|
First off let me say that I am not anti-chick flick. There have been many that I really like ('Ghost', 'Drity Dancing', 'The
Wedding Planner', to name a few). There are good chick flicks and there are bad chick flicks. This film is not horrible
but it certainly ranks in my bad chick flicks category, and you can bet that I will be adverse to ever watching it again (although
I would much rather watch this film than 'The Notebook, which ranks in my worst movies ever list). Truth told there are actually
many people that like this film; but why, I can't imagine. Have we become blinded by the cheese that oozes from the screen
whenever this movie is shown? Perhaps.
To start with, this film is unforgivably corny. One needn't look further than 'Jack!' 'Rose!' said about ten times
or 'I'll never let go!'. Adding to the cheese is the actress who plays old Rose and who is horrible. They must have just
picked her up in some senior citizen center and told her to speak words on a page. Speaking of words on a page, the dialogue
is laughably bad, and the sad thing is it doesn't mean to be. It's trying to be heartfelt but it's a total epic fail. There
is not one witty, clever, or powerful line spoken in the whole film. Some of the delivery of the lines is painful to hear,
as if they are embarrassed to be saying those things. A fine example of this is the scene with Rose and Jack on the main
deck where she tells him to leave. It's not a funny moment, though it's supposed to be. The whole exchange doesn't sound
natural, but rather artificial and not they way people would normally talk. The dialogue so bad that even Kate Winslet and
Bernard Hill can't make their characters worth watching. Who wrote this script? The characters aren't bad; they're simple
but not bad. And the acting isn't bad either, although Victor Garber's Irish (?) accent is ridiculous and completely fake.
Leo isn't a bad actor, but again, his fine acting is ruined by cheesy lines (I wonder how much of an influence the director
had here and if he is the cause of some of this acting). But Leo does have a boyish air about him that adds to his character.
I like the glee in his eyes as he runs to the ship in the beginning. The worst actor is the man who plays Cal (aside from
the old woman). He can't act either (but again, is it the directing?). It's a shame; Kate Winslet is an excellent actress
but her talent is wasted here. Clearly, Mr. Cameron was trying to get emotion flowing and to get the audience to feel for
the people but again, epic fail. Emotion isn't easily portrayed, except for the end where everyone dies. The only people
who will care are teenage girls and those who were all over Leo during this time period. Mr. Cameron can't direct actors
well, nor does he know how to garner emotion or romance from camera angles or shots (and forget dialogue, but I fault the
writers). Too bad 'Atonement' and 'Brokeback Mountain' weren't made yet; he could have watched them and gotten some advice
out of those directors. Style wise the film is fine. The effects are incredible and in this aspect it's a good film to watch.
The ship is nicely done and the sets are perfectly matched to the real thing. I'm particularly impressed by the engine room.
I wonder if they really built the entire ship; they must have built at least part of it. The sinking of the ship doesn't
look too fake either, which is good. Some shots of the ship at sea are obviously fake and clearly shot indoors in a pool,
but technology has improved so much now that I'm sure if the movie had been made now these scenes might have been flawless.
There are also some shots where it is obvious that they have been Photoshopped or something. But again, now they might be
fine. I also must say on a side note that I love the costuming. All of Rose's dresses are just gorgeous. My fave is the
blue one. But I do love her giant purple hat. Back to the boat. I had a problem with the end, where the sinking only takes
up about 30 minutes at most. The film is called 'Titanic', and wouldn't you expect it to be similar to 'A Night to Remember'?
And didn't they seem to sell the whole story of the boat and its fate? And then it turns out to be a love story which takes
place on the boat. Not that I enjoy carnage, it just seemed a little jarring that you go in expecting a film about Titanic
and it's fate, and instead you get the boat as a minor character while the main focus is on the love story. The idea of a
love story taking place on the ill fated ship isn't a bad idea, but the execution, as I've explained, is where it all fails.
I also noticed how they introduce Bill Paxton and his research crew and give us a small story about why they are there, but
they never tell us why they are looking for the locket in the first place. And then they never mention it again. And it's
a little annoying. Aside from that, I was impressed by the underwater shots. I wonder if those are real. There is a real
sense of tragedy to this film. It's a tragedy that because of some people's stupid opinions and mistakes people died. It's
depressing.
You can call me bitter and cynical and cold hearted and everything; it won't change the fact that this film is poorly
written and poorly directed. The acting is a disappointment and the script is one of the worst ever. The idea is not bad,
although I would have preferred less romance. The biggest problem is the script, which ruins the whole film. It could have
been a great film if not for the writing. The only real plus is the style and the effects. But special effects aren't the
whole film. They can add to it yes, but there is more to a film than effects. And I know that people look at this now with
nostalgia or something similar, but I can't understand why anyone ever liked it as much as they did. Look closer, people!
Open your eyes and see how bad this movie is! If only I could change the world....And what was up with the goldfish the
old woman kept carting around from her home to the research vessel? I can speak from experience that you can't move goldfish
around in a bowl. It spills. And you especially wouldn't be able to travel VIA HELICOPTER with fish in a bowl. It is not
a good idea. Maybe this is just a detail that irks me, but it irks me.
Best quote: there is not one single line worth noting. The whole script deserves an F.
Best moment: There really isn't one. Not that the whole film is filled with bad moments, there just aren't any worth
noting.
Worst moment: the end. Does the old woman die? Does she dream about Jack? They don't tell you. And what's with her
dropping the diamond in the ocean? Her acting hits an all time low in this scene. BAD. And 'The iceberg. I see it in your
eyes.' makes me want to puke.
Why you should see it: It's sure to appease chick flick fans; this is probably the ultimate chick flick. And the acting
isn't abysmal, just disappointing. Actors like Kate and Bernard do the best they can with the bad script they have. And
maybe you want to see it because you're curious or just want to say you have. It's not entirely painful to watch.
Why you shouldn't: It might be seen as a disappointment. It was for me. Bad directing, bad dialogue, a really bad script,
and some shoddy acting sink the film (sorry, couldn't resist, mate). For those of you who like really good films this is
the bane of your film-going. Steer clear.
p.s. And the music? Pathetic! How many more times do we have to hear 'My Heart Will Go On'? Where is your creativity,
Mr. Horner?
|
