FILM: Titanic 3D
Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:16 PM
This film was huge in 1997, it made an untold amount of money. Many say it was because of the hype. But its simply a very good film.
Camaron's script is very conventional though, and about as subtle as a jackhammer. Everything that happens in the film is designed to evoke somesort of response from the audience. Most films do that. but never so blatantly as this one. There also isn't a single surprise in the film. Even if you never seen this film before, you know what will happen, because you've seen it before in so many other films.
The film consists of 2 distinct parts. The first part is the love story.
Again, there's no subtlety here. Boy meets Girl. First they find each other annoying, and 10 minutes later they have a deep emotional bond. If you are a cynic, then it won't work. If you open up to it, then it does. The 2 leads help a lot. Kate Winslet is gorgeous, and starts of as aloof and distant and becomes a women you care about. Leo starts off a bit over the top as the happy go lucky Jack, but slowly relaxes into the role. The "portrait" scene is genuinly erotic.
The rest of the cast are well chosen. Billy Zane is good in a almost caricature of a evil man. He's so vain, and nasty and ridiculously evil that it becomes fun. (would it not have been interesting though if his character had been a better nicer man, or actually loved Rose? By making him this evil, Cameron hedged his bets)
Of the rest of the cast Kathy Bates is best as Molly Brown.
The second part of the film starts when the iceberg comes into play. Suspense builds when Titanic tries to dodge it, and then the suspense fades away...and everything seems fine.
From that moment the brillaince of Cameron as a director comes good. The way he very slowly build from the moment when everything seems to be OK, till the startling realisation that the unsinkable ship is doomed. I feel a modern film would get to the mass panis and huge flooding scenes to soon. But Cameron delays it, milks it out. Eventually disaster does unfold, and it happens on an apocalyptic scale. The special effects look incredible lifelike and frightening. The rising water looks like a harbinger of death and destruction.. The breaking up and the final sinking are heartstopping moments.
I guess there is a difference between converted to 3D and converted to 3D under the supervision of Cameron.
I'm no 3D expert, but it looked great. The dimensions looked believable and the 3D really brought something to the sinking scenes.
Horners score is the icing on the cake. one of his best.
In it's re-release the film has made over 250 million dollars, against a conversion cost of 18 million. and without the hype it once had. Simply staggering.
**** out of ****
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:46 AM
I'm not really into the whole 3D deal like a lot of people seem to be. I never bothered with The Phantom Menace, probably won't with Titanic either.
Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:37 PM
In it's re-release the film has made over 250 million dollars, against a conversion cost of 18 million.
So what, 3D means, that, what 500 people have seen it? Sometimes I wish that this whole 3D fad would suffer a catastrophic failure and cost people their jobs John Carter-style but unfortunately I don't see that happening.
Posted 30 April 2012 - 08:41 PM
Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:31 AM
Posted 01 May 2012 - 06:01 PM
So what, 3D means, that, what 500 people have seen it?
Posted 02 May 2012 - 12:07 AM
Posted 02 May 2012 - 11:08 AM
I seem to remember Cameron remarking that 3D cameras had been taken down there at one point, but I don't remember if it was in reference to back then, or something more recent.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 06:18 PM
I don't wanna hear about no second shooter or grassy knoll.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:58 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users