THE THURSDAY THROWDOWN – SISKEL vs. EBERT

March 7, 2013 by Keith Garlington

The Throwdown

One Thursday of each month is Throwdown day at Keith & the Movies. It’s when we take two movie subjects, pit them against each other, and see who’s left standing. On these Thursdays we’ll look at actors, actresses, movies, genres, scenes, and more. I’ll make a case for each and then see how they stand up one-on-one. And it’s not just my opinion that counts. I’ll share my take and then open up the polls to you. Visit each time for a new Throwdown. Vote each time to decide the true winner!

So many of you were like me and grew up watching Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert go back and forth on their 30 minute movie review program. Their show first took form in the mid 70s but it really took off during the mid 80s and since then has gone through several title changes and eventually new hosts. But the show’s true heydays were from the mid 80s through the 1990s when Siskel and Ebert argued and sparred over movies every week. They each approached their opinions of movies differently and their tastes were also often times at odds. That made for great television and both helped make film criticism what it is today. But as you know this is The Throwdown. That means I’m putting these two movie critic icons up against each other. So who did you side with the most? Who was the better critic? Was it Siskel or Ebert? As always, your votes decide!

GENE SISKEL vs. ROGER EBERT

SISKEL VS EBERT

Gene Siskel was born in Chicago and ended up landing a job at the Chicago Tribune in 1969. His film critic career launched thanks to a small local PBS movie review show where he first teamed up with Roger Ebert. Siskel had a wide range of movie favorites including Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese pictures. But I also remember him for his unpredictability. He often times would surprise you with the variety of movies he would like. I also loved the way he worded his reviews. He took the funniest jabs at movies he didn’t like and had a hilarious way of pushing Ebert’s buttons. He was calmer but razor-sharp and the way he dissected a film was both thought-provoking and often times hysterical. I still love listening to his takes and he remains one of my favorite film critics of all time. Sadly he passed away in 1999 due to complications from a cancerous brain tumor. He’s still missed to this day.

Roger Ebert’s film critic career dates all the way back to 1967 when he began writing movie reviews for the Chicago Sun-Times. In addition to his column he would go on to author numerous books including a yearly annual. He also became the first movie critic to ever win a Pulitzer Prize. But it was his television collaboration withe Gene Siskel that really catapulted him into the spotlight. Ebert was the more boisterous of the two and seemed to lose his temper more which made for some wonderful television. He’s very outspoken in his criticism or praise of a film and you can’t help but to be enthralled in his opinions even if they sometimes seem wildly inconsistent. Yet even when Ebert gets worked up, you can always sense the true passion he has about movies. Roger Ebert was a perfect opposite to Gene Siskel and even though you have to wade through some pretty outlandish stuff from him, he continues writing and reviewing films for movie fans even today.

Now its in your hands. Who gets the “Thumbs Up”? Is it Gene Siskel or Roger Ebert? Vote now on the poll below and please share your thoughts and comments on these two great movie critic icons.

“Safe Haven” – 3 STARS

March 6, 2013 by Keith Garlington

SAFE-HAVEN poster

There are several things that you automatically expect when your watching any movie based on a Nicholas Sparks novel. You know you’re going to get an overloaded plot, the characters are going to be bombarded with tragedy, a main character will probably die, and whether its rain, a pond, or the ocean, you’re going to get a lot of scenes involving water. Now the water thing doesn’t bother me. I’m sure there’s a nice little story as to why water is so prominent in these films. But the other stuff along with a history of bad performances have made the other Sparks adaptations almost unbearable to watch. So I guess the question is why on earth would I watch his latest endeavor “Safe Haven”? More importantly, would it be able to avoid the habitual weaknesses of the other movies?

