Flawed, but with a touch of the sublime.

Rating: 7/10 (26 September 1999)

An extraordinary interest still exists in Cameron's film, still argument rages over just how good it is. The timing of its release was significant, the obsession with the film might be explained as a form of pre millennial tension at the close of the most murderous century the human race has known, a century which began with such hope and optimism, and in which the Titanic was ironically such a proud symbol.
'A Night to remember' was released amid worries about the Bomb and the feeling that science was again out of control. 'Titanic' amid millennial jitters. The most discussed aspect is the script, there are lines in the film that are moronic, irritating, senseless and just plain dumb. Others were quoted from the U.S.Senate Enquiry, which proves how people then had a better command of language than we do. Why do Jack and Rose board at Southampton when they've come from Paris? Why doesn't the diamond fall out of Rose's pocket going down with a sinking ship? Why doesn't she find it in her pocket on the Carpathia before reaching New York? Why is it that you can be rude to the ship's owner, assault and abuse the staff, 'fly' from an offlimits bow, run through boiler rooms and cargo holds, cause two stewards looking for you to drown, distract the lookouts, climb in and out of lifeboats, damage property, and NEVER get into trouble? Why do the steerage accept rich snooty first class gatecrashing their party? Why, why, why?
Too much time is spent on the wrapping footage, though the unseen sunken interiors are breathtaking. The taste of showing the Titanic sinking like a computer game in front of a survivor isn't questioned. The dissolve of the wreck into the pristine ship packs an emotional wallop every time. Winslet isn't a great actress, she plays the same in every film. On Leo, when Titanic leaves port in a classic series of images, we feel his joy. But it's downhill from here.
The engine room montage is another classic, but it's looking artificial. Murdoch's feet are all over the deck. The ship looks like it's populated by the Thunderbirds.
Relief, Victor Garber arrives as Thomas Andrews and gives the dialogue meaning, conviction, dignity and charm, quite a feat since thanks to Cameron's warped priorities he only speaks two lines. A thing apparent in Rose is how lacking in charm she is, lighting up at table, and indelicate. No Edwardian. And as this film isn't subtle, but whacks you on the head and biffs you in the stomach we must have the class speech straight away. Tommy Ryan is the most irritating character I've seen on screen and completely unlike any Irish I've met. The next situation isn't credible. Isn't there a better way of introducing these two than the unbelievable jumping off the stern. There is one good line in the dull walk and talk that a first class wench would have said 'This is MY part of the ship' huffs Rose. But with the spit scene any hopes of a romantic wallow are dead.
The cheek of the dinner party is how Jack Dawson, somebody who if Rose had chopped his hand off with the axe, would have been pushed to earn a living, has the temerity to lecture a brilliant engineer, a captain with 40 years experience and captains of industry on how to live life, when he hasn't started shaving himself. We need a unmaterialistic message in films, even if it would come better from a director who hadn't overspent his budget by $100million. But the portrayal of rich and poor is straight out of a propaganda film for the gulag.
It's a pity, there is such a brilliant Irish band on board, and there aren't equally brilliant dancers.
Whether the film has a Christian message at the core or if it's proclaiming that doing your own thing is more important, it's hard to say. The divine service was open to all classes so Jack being turned away is misleading and pointless. A stunning scene on the bow but there hasn't been a romantic exchange yet between this couple that convinces us. Such models of taste and discernment and the brightest thing they say about Monet is that his use of colour is extraordinary. The funniest line in film history: 'This is a ship, only so many places she could be'. The next shot: Titanic bowling merrily along. A thousand rooms!
The iceberg finally turns up, the collision is breathtaking, the acting top notch and inseparable from the historical event even if Titanic hits the only iceberg in the whole Atlantic. The surreal party with music and lifejackets shows Cameron can write. Sometimes. But Jack manacled up is tedious and the crew wouldn't have done that on a sinking ship. The real story is lost in Rose running around. The lifeboats when we see them are done far better than any other version, and the timeline makes perfect sense.
Titanic alone and helpless, a tiny ship with a futile rocket in an empty ocean is inspired. The film takes on a different dimension and has a touch of the sublime. The images that accompany the hymn are elegiac and perfect. The choreography around the last two boats can't be surpassed. Now we do feel a sense of the panic and despair. The water through the dome, a baptism of fire. No one can fail to be moved by the 20 minutes of terrible destruction. The lifeboat scenes couldn't have been done better, and the Carpathia is a painting brought to life. How exactly Rose retains her incognito through the years when she's a publicized actress, an aviator and everything else in the known universe isn't explained. The ending is a straight pinch from 'Somewhere in time' which did a better job of a love story set in 1912.
The frustrating thing is how many things ARE done well. There are gems of writing and acting. It looks terrific. But it proves that you can recreate the cutlery, carpets, staterooms, clothes, but it's so much harder to recreate history. It isn't 1912. And half the film isn't Titanic.