Overrated? Slightly, But Not By Much

Rating: 7/10 (15 May 2001)

`Titanic' has a large number of fans that will cheerfully proclaim that it is the best movie ever made, and a large number of detractors who will cheerfully proclaim that is nothing but puerile, overrated garbage. The truth lies somewhere in between - `Titanic' definitely shouldn't have won the Best Picture Oscar in 1997 (), but to dismiss the film as utter crap is very unfair. `Titanic' tells a complex tale, and, for the most part, tells it very well. The fact that parts of this tale are either predictable or flawed shouldn't be ignored, but it also isn't enough to turn `Titanic' into a rotten movie.
`Titanic' has a slightly predictable story, but most films involving a well-known historical event tend to be predictable. Before the movie even starts, anybody watching `Titanic' should be able to predict a few things: The Titanic will set sail in glorious fashion, with its owners grandly proclaiming its unsinkable nature; there will be a story about the passengers, some fictional, some real; the Titanic will sink in a slow and horrible fashion; and while the ship sinks, the characters will be forced to deal with their own mortality, and some will be heroes while others will be craven cowards. See? Predictable. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the historical nature of `Titanic' dictates this story structure. After all, it's the structure James Cameron actually uses. But the execution of that structure . . . well, that takes some talent, if the film has any aspirations of being good. It means blending action, romance, drama, and historical accuracy. And James Cameron blends them all splendidly.
The main story concerns a young girl named Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet), traveling to America in order marry an arrogant millionaire named Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). The marriage, which has been arranged by her formerly rich and now-destitute mother (Frances Fisher), is abhorrent to Rose, so in a desperate attempt to escape her fate, she attempts to jump off the ship. Of course, she doesn't jump, but is instead saved by the happy-go-lucky Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), and of course the two begin a brief, if implausible, romance. This romance, which is perhaps the weakest part of `Titanic' is still vitally important to the story . . . because it gives the audience a very strong reason to care about these characters when the ship hits the iceberg, and about the choices they make. Could it have been better? Absolutely. But considering that the romance is a means to an end, rather than the end itself, it's not bad.
DiCaprio is superb as the wide-eyed vagabond Jack Dawson - he brings enough earnest enthusiasm to the role to make it totally believable as to why Rose would fall in love so quickly with him. Winslet's slightly less believable, though; she's good, but not great. She puts in a nice, quiet, restrained performance, but it's so restrained at times that it borders on comatose. It's actually the minor characters that add some zip to `Titanic' - Billy Zane is outstanding as the villain Hockley, as he gives Hockley enough human nuances to make him seem like a flawed, arrogant person, and not just some standard bad guy ripped straight out of a Flash Gordon serial. Also worthy of note is the modern-day interaction between deep-sea explorer Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and the elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart), floating on an exploration ship far above the watery grave of the Titanic. No only does their interaction serve as a brilliant, unobtrusive way of relaying the historical facts about the Titanic's final hours to the audience, but Paxton also manages to become a surrogate for the audience - as the movie unfolds and gets more and more interesting, it's a neat touch to see his character Lovett become more and more fascinated with Rose's stories.
It would be remiss not to mention the special effects of `Titanic', which by and large is the film's strength. While the ship (and its sinking) is a product of CGI effects and model works, it's done it such a realistic manner that it never calls attention to itself, or reminds the audience that they're watching a movie. Of more importance is that the film's effects, while spectacular, never ARE the film - they always SUPPORT the film's story.
There are many things to nit-pick about `Titanic' (although I find it hard to believe that people really nit-pick the minor historical inaccuracies of the film; Cameron got all the major details right, and the films probably more than 95% accurate, for crying out loud). But those problems are nit-picks - very tiny but slightly irritating details, nothing more. They keep the film from being an all-time great, but they certainly don't make it a bad film. The blend of romance, action, history, and special effects probably explains the film's vast appeal - there's certainly something for everyone in this film - and it also makes `Titanic' an excellent, if not perfect, movie. Grade: B+