I've been watching Titanic a lot lately (when there's nothing else on the TV, HBO is almost guaranteed to be playing it on one of its many channels), and what I'm noticing (other than the great art direction) is how good actresses both Kathy Bates and Kate Winslet are, considering how much they both bring to their very underwritten roles.
Compare and contrast Dicaprio's really shallow take on his Jack (was this movie the beginning of the overabundance of Jacks in film and TV?)--he could have done so much with Jack's supposed worldly wisdom, acquired as a starving artist in Paris, but instead all we get is him bleating "Rose!" and "I'm the king of the world!" all while dodging bullets from the evil Billy Zane and David Warner.
I liked Victor Garber. And the band that went down with the ship.
I hated the movie, but I loved Victor Garber.
I started to write a long defense of not seeing the movie based on what I know about it and what I know about movies that I hate, but, y'know, it's easier to just call me a snob. I'd prefer "aesthete," but they may be the same thing.
And people are bidding for it.
End times...end times.
I think "snob" implies that you judge other people for seeing (and/or enjoying) Titanic.
I hated the movie, but I loved Victor Garber.
I am Plei. Only good moment of the movie was VG staring at the painting of the ship as she was going down.
The SFX were good, but I'm a character/plot person for movies and astounding effects will never make up for bad character/plot.
I saw Titanic on TV, and thank heavens, because I could watch something else for the entire first half (it was split up over two nights) and then tune in for the disaster-porn.
Which, I mean, I have seen a lot of disaster-porn. I know there are better reasons to show what is happening at the water line than "they handcuffed my hero to a sinking boat!" Where is the Fred Astaire-level guest star? Where the random O J Simpson sighting? The subplots were not nearly ludicrous enough, and not enough famous people got to die, and anyway a death any less OTT than flames and/or a 100-story drop (thank you Richard Chamberlain) hardly counts toward the entertaining body count.
Really, a historical disaster movie is stuck either way. If it's meant to be Reverently Historical, then it can't get away with idiotic invented love stories. (Like Titanic wasn't interesting enough without teh sex??) But if it's not meant to be Reverently Historical, then there's no reason not to go OTT and have Loni Anderson on board, and have her hair act as a flotation device.
I think "snob" implies that you judge other people for seeing (and/or enjoying) Titanic.
Well, I did (sniff). What do I have to do, an (eyeroll)?
Where do I fit in, if I both saw AND enjoyed Titanic, but was embarassed about both of those facts, even at the time?