Well let me start off by saying that Sparks almost had me with “Safe Haven”. In fact he came incredibly close. “Safe Haven”a flirts with being a really good movie mainly because it steers clear of those crippling stumbling blocks that killed every other Sparks production. Much of the credit for this goes to Gage Lansky and Dana Stevens. Their screenplay keeps things simple, grounded, and focused, that is right up until the very end. It’s there that the story undermines everything it had done up to that point by tossing in a clunky action sequence and an off-the-wall twist that had me slapping my a forehead.

safe haven 1

Julianne Hough plays Katie, a young woman with a big secret. We first see her in a bus station where she hurriedly hops on a bus heading to Atlanta. Right on her heels is police officer Kevin Tierney (David Lyons) who narrowly misses catching her. Katie flees, in search of a place where she will feel “safe” Officer Tierney issues an all-points bulletin and continues to search for her. We know Katie is involved in something bad but the movie never tells us what it is all at once. Instead we are fed bits of information through a series of flashbacks.

Katie’s bus stops briefly at a sleepy little North Carolina town called Southport that sits at the mouth of the Cape Fear River. She decides to stay. She buys an old fixer-upper house isolated in the woods and lands a low-key job as a waitress in a fish restaurant. She also reluctantly starts making connects in town including catching the eye of the conveniently widowed Alex (Josh Duhamel). It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to guess that the two eventually fall for each other. Hough and Duhamel are actually quite good together. Hough is beautiful and fairly believable and her acting was a surprise. She did have some rough patches but overall she was much better than I expected. Duhamel is a very likable actor but I’ve yet to see him really relay emotion. He gives a good enough performance here but it’s nothing that will grab your attention. But the main thing is that they do have a nice chemistry and we get plenty of scenes with these two pretty people together. But you can only run from the law for so long and Katie’s past could eventually destroy her new life.

I was curious to see how director Lasse Hallström was going to handle this movie. He’s got an interesting résumé that includes some really good films such as “Chocolat”, “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”, and last year’s “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen”. But he also made the Nicholas Sparks disaster “Dear John”. Well thankfully this is no “Dear John”. Hallström never let’s things get out of control and he’s able to keep his characters entertaining and interesting. He does get close to falling into eye-rolling sappiness at times but he actually succeeds in making this a fairly enjoyable romantic drama, something that can’t be said about the previous Sparks productions.

safe-haven2

Now “Safe Haven” does use some of the standard clichés that you see in a lot of these type of pictures. We get the super cute little kid doing and saying super cute little things and there are certain moments in Katie and Alex’s romance that were taken straight out of the Hollywood handbook on formulaic romance scenes. But I have to say that these things are at a minimum and they never overtake the film. There’s also the water. I mean there’s water everywhere. Of course Alex and Katie have to get caught in a rain storm and there’s a lot of scenes that include the Cape Fear River. There’s even a reoccurring bottled water that has significance. That Nicholas Sparks, he sure loves his water.

So while “Safe Haven” can be a little sappy, a little cliché, and too convenient, those aren’t its biggest offenses. Even with the surprising control and restraint that we see in the majority of the film, the ending blows most of it out of Sparks’ beloved water. There’s an early twist that I actually thought was pretty well done. But it leads to an action sequence that felt terribly out of place. It just suddenly throws too much at you and it felt pretty cheap. But then the story gets back on track with a really touching final sequence. The only problem is the filmmakers don’t leave it alone and they toss in a twist that left me shaking my head. I don’t know, if I watch it again I might feel differently, but it seemed to me that they ruined a really good ending by trying to be too crafty. Sometimes you have to recognize a good thing and let it play out.

So what’s my final take on “Safe Haven”? I’ve slammed every Nicholas Sparks production that I’ve reviewed and I was expecting to do the same here. But as I consider the film as a whole I can’t help but recommend it, even if it’s a slight recommendation. Hough is lovely and Duhamel as likable as always, and even though they’re not the most polished performers, their chemistry sold me. I’m still not one to say I now look forward to Nicholas Sparks movies, but for me this was a step in the right direction.

