Rating: * * 1/2
James Cameron is one of the best film directors out there. He made "The Terminator" in 1984, which is not only Arnold Schwarzenegger's best film, but quite simply the greatest action film ever made. "Aliens" and "The Abyss" were excellent sci-fi films and literally invented new technology. "Terminator 2" was a great sequel, and "True Lies" was a ton of fun. He also made T2-3D, a cool theme park attraction.
Then he made "Titanic." "T2" was the most expensive film of its time at a hundred million dollars. Titanic more than doubled that. It went far over budget, in fact. And it was well spent. The special effects are absolutely incredible.
Cameron's script, however, leaves something to be desired. It concerns unsatisfied 1st class 16-year-old Rose (Kate Capshaw) and her romance with 3rd class con guy Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio). His profession: wander around Paris, France drawing girls naked. Here is problem #1.
(WARNING: minor but predictable spoiler) In 1912, a 1st class teenaged girl sleeps with a 3rd class teen 24 hours after they meet. Maybe, *maybe* in the 80s, but in 1912?
In fact, that's the main problem. The film revolves around a romance that is stupid and completely unbelievable. In other words, the script stinks.
The film lasts over three hours. This is not necessarily a bad thing. All of Sergio Leone's classics last about that long. But in Titanic, the hours are divided up in different qualities. The first hour is fine and somewhat spectacular but not great. The second is really stupid and ruins the film. The last hour is superb in nearly every way. As I have already mentioned, the special effects are awesome, and Cameron's directing abilities are at their very best.
The cast is fine but not great. I've never been much of a fan of DiCaprio, but he's okay here. Capshaw is really good, but is outdone by Billy Zane as her slimy fiancee.
This won eleven Academy Awards, which has only been done once before, for 1959's "Ben Hur." Ben Hur was a true classic, and deserved it.
Titanic won Best Picture, which should have gone to LA Confidential. Best Director was more or less deserved for helming something on this scale. The special effects, sets, cinematography, costumes, etc. definitely deserved it. James Horner's score was good, but it did not deserve and Oscar as much as some of his others, like Glory and Star Trek II. And surely this wasn't the best film song of the year.
As I said in the one-line-summary, it is Cameron's worst so far... but that's not really that bad. Steven Spielburg has made worse than this.
It might not be a bad idea to see this film just for the spectacle. I just can't think of any other reason.
James Cameron is one of the best film directors out there. He made "The Terminator" in 1984, which is not only Arnold Schwarzenegger's best film, but quite simply the greatest action film ever made. "Aliens" and "The Abyss" were excellent sci-fi films and literally invented new technology. "Terminator 2" was a great sequel, and "True Lies" was a ton of fun. He also made T2-3D, a cool theme park attraction.
Then he made "Titanic." "T2" was the most expensive film of its time at a hundred million dollars. Titanic more than doubled that. It went far over budget, in fact. And it was well spent. The special effects are absolutely incredible.
Cameron's script, however, leaves something to be desired. It concerns unsatisfied 1st class 16-year-old Rose (Kate Capshaw) and her romance with 3rd class con guy Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio). His profession: wander around Paris, France drawing girls naked. Here is problem #1.
(WARNING: minor but predictable spoiler) In 1912, a 1st class teenaged girl sleeps with a 3rd class teen 24 hours after they meet. Maybe, *maybe* in the 80s, but in 1912?
In fact, that's the main problem. The film revolves around a romance that is stupid and completely unbelievable. In other words, the script stinks.
The film lasts over three hours. This is not necessarily a bad thing. All of Sergio Leone's classics last about that long. But in Titanic, the hours are divided up in different qualities. The first hour is fine and somewhat spectacular but not great. The second is really stupid and ruins the film. The last hour is superb in nearly every way. As I have already mentioned, the special effects are awesome, and Cameron's directing abilities are at their very best.
The cast is fine but not great. I've never been much of a fan of DiCaprio, but he's okay here. Capshaw is really good, but is outdone by Billy Zane as her slimy fiancee.
This won eleven Academy Awards, which has only been done once before, for 1959's "Ben Hur." Ben Hur was a true classic, and deserved it.
Titanic won Best Picture, which should have gone to LA Confidential. Best Director was more or less deserved for helming something on this scale. The special effects, sets, cinematography, costumes, etc. definitely deserved it. James Horner's score was good, but it did not deserve and Oscar as much as some of his others, like Glory and Star Trek II. And surely this wasn't the best film song of the year.
As I said in the one-line-summary, it is Cameron's worst so far... but that's not really that bad. Steven Spielburg has made worse than this.
It might not be a bad idea to see this film just for the spectacle. I just can't think of any other reason.