Change Your Image
jdreedatmit
Reviews
Titanic (1997)
Two ways to look at it
Titanic (1997) appears to be one of those movies that you can either love or hate. Personally, I'm in the latter crowd. But I have my reasons.
There's no doubt that James Cameron spared no expense with sets, models and the like. Unfortunately, it was ruined by the two "stars" (Winslet and DiCaprio) and their Forbidden Romance. First of all, it's just plain not realistic. My family worked on White Star Liners (and later Cunard) for years, on both sides of 1912, and the romance just plain wouldn't have happened. Nor would it have been allowed to continue. And they certainly wouldn't have allowed DiCaprio to get on the ship.
Whether you like the romance, the emotion, the love, whatever, this is basically another example of Hollywood exploiting a tragedy to make a glitzy, sugary, appeals-to-the-masses movie out of it. This could have been an excellent remake of A Night To Remember (1958) (not that it needed remaking) what with all the great sets and special effects, but instead the failed. It's just like what they did with Pearl Harbor (2001), which was poor version of Tora Tora Tora (1970). I think Hollywood has learned their lesson by now. But if you want cheesy, not terribly believeable romance set against the backdrop of some of our century's worst tragedies, go see Titanic (1997) and Pearl Harbor (2001). If you want to see well-executed movies about these tragic events, see Night To Remember, A (1958) and Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)
Raise the Titanic (1980)
Worth seeing if you've read the book
This is the book that got me started on Clive Cussler, and although it is quite dated (published 1976) it is still a great book. After searching for years for a video store that had the movie available for rent, I finally got around to watching it. Let me say that if you have not read the book, this movie will seem like another one of those standard 1970's (yes, I know it was made in 1980, but that doesn't matter). These movies have a decent plot, but it gets ruined by dated references, cheesy soundtracks, bad haircuts, and lackluster endings. (c.f. Taking of Pelham One Two Three, The (1978)) Richard Jordan is an excellent characterization of Dirk Pitt. Jason Robards is a decent Sandecker, although his character bears little resemblance to the one Cussler describes in his novels. Naturally, Alec Guiness is superb as Bigalow (who else could play that role?). Oh, and Cussler has a cameo. See if you can recognize him from the pictures on the inside jacket of his novels. It was fairly easy.
In addition, the special effects sequences involving the ship and its rise to the surface were excellent. They were just as good as any sequences in Titanic (1997) and not nearly as expensive, I'll bet.
If you've read this book, my advice is to shell out a couple of bucks for a rental and see how your visualization of Cussler's story matches up against that of the directors. If you haven't read the book, you may still enjoy the movie, but keep in mind the book was written in 1976, when the Cold War was in full force and the Titanic was still undiscovered and would remain that way for another 10 years.
*SPOILERS BELOW* *SPOILERS BELOW*
I'll now go on to describe the primary differences between the book and the movie, in case that's what you're concerned with (that was my primary reason for renting it):
The opening scene in the book (April 1912, where the "mystery man" demands that Bigalow take him to the cargo hold and then locks himself in the vault) is not in the movie. I presume this is due to the large expense a scene such as that would require. Instead, we are presented with a montage of sepia-toned photographs of the Titantic through its construction and on its maiden voyage. The "Thank god for Southby" quote is instead found in a letter that Hobart sent to the U.S. Army the day before Titanic sailed.
The movie begins with the scene on Novaya Zemlya (except it's called something else in the movie, despite the fact that Novaya Zemlya is a real place), with the mining engineer discovering the abandoned Byzanium mine. The plaque identifying Hobart's grave explicitly says "Jake Hobart, U.S. Army", which clears up that little mystery and eliminates the scenes where they visit the mining machinery company in Colorado and Hobart's widow in CA.
For some reason, Pitt is a Captain in the U.S. Navy, not the Air Force, but whatever. Oh, and Sandecker is in on the project from the start, for some unknown reason. Arthur Brewster is referred to as a "con man" instead of a respected mining engineer. There is no mention of the Little Angel mining disaster.