“Jack the Giant Slayer” – 3 STARS

March 5, 2013 by Keith Garlington

JACK-THE-GIANT-SLAYER poster

Hollywood is all about the fairy tales these days. Much like the superhero craze, we’ve seen a load of fairy tale features covering everything from Snow White to Hansel and Gretel. The latest is a variation of the familiar Jack and the Beanstalk story titled “Jack the Giant Slayer”. It comes from director Bryan Singer and to call it a slight deviation from the classic story would be misleading. This CGI laden fantasy picture takes a few of the ingredients from the fairy tale but basically builds its own original story.

I find Bryan Singer to be a very hit or miss director so I wasn’t exactly sure what to expect from this picture. What I got was an above average and sometimes surprisingly fun fantasy film that can be entertaining as long as you’re able to overlook its flaws. I know some who have struggled with doing that, but for me and my tempered expectations I actually came out of the theater a bit surprised. Unfortunately there are a few hiccups and for that I just can’t let the movie off the hook.

Jack2

It almost feels like they took parts from several other fantasy films, threw them in a pot, and mixed them together to get the story of “Jack and the Giant Slayer”. I have no doubt that throughout the film you’ll be saying “yep, I’ve seen that before” repeatedly. We get the blind and bull-headed king who insists on an arranged marriage between his daughter and a devious lord. We get the poor commoner who falls in love with the princess. And we have a huge event that allows the commoner to prove his worth. Throw in a silly sidekick and a trusted protector and you’re into some pretty familiar territory. And while all of these characters play out pretty much as you would expect, I still think the story does enough fun things with them to entertain.

Nicholas Hoult (you may remember him from this years “Warm Bodies”) plays Jack, a poor farm boy who goofs up one day by trading his uncle’s horse to a monk for a handful of mystical beans. Of course you know the story, these are magical beans but Jack’s irate uncle doesn’t buy it and he flings them across the room with one falling through a crack in their floor. In a slightly similar story of frustrated youth, Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) pleads with her stubborn father King Brahmwell (Ian McShane) not to sanction her marriage to the slimy Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci). As usual the King is blind to Roderick’s scheme to take over his kingdom even though we recognize it before he says a line of dialogue. Then again if some of these characters were smart we wouldn’t have much of the story left.

Repelled by the arranged marriage to a man she doesn’t love, the princess disguises herself and sneaks out of the city on horseback. But after ending up lost in the middle of a late night deluge she comes across Jack’s house where she seeks shelter. The two make starry-eyes at each other but are interrupted when the rainwater soaked bean under the house sprouts. And boy does it sprout! Jack is knocked out of the house and Isabelle is taken through the clouds by the humongous beanstalk. Soon the King and his men arrive and Jack informs them about the princess. A rescue team of Guardians led by Elmont (Ewan McGregor) and including Jack and Roderick head up the beanstalk to find the princess. But waiting above is a sky world inhabited by giants with a special appetite for human flesh.

Jack1

Now even though this movie features some pretty standard characters I can honestly say I was interested in some of them. Hoult is quite good and believable as the unexpected hero. I also thought Tomlinson was solid and very princessy. Sadly she isn’t given anything to do outside of the typical damsel in distress routine. That’s unfortunate. I would love to see her character have more depth. I also didn’t mind Stanley Tucci, a very good actor who’s clearly having a lot of fun as the antagonist. And as always Ewan McGregor is very good giving a variation of the knight in shining armor. McShane on the other hand seems dry and by the numbers. That could be because his character was probably the most poorly written in the film.

But where the movie spends most of its money is on the visuals. “Jack the Giant Slayer” is a virtual feast of tantalizing eye candy. The beanstalks are incredibly well conceived. The scenery with its green meadows, huge waterfalls, and lush forests are nothing short of gorgeous. But the giants are the real treat, each designed with amazing detail. I was really surprised at just how well done they are particularly in some big action sequences in the second half of the film. But in spite of all of these great special effects I did at time feel a bit disconnected due to the massive amounts of CGI. It wasn’t the quality of CGI but the volume. And it wasn’t helped by the 3-D. Like so many films the 3-D offered nothing for me and it felt pointless. I also have to say some of the costume designs were pretty dreadful, specifically the royalty garb. I couldn’t help but laugh at McShane in his gold-plated monstrosity.

“Jack the Giant Slayer” is a mixed bag but overall I found it to be an entertaining mixed bag. If you can shake off the cookie cutter characters, the occasional cheap and lazy writing, and the overload of CGI there’s some fun to be had here. I can honestly say I had a good time with this picture and I would really like to praise it more. Unfortunately its shortcomings keep me from doing that and instead I’m left feeling that this could have been something really special. Instead we’re left with a good but not great film that left a lot of potential behind. Still, you could do a lot worse at the theater.

5 Phenomenal Man vs Nature Movies

March 4, 2013 by Keith Garlington

movie_theatre - Phenom 5

My original plan for this week’s Phenomenal 5 was to look at survival movies. But as I thought on it I quickly realized it’s such a broad category. There are so many different variations of survival throughout many different genres. Instead I’ve decided to look at movies pitting humans against nature. This too encompasses a lot and I wanted to include as much variety as possible. So each movie offers a different look at nature but each has that element of human survival in the face of some of the harshest or most rugged conditions. Now with so many movies to consider it would be pretty lame to call this the definitive list. But as I look at these five choices I have no problem calling them phenomenal.

#5 – “DELIVERANCE”

DELIVERENCE
Okay I know “Deliverance” may be a stretch for this list but I think it certainly deserves a place here. Four men on a canoeing trip in the wilderness end up with more than they bargained for. After a deadly run in with a couple of hillbillies, the four set out to escape the forest. But the rugged and isolated territory has different plans. The jagged rocks and raging rapids get the best of them and their paranoia begins to eat away at their psyche. Now an argument could be made that the real threat are the hillbillies and not nature. But I think the hillbillies are a part of the specific nature we see and it’s the environment that takes the biggest toll on the four men. That’s why it’s on this list.

#4 – “127 Hours”

127 hrs
In the sensational “127 Hours” James Franco plays a free-spirited adventurer who with one slip of the foot ends up trapped inside a narrow crevice with his arm wedged under a boulder. He’s left alone with seemingly no way to get out of this predicament. The unforgiving terrain of Blue John Canyon in southern Utah is brilliantly portrayed by director Danny Boyle. The heat of the day, the cold nights, the dry climate, and the torrential rain all play a part of this area’s unpredictability. I found “127 Hours” to be a powerful story and this man’s struggle against the elements and nature are a big part of that.

#3 – “SAHARA”

SAHARA
No, I’m not talking about the Matthew McConaughey action cheesefest. This is the 1943 Humphrey Bogart World War II action picture about a tank crew separated from their unit In the middle of the harsh and punishing desert. They pick up an assortment of people along the way but soon they all face the brutality of the conditions. Add to this a Nazi unit that’s hot on their trail and things couldn’t get worse. But even the Nazi’s themselves aren’t above nature and ultimately it’s the desert that ends up with the upper hand throughout the entire movie.

#2 – “CAST AWAY”

So far on the list we’ve seen a dense forest with a raging river, canyon territory, and a desert. In “Cast Away” nature is presented in the form of a beautiful deserted island. Tom Hanks washes ashore the remote island after a terrible plane crash. It’s undeniable and relaxing beauty is deceiving especially when you have no food or shelter. The hot sun, the high tides, and the heavy rains flex their muscles but after four years on the island it’s Hanks who almost tames nature. Director Robert Zemeckis does a sensational job of bringing this incredible story to life and the sheer beauty and force of nature are both on display.

#1 – “ALIVE”

ALIVE

The 1993 survival drama “Alive” is a movie that has fascinated me since I first saw it. It’s based on the true story of a Uruguayan rugby team who are onboard a plane that crashes high in the snow-covered Andes mountains. Their plane is tore apart and many are hurt or killed. The dwindling group of survivors attempt to live on limited supplies in the face of blizzards, snow drifts, and bitter cold temperatures. Of all the movies on this list, I don’t think nature ravages the people or drives them to the edge more than in “Alive”. And to know that it was based on real life events makes it even more intense. This is a great movie but also a tough one to watch.

