TITANIC
A film review by David N. Butterworth
Copyright 1997 David N. Butterworth
Rating: *** (Maltin scale)
Easily the most anticipated, most delayed film release of 1997, James Cameron's $220 million "Titanic" steams into theaters with a slew of questions to answer, most notably was it worth the wait, the hype, and all that money?
Well. "Titanic" is big, that's for sure. The size and scope of the production are evidenced by a massive, detailed replica of the White Star liner, impressive visual effects, countless extras, and a love story transcending the Atlantic ocean itself. That, plus the fact that the storyline is played out over three and a quarter hours, and we're talking epic proportions here.
"Titanic," alas, doesn't quite live up to its promise or its much-ballyhooed pricetag. But it's an entertainment on a grand scale nonetheless.
Water-bound dramas are rarely without their production problems. Cameron's own "The Abyss" had its fair share, and those dogging "Waterworld" (prior to "Titanic," the most expensive movie in Hollywood history) are legendary. On "Titanic," it's clear that Cameron the get-it-right-and-budget-be-damned director fairs far better than Cameron the sounds-about-right screenwriter. While the ship sinks convincingly and spectacularly enough, leads Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet get saddled with lots of cornball situations and dialogue. Cameron's trump card was to make "Titanic" first and foremost a love story. However, his straightforward approach to that fateful night on April 15th, 1912 lends itself better to his visual overtures than his romantic undertones.
DiCaprio plays Jack Dawson, a freewheeling, penniless (are there any other kind?) artist from steerage who's smitten by Winslet's Rose DeWitt Bukater, a stifled society damsel from the upper decks. Cameron paints the haves and the have-nots a little too black and white--the rich are all stuffy, boring snots while the poor are the only ones who really know how to have fun--but on the darker side, Billy Zane is particularly good as Rose's suave, callous fiancé Cal Hockley.
Of the innumerable versions of this ocean-going tragedy, this one might be the first to imply that the Titanic hit the iceberg because its lookouts were distracted by a couple making out on deck.
However, even at its epic length, "Titanic" is never boring. Time skips by quickly, and there are more than a few decent supporting performances to enjoy, including Frances Fisher (as Rose's disapproving mother Ruth) and Bernard Hill, in an underwritten role as the ship's ineffectual captain.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film occurs during its present-day setup, when a rugged salvage expert (played by Bill "We're toast, man!" Paxton) has one of his staff explain, via a fascinating computer animation, how the ship went down in the icy waters of the North Atlantic, sending 1,500 of its 2,200 passengers and crew to their deaths. All this, of course, is represented in larger-than-life Cameron-a-rama later in the film, when the tragedy of 1912 is stunningly recreated.
At this point in "Titanic," DiCaprio and Winslet take a back seat to the spectacle and, like the rest of us, hang on for dear life.
-- David N. Butterworth dnb@mail.med.upenn.edu
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews