MovieChat Forums > Titanic (1996) Discussion > Anyone else think this movie is terrible...

Anyone else think this movie is terrible?

posted 20 years ago by arc27
27 replies | jump to latest

I literally left this film wishing I had never seen it, for it marred my appreciation of the other Titanic films.

So many things are wrong with the this film I can't even list them all.

It's plot is about as captivating as a mud puddle - and the film's lighting is just as dingy and dark. It follows far too many sub-plots, which makes it hard to connect with the characters. For that matter, the film's characters are, for the most part, just plain annoying, and many of the actors that play them were horribly miscast (i.e. the actress who played Molly Brown). In addition, some of them are entirely one-dimensional - namely Tim Curry's character. (And they say Cal, in the 1997 blockbuster, is one-dimensional ). The film's pacing is mind-numbingly slow, the sets are historically inaccurate, the "rape scene" is simply ludicrous...

Etc... etc... etc...

How it received a 6.0 is beyond me.

[–] dmaherishere 20 years ago

This film showed the Titanic who it was.

sorry to bust your bubble there, but the story in James Camerons Titanic would not have happened in the 1912, 1997 possibly but it was a whole different world in 1912 and this films presents to us what it really was like.

[–] arc27 20 years ago

I assume you're saying the whole Jack/Rose situation couldn't have happened in 1912.

I sort of agree with you there - sometimes I have thought they acted a little too "modern". However, it's important to realize that both Jack and Rose were unique, strong-willed people, who didn't fit the social molds of the time. In a way, they were ahead of their time.

Here's the thing I don't get. Following your logic, the whole Catherine Zeta-Jones/Peter Gallagher ordeal couldn't have happened in 1912 either. I mean, their relationship was just as "modern" as Jack and Rose's. (Catherine Z-J committed adultery, considered divorce, etc...)

[–] dmaherishere 20 years ago

Well Not quite affairs did happen all the time, the only thinbg being that people didn't do what they did in Camerons Titanic. Jack would never had been allowed to mix with the first class, that scene where he is on deck with rose showing his art work to her, he wouldn't have been allowed to do that and it would have been sacrilage to invite a 3rd class passenger to dine with them, especially if they were sitting with all the real life famous people of society back then, it would have appeared to be shamefull.

What Catherine Zeta jones and peter Gallagher did was bad and indeed shocking, it did happen but they did it how the edwardians would have done it, I fell that in this movie the characters were like real edwardians, in camerons titanic the charcters were people from the 90's.

[–] arc27 20 years ago

You've convinced me - the '96 version does give a slightly better portrayal of Edwardian life.

[–] rossrobinson 20 years ago

i don't like this verson, not that all good acting, the 1997 verson has got to be the best because it's more lovable and more romantic.

r.robinson

[–] titanic-28 19 years ago

I just think the 96 version is so much better because the 97 one is about jack and rose the 96 one is about the titanic. it has cahterine zeta jones plot and another one but that does not consume so much of the film most of the film is about the titanic and lots of people on it i don't think one star plot fits the mold there were over 2,000 people on the ship.

[–] titanrd1 19 years ago

the 1997 version uses jack and rose to convey the tragedy on an emotional level. It stays very historically accurate while cleverly weaving this pair of fictional lovers which are used as a tool to help the audience relate, and feel for those who survived and died that horrible night.
I think the 1997 version is by far superior... obviously

"You jump, I jump Right?" "Never Let go" - "TITANIC" (1997)

[–] ladyorthetygr 19 years ago

<<the 1997 version uses jack and rose to convey the tragedy on an emotional level. It stays very historically accurate while cleverly weaving this pair of fictional lovers which are used as a tool to help the audience relate, and feel for those who survived and died that horrible night. >> titanrd

Well said, titan, and very succinctly put.

[–] angelbooty 19 years ago

Catherine Zeta Jones acting is terrible in this movie...
the accents were horrible...
come to think of it, everyone's acting was pretty sad...

How people can think this movie is better than James Camerons' is rediculous. You people are obviously the same people who give merit to the Lifetime Channels movies of the week!!!

