My thoughts on the movie


Status
Not open for further replies.

Thomas Kelly

Member
Jun 19, 2004
51
3
158
Firstly, I just want to say hello to all the titanic fans here - I saw and liked the film purely because of the titanic itself - I actually saw it in the cinema before all the hype believe it or not.

Anyway, I enjoyed the film and bought a copy of it on DVD. I thought they did an excellent job of recreating the ship and the special effects were also excellent - I really felt like I was standing there on the ship throughout the film, it was so accurate looking. But I did feel that they went over the top with the love story a few times but I took Leonardi DiCaprio and Kate Winslet's antics as an excuse to see more of the ship myself;)

A good film overall, but I didn't like the ending. I mean, he just sat there in the water and let himself die instead of trying to get on the door with her. I think they could have killed him off in a better way than that.

Also I felt that the Heaven scene at the end was cheesy and felt like it was slapped on in post production just so they could earn the 12 rating and the extra few quid. Plus I feel that a film who's entire theme revolves around tragedy shouldn't have an ending that's right as rain anyway.

Anyway, I liked the film overall and give it 7 out of 10. Minus 1 for leaving out a few historical details (The Californian for example) and minus 2 for the love story.

What are your opinions on the movie?
 

Susan Alby

Member
Oct 22, 2004
188
2
183
Hi Thomas-
I thought James Cameron did a great job in integrating the real characters on the ship with the fictional main characters of the movie. It was not intended to be a historical documentary. When Jack wins the Poker Game, it is like YOU have also won a ticket aboard the Titanic with him!

Cameron and producers had to make decisions to try and make the film more appealing to the General public, not just Titanic or historical buffs. Remember, the whole story is a 'flashback' from Rose's memory and is just one person's account.

I think the movie successfully brings the Titanic back to modern audiences. I have not seen many other Titanic films, but have heard 'A Night to Remember' is another good one. They would be interesting to compare.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Welcome to the site, Thomas. You'll like it here. You'll also find a lot of interesting information on the real Titanic - information found nowhere else. Enjoy!
 
Jan 6, 2005
276
7
183
Iowa, USA
Thomas:

I thought that overall, Cameron did a very decent job. It is true that there are inaccuracies in it, but some are intentional (like putting Caledon and Rose in the suite actually occupied by Bruce Ismay). And some things that are counted as inaccuracies by some critical viewers are the result of moviemaking needs. The sequence of the sinking is a good example:

To begin, there are those who claim the entire concept of the sequence is wrong; there are two major schools of thought on how Titanic broke up before her plunge to the bottom. One school feels that the break occurred from the bottom upwards, the other feels that the break happened from the top down. Cameron shows the top-down theory, and any thoughtful viewer would have to acknowledge that the choice was probably made because a top-down break is far more cinematic than a bottom-up one. The spectacular lift of the stern, and its mighty smack back into the water, may not have actually occurred. They are one hell of a show.

I've also heard the sequence criticised for its bright lighting. It is true that the ship was not that brightly lit, and it is also quite probable that nothing could be seen after the ship's lights went out. But with people paying ten bucks for a movie, they have to be able to see what's going on. Once the ship's lights went out, I doubt that any witness had any real view of what was happening; the night was moonless, and after a period of staring intently at the lighted ship, peoples' night vision would have been pretty impaired. I think it's doubtful that anyone saw much more than a black silhouette against the stars. Not very cinematic, huh?

I myself have one major quibble with the sinking sequence; I think it's way too sanitised. Cameron shows people falling, and people hitting the water. In a few shots, he shows people falling along the tilting decks of the ship, and he does show some people dead of hypothermia in the water. But there he stops, to protect the sensibilities of his audience. It was probably appallingly worse than that, by several orders of magnitude.

People didn't just drown in the disaster- they would have met almost every kind of accident it is possible for a human being to have. Crushing, impalement, electrocution, steam scalding, suffocation, dismemberment, broken backs and necks- you name it, it probably happened. Cameron is very demure and discreet about those things, to the point that I think he does the dead a disservice. "Going to sleep" in the cold Atlantic looks almost romantic when Leonardo de Caprio does it. The truth was probably a lot rougher and readier; hundreds who perished likely died in the most horrendous pain and suffering. However, I don't think Cameron is necessarily to be faulted; he could not afford to alienate audiences with $200 million at stake. It's just that he purports to show what happened during the sinking, and then couldn't, not really.

Still, it's a great, grand show, in the best Hollywood tradition, and it does give some sense of the scale of the tragedy. I think it gives a decent idea of the chaos during the sinking, and a good idea of the ship's opulence. I'm not much of a Rose-and-Jack fan, but without their story, I don't think that Paramount Pictures and Twentieth Century-Fox would have joined forces to show me the Ship of Dreams, and so I have to be grateful.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Cameron is very demure and discreet about those things, to the point that I think he does the dead a disservice.<<

Perhaps from our point of view, that arguement may have some merit. I would point out however that some have said that what he did show was way too graphic and a disservice to the dead. I've seen some people say as much right in this forum.

Persoanlly, I think he was walking something of a tightrope here. On the one hand, he didn't want to softpedal anything. Sinkings are anything but sedate events where the ship slips quietly underwater and the victims just go to sleep in the cold. Cameron's smart enough to know this. On the other hand, he had to factor in the sensibilities of audiences who would object to a graphic portrayal of the nasty gorefest that the Titanic's last moments undoubtably were.
 
Jan 6, 2005
276
7
183
Iowa, USA
Michael:

I'm in complete agreement with you that Cameron had a movie to make, and an investment to protect. That he did walk the tightrope you mention, successfully, is borne out by the movie's popularity.