So there’s my list of phenomenal man versus nature films. Agree or disagree? Please take time to leave your thoughts below.

Flaunt It or Flush It? – Spring Movies 2013

March 1, 2013 by Keith Garlington

FLAUNT.FLUSH

Good bye winter movie season! I think I speak for most of us when I say we won’t miss you one bit. Now spring is here and that means a lineup of films meant to get us ready for the big summer releases. Sometimes we get some really nice surprises in the spring but we also get several duds. So today I’m picking out five spring releases that I am genuinely interested in and want to spread the word about. These I’ll certainly flaunt. I’m also going to pick five releases that are from my perspective toilet ready. These I’ll flush. Flaunt it or flush it, that’s kinda catchy.

FLAUNT ‘EM

MUD 1. MUD (April 26, 2013) – I’ve been really outspoken in my excitement for Jeff Nichols’ new film “Mud”. It was #1 on my list of most anticipated 2013 films and it’s unquestionably the treat of the spring. In “Mud” Nichols is back in familiar territory – rural America. This time he’s directing Matthew McConaughey and Reese Witherspoon. Other favorites of mine Michael Shannon, Sam Shepard, and Ray McKinnon have supporting roles and that’s enough to excite me in itself. Everything including the story, the cast, and Nichol’s precision direction intrigues me and I can’t wait to see this flick.

2. “OBLIVION” (April 19, 2013) – Some people love Tom Cruise. A lot of people hate Tom Cruise. All I know is that his upcoming sci-fi action picture “Oblivion” looks like something that I would really enjoy. I can’t say I know much about the plot but the trailer really grabbed my attention and the visuals look stunning. This also looks like something that may be right up Cruise’s alley. He may not be my favorite actor but I’m one of those that believes he can still bring a lot to a movie. Hopefully that’s the case with “Oblivion”. With this kind of potential, I know I’ll be there to check it out.

3. “EVIL DEAD” (APRIL 5, 2013) – Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell getting together to do a remake of their horror classic “Evil Dead”? I’m all over it! The horror genre is a pretty watered down mess so leave it to Raimi and Campbell to give it a swift kick in the buns. The trailer for this thing is gruesome and creepy and the movie already feels like it’s going to be a return to old school horror movie form. I’m really hoping this isn’t a bust because my expectations right now are sky-high! And what a needed jolt this could be to a hurting genre. I’m definitely flaunting this one.

4. “TO THE WONDER” (April 12, 2013) – “To the Wonder” has received some mixed early reviews and that has knocked my expectations down slightly. But I’m still really excited about Terrence Malick’s new picture. Malick’s style of filmmaking doesn’t resonate with everyone but I tend to like it. “The Tree of Life” was a favorite of mine and I’m hoping for something close to that here. Javier Bardem, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, and Rachel Weisz star in this movie that’s sure to divide audiences. But to me it’s a film loaded with potential.

5. “OZ: THE GREAT AND THE POWERFUL” (March 8, 2013) – I have to admit, at first I blew off “Oz” as a gimmicky snoozefest. But over time I’ve really warmed up to the project. The more recent trailers make me think this could be a quality family film that’s actually not animation. That’s really rare these days. James Franco stars in the film and he’s surrounded with a really strong female supporting cast including Rachel Weisz, Mila Kunis, and Michelle Williams. I’m not getting overly excited but this one could be a surprise. I’ll flaunt it.

FLUSH ‘EM

21 over 1. “21 and Over” (March 1, 2013) – Everything about this movie rubs me the wrong way. Let’s see, what do we get here? Yet another asinine teen “comedy” filled with booze, breasts, and debauchery. I swear I would give anything if Hollywood could find some good, capable comedy writers who could get us away from the dumb, raunchy garbage that is churned out on a regular basis. The trailer for “21 and Over” drive me nuts me every time it comes on. I can’t imagine sitting through the whole movie. I have no interest in this whatsoever so flush it! No I take it back. Go ahead and flush it twice!

