Review: 'Titanic' tugs at emotions
December 29, 1997
Web posted at: 5:27 p.m. EST (2227 GMT)
From Reviewer Paul Tatara
(CNN) -- I'll be perfectly honest. Going in, the main reason
I was happy to finally be seeing "Titanic," director James
Cameron's much-ballyhooed $200 million epic, was because it
meant that I wouldn't have to watch that damn trailer
anymore. When two studios get together and make a movie that
costs more than their own privately funded South American
guerrilla war, you have to figure they're going to make dead
certain that the world feels it has to attend when
they're done blowing all that dough. So, obviously, the
first question that needs to be answered is, is the end
result really worth all that money?
The answer is a resounding "yes," but with philosophical
qualifiers. The money, as they say, is on the screen, but,
happily, there's a lot more to it than that. Quite
surprisingly, when you consider that he's usually more
concerned with The Terminator theatrically pulling drunken
bikers' arms out of their sockets, Cameron has devised a
tender love story between Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio
that serves as the main focus of "Titanic's" storyline, and
it works beautifully.
I've been saying since the day that I heard Cameron was going
to film the story that it was doomed to failure because the
only thing anybody is interested in concerning the Titanic is
that it took a dive. Incredibly, though, I got so caught up
in his star-crossed lovers while watching the movie, I was
actually surprised when that iceberg approached out of the
darkness. This is the equivalent of watching "Star Wars" and
getting immersed in the Han Solo/Princess Leia story while
forgetting all about the Death Star.
The film opens with a brief prologue in which Bill Paxton, as
a modern-day treasure hunter, explores the wreckage of the
real-life Titanic far beneath the Atlantic Ocean. Cameron
actually took his camera 2 1/2 miles down to see the real
thing, and the results are hauntingly impressive, with
decaying railings and smashed bedframes reminding us that
this was an actual tragedy, not a figment of some
screenwriter's imagination. Paxton's character is looking
for a huge diamond that was supposed to have been stored
onboard the ship when it went down. His exploits are
reported on television, and this brings him into contact with
a 100-year-old woman (nicely played by 87-year-old
whippersnapper Gloria Stuart) who claims to have been on the
ship and in possession of the diamond at the time of the
disaster.
As Stuart tells her story, a shot of the rotting wreckage
morphs back in time to 1912 and the movie-proper begins.
Rose is now a beautiful 17-year-old played by Kate Winslet,
who isn't 17 but has the beautiful part down cold. She's
boarding the ship for its maiden (and, of course, only)
voyage with her super-wealthy, uber-snooty fiancée, Cal
Hockley. Hockley is played by Billy Zane, and he's easily
the weak link in the film. Cal is the only character that's
poorly written, and Zane telegraphs his villainous line
readings (and wiggles his eyebrows) like he's about to tie
Tom Mix's girlfriend to the railroad tracks.
DiCaprio plays Jack, a free-spirited young artist who's so
suddenly won a ticket on the voyage in a card game that he
hops onboard with just minutes to spare. It doesn't take
long before DiCaprio (understandably) starts salivating over
the heavenly Winslet, and a Romeo and Juliet-type love story
ensues. Except that Juliet is a rich dame with ritzy
cross-Atlantic digs. Romeo is down below with the riffraff,
but he's cute as a shiny new dime and his hair hangs in his
eyes when he draws pictures. Doncha just want 'em to kiss?
Well, yes, you do. There's an honest sweetness to the love
story. This is no scoop, but the two leads make for an
attractive couple, and, though their dialogue is sometimes a
little too junior high school love diary to be completely
effective, Winslet and DiCaprio display a great deal of
gee-whiz chemistry. For once, DiCaprio's boyishness works in
his favor. Jack is less cocky than he is fun-loving. He
revels in the elegance and spontaneity of his journey back
home to the States, and the splendor of production designer
Peter Lamont's letter-perfect sets is enough to turn
anybody's head. The production as a whole is exquisite, a
seamless re-creation of what was, until now, a
once-in-a-lifetime journey.
Then everything smacks into a bunch of ice and sinks. I
really can't believe it came to this, but (for about 15
minutes, anyway) the movie actually slows down when
the ship starts filling up with water. It's ironic that the
actual Titanic went down on April 15, considering how taxing
Cameron's depiction of the event gets in its early stages.
Zane's character, who's been doing an Edgar Kennedy slow-burn
while his (previously miserable) fiancée happily cavorts
around the ship with Mr. Cutie-Pie, goes through all kinds of
histrionics trying to pry the two apart while the entire set
gradually starts to tilt. This display includes handcuffing
DiCaprio to a heating pipe, which forces Winslet to make like
an action movie heroine, running through waist-deep water
while waving an ax. Her lipstick never smudges, though, and
her eyes remain blue.
However, once the compartments start exploding with H2O and
everyone commences to clawing their way into the few
lifeboats that were available, things pick up considerably.
The sight of this magnificent vessel pointing several stories
up in the night air and splitting in half is truly
staggering. Cameron pauses periodically to insert moments of
real poetry during the ordeal, most memorably when he dwells
on a beautiful woman who's diaphanous gown swirls in the
water above her after she's drowned. The hull's final moments
as it slides into the water are astounding. There's also a
magnificent shot of several hundred passengers floating in
the icy ocean after the ship has made its final descent.
It's a peerless intermingling of believable terror and movie
spectacle.
Now for those philosophical qualifiers. I don't think it's
even open to debate as to whether there are better things to
do with $200 million than to make one movie. By
that, I don't mean that the studios need to be spending their
bucks on medical research. The industry is painting itself
into a corner by upping the ante every time an effects
director like Cameron steps behind the camera, and, since
"Titanic" looks like it's going to be a hit, the end is not
yet in sight. There are a lot of young directors out there
struggling to make their voices heard above the mutli-zillion
dollar glub-glub, and it won't be long before each and every
one of them will have to abandon ship for the more forgiving
waters of independent filmmaking.
"Titanic" is an unbelievable voyage, but not all big-bucks
gambles pay off like this one has, with a formidable piece of
popular art. Artistically and financially "Titanic" will
probably win in the final tally, but (if the movies of the
past several years teach us anything) it's a "Waterworld"
after all. To have to be re-taught that at even one dollar,
more than 200 million will be a hard lesson indeed.
Remember how much you liked the first "Rocky" movie, how
delicate, exciting, and ultimately inspiring it was?
Allowing for inflation, that movie today would cost 5 million
bucks.
"Titanic" is one swell ride. The gradually building
intensity of the plunge could scare young children, although
my 9-year-old nephew who watched the movie with me loved it.
Surprisingly, considering its rating, Winslet's bare breasts
are in full view as DiCaprio sketches her. There's a
God-awful Celine Dion song over the end credits for those of
you who like that kind of thing. Everyone else will be
forced to make a face. PG-13. 207 minutes, but they zip by.