I hope I did not give the impression that I would have enjoyed a gore-fest. There are discreet ways to depict almost anything, so that audiences get the idea, without getting too queasy-making about it. What I'm getting at is that I don't think the range of possible fates was given much attention. Cameron focusses instead on Rose and Jack "ridin''er down" alongside a flask-nipping Joughin. It's undeniably good popular moviemaking, but in my subjective opinion, allows the viewer too much denial of the fact that people were dying in their hundreds at that moment.

As you say, though, that's me, and there are other sensibilities to be considered.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>I hope I did not give the impression that I would have enjoyed a gore-fest<<

You didn't.

>>What I'm getting at is that I don't think the range of possible fates was given much attention.<<

I agree. For my own money, I think that Cameron would be in something of a catch-22 situation on this one. If he shows it like it most probably was, he get's nailed for being too graphic. Tone it down and he gets pilloried for not being "True to life."
 
Jan 6, 2005
276
7
183
Iowa, USA
Michael:

I have to admit to one other quibble, which I think could have been addressed handily, if anyone had thought the issue through:

I really regret that no one thought to use Titanic's sets to film a "DVD extra" or "mockumentary" tour of the ship. Cameron had the most meticulous re-creations of Titanic's interior we're ever likely to see, and it would have been nice to see them without actors in the way, as a special treat, as well as a tribute to all the people like Ken Marschall who worked so hard on the project. As we know, the sets were not 100% accurate, but they were damned good, and represented the most amazing research and investment.

It would have taken some tricky scheduling (so many of the sets were necessarily destroyed for filming), but it would have been nice to see the ship plain.
 

Nigel Bryant

Member
Jan 14, 2001
532
8
263
Wellington, New Zealand
Hi,

In fact, Cameron did do something like that. There is a CD-Rom called James Cameron's Titanic Explorer where you can tour through the movie sets. Each movie set is shown beside a Titanic deckplan to show where you are susposed to be in the ship. You can tour most of the first-class spaces like the dining room, reception room, grand-staircase landings, the smoking room, verandah cafes, promenades and more. This CD rom comes in three sparate disks and tells the whole Titanic story with lost footage from Cameron's film. You might want to have a look on ebay or something, there are sometimes copies being sold somewhere.

All the best,

Nigel
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Nigel,

I'm wondering how he identified the Master-at-Arms' security office when it was put in the wrong place. The same thing regarding that E-Deck hallways into which they emerged from the 1st-class pantry to find the crying little boy. According to the blueprints, such a corridor didn't seem to exist on E-Deck right aft and below the 1st-class pantry/kitchen. Perhaps it was generalized on the blueprints. Hmmm, interesting...
 

Nigel Bryant

Member
Jan 14, 2001
532
8
263
Wellington, New Zealand
I think Cameron just took a little bit of artistic license with the lower decks. To make it more maze like for his characters. The master of arms suite was relocated especially so you could see the water lapping at the porthole as seen in the motion picture. It's all portraying it in a dramatic way I guess. It would not have been as 'dramatic' without the porthole if you know what I mean.

Nigel
 

Mary Hamric

Member
May 4, 1999
139
4
263
Actually, some of the actual sets still survive at Fox Baja studios in Rosarito, Mexico. You can tour them. The boat deck is amazing. You walk out on there and it really throws you. It's like you are on the ship. It just about brought a tear to my eye.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,235
31
243
Talking about inaccurate sets, I don't believe there was a little room at the top of the ladders leading to the boiler rooms (remember that Jack'n'Rose lock the door to this room to ward off that evil varlet Spicer Lovejoy).

Paul

 

Ernie Luck

Member
Nov 24, 2004
643
6
183
In view of all the nit-picking that there has been going on in another thread, I thought I would redress the balance by expressing my personal opinion that the film 'Titanic' was brilliant.

We must remember that it was not intended as a documentary and was made for a much wider audience than us 'Titanic' buffs. We should be grateful to James Cameron that he went to great efforts to produced such a credible story line (excluding the love story which was obviously fictitious). The graphics and sets were marvellous and the sequence of events were pretty accurate as far is generally understood.

Cameron has been criticized for including the suicide of an Officer, namely Murdock. But who can blame him for including this in the film when some of the most knowledgeable people on ET have been debating whether he did shoot himself or not, all week!

I agree that it palls in places especially if you watch it several times - it loses its initial impact. Perhaps some of those who knock it have watched it too frequently and like the really good TV adverts you get sick of them eventually.
 

Thomas Kelly

Member
Jun 19, 2004
51
3
158
"I agree that it palls in places especially if you watch it several times - it loses its initial impact. Perhaps some of those who knock it have watched it too frequently and like the really good TV adverts you get sick of them eventually."


I think a truly great film should be one that doesn't lose it's impact no matter how many times you watch it. The likes of Titanic, Armageddon and Pearl Harbour are good films but not great ones. That's just my opinion of course.
 
May 1, 2004
272
8
183
62
Pacifique du Nord
As I've posted before: overly long and the cast, each and every one of them, pulled knock-out punches despite the script's appalling over-dramatics.

Remember the Rock 'em Sock 'em robot game from the 1960s? I had one (it's long gone now), but if I still had it I'd name one fighter Jack and the other fighter Rose. Just so I could say their names each time I threw a punch!!!!!!!!!
 
Feb 22, 2005
9
0
131
I think the film was brilliant, every time i see it ,I get tears in my eyes, as i know what has happen to the ship in 1912 and think of all the poor people who died and those who had survived had to live with what happened, and also the families that had to cope with the loss of love ones.
 

Thomas Balle

Member
Dec 30, 2004
98
1
158
i like the film!

i watched it in the cinema on the day it was released here in denmark. i was only 9 i think. i'll tell you what i think about the movie later
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads