Do you Like the 1997 Movie "
-
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(September 02, 2022 01:45 PM)
Despite its popularity, it is one of the most weakest written best picture films around. Cameron undermined his own film, with his soggy script.
I think it is average and even technically it has dated.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(September 03, 2022 11:53 PM)
Cameron just wanted to show the titanic and its sinking. He admitted he just tacked on the love story. That's why the writing is so basic and cliched - its an excuse just to fill out the time before it sinks.
Also, Cameron's strongest talent is casting great actors in all his previous films, and Di Caprio and Winslet are awful actors. He was obviously going for actors who he thought would have mass appeal, rather than fitting the role.
I've always disliked this movie a lot despite being a fan of Cameron. It's so generic and fake. The story of the Titanic deserved a better script and characters. Watch the TV movie with George C. Scott instead of this crud. -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 12:35 AM)
The film is for simpleminded film goers.
Tbf to cameron, he knew what he was doing. He knew his shallow script would work on the masses and thus make the movie a billion plus. If he had written a proper script (and never casted Di Caprio) the movie would not have made half as much. He needed the dough to pay off the budget.
It's kind of like The Abyss, which failed because audiences wanted more action and schmaltz. The Abyss was well written and well acted, audiences didn't get that, if he had made it like Titanic it would've made more. He wasn't making the same mistake twice. -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 12:49 AM)
He compromised his artistic integrity. He could have also still had Winslet and DiCaprio, who had both worked with better scripts. Cameron's writing was crap here and a misstep.
The Abyss
is the opposite, intelligent yet blandly cast. I like both Mastrantonio and Harris, but they were not drawcards for box-office. Marquee light up is important and he could have had both. Another misstep.
I am not a huge Cameron fan, so I find it easy to diss his thought process.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 02:12 AM)
We can definitely agree on the script being substandard. I do think Di Caprio and Winslet are terrible. David Warner and Billy Zane were very good in Titanic, good actors can overcome bad scripts.
"The Abyss is the opposite, intelligent yet blandly cast"
Fair enough. I really liked the leading actors in Abyss. Michael Biehn especially. Mary-Elizabeth was a big star at that time, she was in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves two years later.
Abyss failed because Summer audiences were expecting another Aliens or Terminator, not something so long and dramatic.
"I am not a huge Cameron fan, so I find it easy to diss his thought process."
Understandable. I like his 80s films a lot but after the failure of the abyss, he took the easy options. T2 was just a rehash of T1, and everything after that was mediocre/bad -
-
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 02:23 AM)
I thought Zane was terrible in Titanic. The dialog he was given and the representation of his character was cliche stereotype.
They were not big enough stars in The Abyss. Harris was like a Dennis Quaid, couldn’t quite make it into superstardom realm and Mastrantonio needed stronger lead presence to bounce off. That is why she was very good in Scarface and The Color Of Money. Biehn was always best as support.
I like Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves and I liked how the romance played out. It wasn’t icky.
Cameron made money for the studios. Ultimately, his films are mediocrities sold on technical achievement and big star names like Arnie.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 02:33 AM)
I thought Zane was terrible in Titanic. The dialog he was given and the representation of his character was cliche stereotype.
Well, maybe. I've only seen titanic once, in the cinema, but I remember everyone cheering when the fat chick hocked in his face, meaning he played the cartoon bad guy well. I dunno, maybe you're right.
They were not big enough stars in The Abyss
It's true they weren't big enough stars. I don't think that harmed Terminator or Aliens, because Arnie wasn't a mega star yet and Signourney wasn't as big either in 86. I think what harmed The Abyss was that it was marketed as an underwater action movie, and it wasn't.
Ultimately, his films are mediocrities sold on technical achievement
I agree with that about his post 80s stuff. -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 02:51 AM)
I saw Titanic many times, I projected it for endless months on end…..
Arnie had a following with Conan and his screen presence was appealing. They were able to sell The Terminator with his name above the title. It was a win win here and the film was unlike anything seen before in the action sci/fi genre. It was gritty too.
Weaver had appeal and the marketing of Aliens clicked. An action film with a female lead that fitted the scenario perfectly. The original Alien was also still very popular.
The sequel was highly anticipated by fans and female viewers would have been intrigued seeing Weaver in a tough empowerment role. Weaver deserved the Oscar. Plus the addition of Newt, who was well cast, Weaver was seen as no-nonsense protector. I love Aliens and forgot about this being Cameron.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 03:01 AM)
The sequel was highly anticipated by fans and female viewers would have been intrigued too seeing the
empowerment
role.
Were people into that even in the 80s?
Funny thing about Aliens, despite Weaver being the star, I think the other actors steal the show, particularity Bill Paxton and the camaraderie between the Colonial Marines. -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 03:16 AM)
I never really questioned it at the time, only that it looked cool, but Weaver looked the part. I’m not female, but I’d say females who were interested in seeing it, would have liked that a woman was in charge.
Weaver gave a one of a kind performance; smart, shrewd, tough and tender, without sledgehammering the audience with Mary Jane ideology. She was just who she was, like Vasquez, and being a futuristic setting, the gender was irrelevant to the capabilities.
Ripley had already proven herself in Alien.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 03:35 AM)
Weaver gave a one of a kind performance; smart, shrewd, tough and tender, without sledgehammering the audience with Mary Jane ideology. She was just who she was, like Vasquez, and being a futuristic setting, the gender was irrelevant to the capabilities.
Agreed. Cameron directed her part very well, he really borught out the best in Weaver and also Linda Hamilton. If Aliens came out today, with the kind of writers/directors they have now, then Ripley would be unlikable. It's all how the part is written and directed, and the talent of the actor. -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 05:38 AM)
Weaver and Cameron did it right and it was bereft of fake gender politics behind her character. There was no forced gender conflict. Having Ripley or Vasquez on your side would be no different to having the male marines on it either.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(September 04, 2022 07:14 AM)
Exactly. I agree 100%, especially the last sentence. What you said reminded me of this guy's review for the new She-Hulk series, where he talks about how poorly it's written.
That woman in the show is what Ripley would be like if Aliens came out today haha.