny at the Oscars. And that Kate Winslet was such a temperamental diva. And that Leonardo is such a heartthrob. And that this movie was so expensive to make.
Because focusing on any of those irrelevant things will prevent you from enjoying one of the most immersing movies ever made. Danged if after watching it, you don't feel like you were actually on the Titanic yourself!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A sinking feeling...
Added 9/16/2009
Take any cheesy love story worthy of Mills and Boon. Set it against one of the worst shipping disasters of modern times, being sure to pad the story out so the film overruns by at least two hours. Add in some "ground breaking" special effects, and you have yourself an Oscar-winning epic, 1997-style. Anachronisms abound. (Rose giving the "finger" - I half expected her to say "kiss my ass!") The "class warfare" angle is ridiculously overplayed, and just in case we *really* don't get it, no mention is made of the fact that the Titanic had classes of accommodation other than "first" and "steerage". Presumably the second class passengers spent the entire time below decks. When the truth doesn't fit the class agenda, Cameron simply makes it up - witness the steerage class passengers locked below decks while the toffs boarded the lifeboats, and the officer who murders several passengers before turning a gun on himself (a shameful fiction which did not please the real fellow's living relatives; Cameron was forced to apologise). "Titanic" was condemned in some sections of the English press as an "anti-English" film. In truth, it's simply a lazy movie which exploits Hollywood clichés (hence the English-accented villains) and twists the truth to suit its own prejudices. In summary, "Titanic" is a dull, uninspired film which does the Titanic story a disservice. If this is the template that Cameron is using, I sincerely hope he doesn't have a "9/11" movie in the pipeline. "Titanic" could scarcely have been less credible if Cameron had filmed an all-out action adventure, with Arnie in the title role, and it would surely have been more entertaining!
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
History, told through a love story
Added 9/16/2009
I saw Titanic three times in the theater, and enjoyed it each time. The first time the theater was packed, and it was amazing how this movie drew the audience in, including myself. I didn't see any dry eyes in the theater by the end of the film.
Outstanding set design and effects, a wonderful musical score and and a timeless love story, are all used to retell the sinking of the Titanic. The historical points of film are surprisingly accurate and it inspired me to read up on other historical facts the movie couldn't get into.
This movie holds up well and is one of my all time favorite films. Class and gender warfare, are interesting backdrops to the love story. For a story you essentially already know whats coming, this film really kept you on the edge of your seat.
The extras on this collector's edition are well worth getting, with among other features, an additional 45 minutes of deleted scenes. Many of the deletions are simply the extra footage of shortened scenes that did make the movie, and frankly much of the extra scenes could have been left in the movie. However the film was already long by most standards, and timing and pacing reasons dictated most of the cuts. One 3 minute gun chase scene was properly deleted in its entirety. The somewhat alternate ending was fun to see, but the theatrical version was clearly the right choice.
Thew three disc version is the one to get, for all its extras.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Visually Remarkable Film But Ultimately Overhyped
Added 9/2/2009
I've seen Titanic several times and I keep coming back to the same conclusion: other than Kate Winslet's spot-on treatment, the rest of this film suffers from miscasting and wooden performances that are the cornerstones of a James Cameron film. It works passably in action flicks like Terminator, but when applied to an 'ageless love story" that garnered Oscar hardware in abundance, it suspends disbelief and borders at times on camp.
The biggest miss for me was the casting of Leonardo diCaprio in the lead male role. Unless you are a twelve-year-old girl, he possesses none of the verve, charisma, or intrigue one would have wanted from the role of Jack. I kept wishing the part had found its way to a Johnny Depp or Ewan McGregor. It pushed the bounds of reason to believe that Winslet's character would have been taken with a lightweight like DiCaprio's Jack, who looked plucked from a John Hughes movie. This isn't a knock against Cameron or diCaprio--I've liked their work in many other venues like Terminator and The Aviator--but here it just felt sophomoric and manipulative.
The supporting characters are cardboard cutouts; no one does or says anything other than what you might expect. Other than diCaprio, that feels like more a function of script than of acting. Billy Zane poses, broods, and preens--not that he was given a lot to work with. The actress Gloria Stuart playing the old version of Winslet's character I'm sure was a very nice lady, but not for a single second did I believe that she was an older version of Rose. She appeared to lose her sophistication and zeal for life about the same time she lost her English accent. Kathy Bates makes a nice performance in a throwaway role as the Unsinkable Molly Brown.
