Review of Titanic (1997) by Nathant — 23 Oct 2006

The idea that this was a better film than "L.A. Confidential" or the nominated "Boogie Nights" or "The Sweet Hereafter" is plain silly. But watching "Titanic" again for the first time in a few years, I was struck by how much of it does work.

Unfortunately what does work is hampered at every turn by what doesn't. James Cameron doesn't let the British shine (this is an American movie) and he can't resist the urge to do those cutesy references to the era of the film (and aren't we all so clever looking back knowing who Picasso is while the benighted fools aboard think he's doomed to be a starving artist?).

Yet what works is the film's romance, as cornball and contrived as it may be. Far from Leonardo DiCaprio's best performance (that would be as Howard Hughes in the far, far superior "The Aviator"), Kate Winslet keeps the film afloat on her shoulders and provides a compelling reason to watch "Titanic" even as it sinks (literally).

And remember how fashionable it was to say in 1997 that you only liked the last hour of it when all the 'cool' special effects take over? Regretfully there isn't enough heat in those dramatic closing scenes and the direction feels off for that material.

But as the 1990s was the decade of the period piece winning the Best Picture prize ("American Beauty" and "Silence of the Lambs" notwithstanding), this predictably swept the Oscars that year.

It's a decent, occasionally overwrought film that sold more tickets and ran for longer than it deserved to. But as a Best Picture winner, it's sandwiched in between one of the 1990s best films, "The English Patient" and the delightfully romantic "Shakespeare in Love".

Those two are deserving of every second they ask of the viewer.