[–] anianianikin 19 years ago

this is one of the worse movies i have ever seen ever... I'm sure the family would just sit there while the boat sinking hgahgahaha it was so bad so bad so bad so bad, on my top 5 list of terrible movies. To say this even can breath the same air as camerons version is a joke n u should be killed if u believe that. I'm serious

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ladyorthetygr 19 years ago

<<To say this even can breath the same air as camerons version is a joke n u should be killed if u believe that. I'm serious >>aniani

There's no reason to become hostile about this, aniani. Everyone has their own opinion about this movie. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they should be 'killed'. Geez.

[–] dtachia 15 years ago

B/c the story of the Titanic is one of the most famous and dramatic real-life stories of all time, the fact that the filmmakers would mess it up makes it worse than it already is. Even worse than the Turkish Exorcist. Some parts even after the ship sunk were so bad that they were extremely laughable, which is not good for a Titanic movie!

[–] asphycsia 19 years ago

Personally, I don't think the Jack and Rose story could have happened ever. It's not realistic at all, but I doubt that it was supposed to be. Like Romeo and Juliet, it's an extremely idealized love story that was used to convey a point.
If you're going to play the historical accuracy card, the miniseries wasn't 100% accurate either: note the absence of Thomas Andrews.
Also, even today, it is not especially common for a rich person to marry a poor person.

[–] murdoch11 19 years ago

[–] ladyorthetygr 19 years ago

<<For that matter, the film's characters are, for the most part, just plain annoying, and many of the actors that play them were horribly miscast (i.e. the actress who played Molly Brown) >>

I would agree with that one. Kathy Bates was much better as Molly Brown in the major film, Titanic

<<the "rape scene" is simply ludicrous... >> arc27

I will admit i didn't actually see the rape scene, but it sounded pretty chilling, with the boy saying, in a friendly voice, 'hi Aasa' (or whatever her character's name was, i forgot), then the girl screaming and him going and raping her.

[–] heavenhastowait 19 years ago

i think most of the acting was bad exspecially when the ship hit thier was no enthusiasim that showed disater and didnt create a scary atmosphere , also the music wasnt that great either, the plot was predictable and the characters needed way more development.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BrdfilmX 19 years ago

This movie was very interesting, I give it that, though only if your a Titanic buff. Film wise, it was pretty bad. 1997... Cameron's version, not only is better than this, it is by far the best Titanic movie to date... and hopefully be the last. This movie has some fairly good moments in it though.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grabitrun_11 18 years ago

If this stinking inaccurate appallingly acted/written/directed dunghill of a movie actually WAS the Titanic, you would have been able to smell it in New York when it was still docked in Southampton.

Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] priestpilot 17 years ago

Yeah they also seem to show the first class dinning room on A deck, when it was lower in D deck. I honestly think that this movie is dark, cold and dull compared to the 1997 movie. As James Cameron wanted to do, was to bring back the Titanic to life and make it vibrant and colourful like it was, then show it being very disastrous, also like it was.

Interesting that there were 3 sub-plots in this, I actually liked one of them. That one is with the young couple that start fresh with their dreams ahead of them. The one with the so called nanny, is quite sad. She just takes the baby, leaving the rest of the family to die, then lies about it when they arrive. As for the other, Isabella commits adultery with a man she first loved, and wanted to break up with her husband. Then when they re-unite, it's like as if nothing ever happened!

There are a few qualities that I like about this film, but the 1997 version beats it. That's what I think.

[–] LilyEvans-Snape 17 years ago

The nanny really creeped me out! I'm surprised she didn't call someone and whisper "seven days" into the phone! I also hated the portrayal of Molly Brown and that Thomas Andrews was cut out. The effects were also very lame. After watching it, I love James Cameron's version even more than I already do now.

"We are new girls for a new world."

[–] JupiterStorm 17 years ago

I sat through this and felt violated by the end. I liked nothing about it.James Cameron's is by FAR superior. Like LadyHope, I love the 1997 version even more now.

I believe whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you...stranger. -The Joker

[–] The_Bookreader 17 years ago

I thought this was HORRIFYING.

It took me a short while to realize that this was actually about Titanic.

After I did, I wanted to commit arson.

This time, Effie White's gonna win.

Whitney was wrong. Children are no longer the future.

[–] JoJo31 16 years ago

I HATE the rape scene. Totally unnecessary.