The boat looks luminous; the special effects are impeccable. Watch any "inside the set" documentary and you realize the care and effort that Cameron took to replicate the vessel and the sinking. But once you get past that, you are left with a story that suspends belief and borders on cheesy camp. I felt like a lone voice in that capacity when the movie first came out but over time (perhaps with maturity?) others have started seeing this, too.
The film is definitely worth watching for the cinematography alone, and has several memorable moments, but fifty years from now will it attain high standing among the list of Oscar winners? More likely it will be wear as a big budget, glitzy vehicle that plays like an updated Poseidon Adventure. Five stars for looks, two stars for story equals three plus stars.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
THAT SCRIPT - I - the significance of rain
Added 10/11/2009
To be honest, this is more critique than review, so if you're thinking of buying the DVD having yet to see the movie, I suggest you skip this and go straight to the next review or the ADD to BASKET button, which if you do you won't regret. But let's face it, just about everyone's seen this movie and if you have but are still considering purchasing the DVD as a gift or to have as a permanent copy, then you may safely read on because there's no intention here to put you off. On the contrary, I wish to extol the movie's virtues having had what could best be described as a Saul to Damascus conversion regarding a movie curmudgeons such as my x-self seemed to just love to hate.
A great spectacle hampered by a poor script. That appears to be the general feeling about Titanic, and one I used to harbor myself, but nothing could be wider off the truth, now, in my opinion. This script is as highly polished as the floor Cal Hockley slid upon as he chased Rose and Jack through the sinking ship. Those who rate the script poorly are, for one thing, likely confusing script with dialogue and for another, finding fault where there is so little. They're also forgetting, else not aware to begin with, that the characters' spoken lines are the lesser part of the script. They should realise that every picture, sound, mood, every jaw-dropping scene, every moment of joy, love, terror, every smile, frown, wince, lip-waver, and expression of fear on the characters' faces, has been written into the script. Then there's the characterisations, plot, pace, action, backdrops and coincidences, which are all carefully managed, weighted and envisaged by the scriptwriter. And they must all mesh with each other as they must with the dialogue. So this is in defense of a great script and that part of it subject to the most undue criticism, the perfectly formed love story.
When Rose deWitt Bukater sailed under the statue of liberty into New York harbor at the end of her voyage, it was lashing with rain. And significantly, though you'd be forgiven for missing this, Rose wasn't seeking shelter from the rain. Does anyone think the rain wasn't part of the script or that rain wasn't necessary to the story? It seems a trivial detail but to the scriptwriter the rain in the scene is everything. I'd go further and say the movie doesn't work without it. Rain cleanses. It reflects a change of mood. In terms of script dynamics alone, the rain marks the passing of time, and not just the sailing time of the rescue ship, Carpathia, from the disaster zone to New York, but also the eighty-four years separating the stories of young and old Rose. Rain is never just rain. It always has a function in a script. It's a dramatic device specifically chosen and precisely timed by the writer. Whether historically it rained or not as Carpathia docked is neither here nor there and matters not to the teller of this story. Here, more than anything, the rain symbolises a new beginning and the end to young Rose's story with the statue of liberty itself offering its own significance. The rain's also our cue to let Rose go, but without its cleansing, almost baptising effect, she cannot begin to make a new life for herself. Rose has to move on and we have to let her, as though we are steering the script with our expectations. Without the rain, Rose cannot become old Rose.
The script is near flawless, even given the almost cartoonish characterisations of Billy Zane's Cal Hockley and sidekick, David Warner's Lovejoy. But when I ask myself how such a man as Hockley, the spoiled, handsome and eligible heir to a major fortune would react to the provocation of his beautiful young fiancée falling for the charms of some scruffy kid, I expect the answer would be pretty angrily. The dastardly villain might seem a cheap device, but for me it works exceptionally well in Titanic. Watch how long the character tries to maintain his composure and win Rose around - but his shallowness, cowardice and jealousy can't help but surface like scum in the end as he effectively sinks himself in Rose's esteem. Simplistically drawn he might be, but Hockley falls just the right side of believable and with that equal propensity for charm and flying off the handle makes all the right moves for a classic villain...
(more at UK...)
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
bleedin' shame
Added 10/5/2009
Bleedin' shame director James Cameron was such a ninny at the Oscars. And that Kate Winslet was such a temperamental diva. And that Leonardo is such a heartthrob. And that this movie was so expensive to make.
Because focusing on any of those irrelevant things will prevent you from enjoying one of the most immersing movies ever made. Danged if after watching it, you don't feel like you were actually on the Titanic yourself!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