The original mining crew board a Norwegian whaler to get to Novaya Zemlya, and on the way back it's the Russians (who are portrayed as Communists back then, despite the fact that the Czar was still ruling in 1912, 5 years before Trotsky and the revolution), not the French, who chaise them and the Byzanium from Aberdeen to Southampton.
Mel Donner does not exist in the movie, and Gene and Dana are not married, but appear to be dating. Dana appears to be a newspaper reporter or something in the movie (instead of working for NUMA), and its implied that she and Pitt had a prior relationship.
The Lorlei Current expedition does not exist. First, they're looking in the wrong place for the Titanic. Then they do the experiment with the tank, and discover where they should be looking, and only THEN do they find Graham Farley's cornet. And for some reason, they claim that Farley previously served on the Olympic instead of the Oceanic.
Pitt's meeting with Bigalow is pretty much the same as in the book - Alec Guiness is of course excellent - and he presents Pitt with the pennant.
Prevlov (the Russian officer) actually comes on board the ship to meet with the NUMA folks - there is no spying, no Silver and Gold, no fight scenes, no snapped towing cable, and no harsh North Atlantic Storm. Which is unfortunate. As I mentioned, however, the shots of the Titanic coming up are quite well done.
The ending was rather dismal, but I suppose in 1980, Cussler's 1976 ending wasn't acceptable. The movie ends with the discovery of Hobart's grave in Southby, however Seagram balks at the last minute, and refuses to dig up the Byzanium. Ah well, such is life.
The Postman (1997)
Return to Sender
Sorry about the postal reference in the summary - couldn't resist it.
Two of my all-time favorite movies are Dr. Zhivago (1965) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962), so let it not be said that I have no tolerance for long movies. The Postman, however, was just plain bad.
To begin with, it was essentially a remake of Waterworld. Look at the opening scene on the salt flats and tell me that isn't evocative of several scenes from Waterworld.
Let's examine the plot of Waterworld:
-the Mariner, a solitary man, wanders the ocean
-the Drifters, discovering he is different (a mutant) sentence him to death
-he escapes
-he takes on the responsibility of a woman and daughter
-meanwhile, he is hoping to get to a paradise somewhere (Dryland)
Now we'll look at The Postman:
-the Postman, a solitary man, wanders the desert
-the Holnists, discovering he is different (educated) sentence him to a deadly task (finding the lion)
-he escapes
-he takes on the responsibility of a woman and daughter
-meanwhile, he is hoping to get to a paradise somewhere (St. Rose)
Let's face it Kevin, it didn't work in Waterworld. It's not going to work just because its moved to the land.
The amazing cinematography I hear so many people referring to is not enough to make a movie stand on its own. A lot of it looks like it could be a John Ford movie - they even go so far as to transition the movie showing of My Darling Clementine (1949) into the film itself. If you want to see this "amazing cinematography" as well as a good plot, go rent The Searchers (1956).
I completely lost all respect for the film in the scene where The Postman gets the letter from the little boy outside the log cabin. Costner rides by the house at full gallop, and it's obvious he didn't see the boy with the letter. Slow motion is turned on. He turns his horse around, and rides back, picking the letter out of the boy's hand at full gallop. I mean, come on. They only included that scene so they could make that statue at the end. It was the most overly melodramatic scene I have ever viewed in a movie.
Costner needs to be directed by someone other than himself. He does okay in such movies as Field of Dreams, Silverado, and Prince of Thieves (though he's no Errol Flynn). He failed miserably in Dances with Wolves, Waterworld (co-directed by him), and The Postman.
American Pie (1999)
Overall, not a bad movie.
It appears to be one of those movies that you have to be in the "right mood" to appreciate. There were some moments where you just wanted the scene to be over, as it was dragging on, but there were numerous funny moments to make up for it. While there were a couple of "gross-out" scenes, they were not any worse than those in, for example, "Something About Mary". Definitely worth watching....