Stole to much from earlier pictures and is very weak script wise

Rating: 4/10 (13 November 2005)

Titanic, in its day, was a film that captivated movie audiences all over the world. I had to admit that when it came out I wanted so badly to see and watch how the modern special effects would recreate the sinking of the liner. However, looking back on this picture in 2005 I have come to realize that despite some breathtaking special effects this film really isn't that original and doesn't really fit in to the aura of great American films, due solely on its lackluster script.
The first problem with this movie was its lack of originality. Cameron had obviously lifted many scenes from the 1953 Titanic, and the excellent 1958 A Night to Remember. Rose's attempt to rid herself of her elitist rich lifestyle and its confines reign eerily familiar as Barbara Stanwyck tries to do the same for her children in the 1953 version. Also many of the sinking sequences reign familiar from the 1958 ANTR. Even the blocking and staging of the scenes are almost identical in their set up aka Thomas Andrews poetic stance in front of the Titanic's fireplace during the sinking. The film also fails, as the 1953 did on a level, in relegating the really interesting story of the sinking to the background of the plot. We are so in to the Jack and Rose story that when the sinking occurs it is given less time. We are always worrying about Jack and Rose that we miss out on all the other interesting stories that occurred on the night of the sinking and it is this point that leads to another major flaw in the story. By allowing the audience to feel the fear of the ship sinking, by watching Jack and Rose fight there way up flooded corridors, it diminishes the complacency the Titanic's passengers had towards the sinking. In ANTR we are lulled by the lack of panic by the passengers and crew when it comes to the disaster and then are shocked to see the ship sink. In Titanic Cameron is so worried about Jack and Rose that he compresses those scenes in which the lifeboats are being loaded off and thus creates a panicked feeling amongst the passengers when in reality they should be more reserved about the danger until almost the end.
The second problem comes from the the archetypal and caricature way in which Cameron tries to explain the class division on the ship. Painting first class passengers in an ugly way, and third class passengers as selfless heroes is a tremendous error on the part of the filmmakers. Showing them in such a black and white way may help the audience see why Rose wants to flee her life and join Jack in his, but in doing so Cameron has severely misrepresented the actuality of the time. He almost makes it as if on the night of the sinking it was as if the first class passengers ardently wanted the third class passengers to not make it to the lifeboats. There was a whole array of behaviors in all three classes on the ship at that time. Painting the characters into such rigid, one dimensional ways was a big flaw on Cameron's part.
The third problem lies in the acting and the love-story. Leonardo DiCaprio isn't one of the better actors out there. Despite the praise he gets from a lot of people I feel he's just a mediocre actor who happens to get cast in some high quality A level films. DiCaprio's Jack seems dramatically out of place in 1912. This is not mainly DiCaprio's fault as Cameron script is weak. He is written like a 1990's free spirit idealistic artist. DiCaprio obviously did not take the time to gear his Los Angeles Valley accent to that of a boy from turn of the century Wisconsin. His intonation in speech is indicative of that and he insults the British Winslet's fine execution of an American accent. He does not seem a product of his time. Jack's vulgarities throughout the movie, which where suggested in part be DiCaprio himself, seem out of touch with 1912. Vulgarities would be expected by a man of Jack's upbringing but the way he says S**T makes him sound like a 1990's teenager. We also never get to see Jack from the prospective of being dirt poor and the effect that fact has on his life. Instead Cameron only shows the idolized side that in the end inspires Rose to set out on her own. That in itself is a major flaw in the script. Jack does not seem to be a person by just an ideal to allow Rose to break free from her ties. And if Jack is just an ideal than how can we really believe that the two of them, have found a love with one another that will last. All the while one has to wonder what life would have been like for the two of them once the Honeymoon was over. Now that would have made for an interesting movie. Unfortunately DiCaprio's popularity as a teen star was just at its zenith when the movie was released creating one of the main reasons why this film had such a major draw at the time. DiCaprio's is not the only actor who is bad. Billy Zane gives an over the top, caricature performance as Cal, yet his less blameless due to the attitude in which his character was probably devised as (rich, mean , and arrogant). The only actor/actresses who seem to shine are Victor Garber as the astute and dedicated Thomas Andrews, and Kathy Bates as the brassy Maggie Brown (she was never called Molly during her lifetime). Unfortunately there parts are tiny in the film.
All and all I say that Titanic, although visually impressive, falls flat just about every place else. You should only see it for its visuals and not for anything else. 4 out of 10