MovieChat Forums > Titanic (1996) Discussion > Terrible acting - Who else thought the M...

Terrible acting - Who else thought the Molly Brown was atrocious?

posted 15 years ago by dtachia
6 replies | jump to latest

Even without the careless historical inaccuracies, the acting did not fare well, it was either overdone or underdone. This version's Molly Brown could not shut her face for the life of her even after the ship sunk. In the '97 version she only talked 1/3rd as much, but in this movie, they probably should've thrown her overboard. There's at least 1 review that agrees:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1996/11/15/1996-11-15__titanic__miniseries_is_sub-.html

The steward's part deserves no comment - he was just overdone w/ his evilness so that he became completely unnecessary. I did not mind Catherine Zeta-Jones acting, though, and the love story was bittersweet: maybe if they had expanded it a little the movie could've gotten something going there ...
And no offense, but the story involving the Alice Cleaver nurse was rather boring and did not grip my emotions as much as the Jack/Rose ones in the '97 version.

Last but not least, whoever says this version is better than the '97 one seriously needs to see both movies back-to-back because that is a COMPLETE DELUSION!!!!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jayanxiety 15 years ago

Certainly this Titanic's Molly Brown was played as a drunken idiot, totally over-the-top. I don't think he character was given any research. Also, the romance between Peter Gallagher and Zita-Jones was totally unsympathetic, especially since she was cheating on her loyal husband and wishing to leave him (and her child?!). The rape scene was totally unnecessary. I felt no emotion for the peril of the characters as I did in Cameron's version. Also, I at no time felt that the ship was the real Titanic. There was no sense of wonder and excitement in seeing the legendary liner, just a bad CGI drawing!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] studmufn 13 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more. The portrayal of Molly Brown was horrendous. I was doing just fine with the film until Molly uttered that if she could survive the sinking of the Titanic then she could survive politics so she might as well run for Senator. Good grief! It wasn't until years later after the sinking that Molly Brown ran for the Senate (and lost). After that I started holding my nose because right then I knew this film was a stinker!

[–] ObieReturns 13 years ago

It was truly awful; even worse than the 1979 TV-movie version, and that was really bad. The entire affair had a rushed, spit-and-glue feel to it. And let me throw my hat in the rape-scene-was-gross-and-lurid ring. It wasn't symbolic of anything - only bad moviemaking.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]