SCARY CRAP 2. “SCARY MOVIE 5” (April 12, 2013) – If we didn’t need “Scary Movie” 2 through 4 why on earth would we need part 5? Well obviously there is still an audience for this mindnumbingly awful stuff. I recently tried to watch a little of one of these terrible installments and it was a truly painful experience. How can movies this bad make enough money to merit yet another film? Here’s a bigger question – what would make anyone think this one will be any different? I’m sure some people will go see this thing. But not me. No thank you, I’ll pass.

PAIN GAIN 3. “PAIN AND GAIN” (APRIL 26, 2013) – Ok, I may be completely wrong about this one but from the trailers “Pain and Gain” looks absolutely terrible. Yes it stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Mark Wahlberg, and Anthony Mackie, all three of whom can have their moments. But the entire idea behind this looks and sounds absurd. I know this is based on a true story but all true stories don’t necessarily translate into a good movie. Anything is possible when good actors are in place, but with Michael Bay directing…sigh, enough said.

4. “SPRING BREAKERS” (March 22, 2013) – I almost aways roll my eyes at these movies that are clearly a child stars attempt to drastically distance themselves from what made them famous. Such is the case with Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens in “Spring Breakers”. Look, there’s nothing wrong with moving to more mature movies. That’s expected. But here they run around in tiny bikini’s, snorting cocaine, and wallowing all over a silly looking gangstered-out James Franco. This looks cheap and self-indulgent. I think I’ll pass.

GI JOE 5. “G.I. JOE: RETALIATION (March 29, 2013) – Let me go on record (again) by saying I despised the first G.I. Joe movie and I thought it had turned off enough people to avoid a sequel. Not the case. Now the trailers are tempting and it almost looks like good-matured mindless fun. But I’m not buying it. Even with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Bruce Willis added to the cast, this thing could be another lame disaster. I’m flushing this one although I would love to be proven wrong.

There you go. I’ve flaunted five films that I’m anxious to see and flushed five that look like…well…crap. Agree or disagree? What are some movies you would like to flaunt or flush. Let me hear from ya.

REVIEW: “Titanic” (1953)

February 28, 2013 by Keith Garlington

Classic Movie Spotlight

TITANIC When mentioning “Titanic” and the movies most people today instantly think of James Cameron’s 1997 blockbuster epic. But there have actually been several movies centered around that ill-fated voyage in 1912. One of the best of these films came out in 1953 and like Cameron’s movie, this film was simply titled “Titanic”. It featured a fine cast and special effects that were considered pretty cutting edge for that time. Of course being a 1953 picture it didn’t depend on its special effects as heavily as Cameron’s. Instead the true strength of this version lies in the characters and their stories which unfold before us on the ship prior to the collision which would eventually sink the vessel.

In the film Julia Sturges (Barbara Stanwyck) boards the Titanic with her 18-year old daughter Annette (Audrey Dalton) and 10-year old son Norman (Harper Carter). She’s secretly leaving her husband Richard (Clifton Webb) and taking her children to America, leaving behind the lavish high society living that Richard is consumed with. But he gets wind of her plan and is able to buy his way onboard before the ship sets sail. Webb is perfectly cast as the snobbish and conceited aristocrat. He surprises Julia and their children in the dinner hall later that evening and let’s just say the exchange between husband and wife is pretty heated.

For much of the remainder of the film the two battle it out with their children caught in the middle. One of their biggest disagreements centers around their conflicting views of class. Julia is tired of the pampered upper class living and misses the more humble life of her American roots. Richard’s arrogance is such that he believes their worth is tied to their prosperity and social status. This personal conflict between them mirrors the class differences on the ship. The movie doesn’t spend a lot of time on it but we do get several looks at the swanky elegance of the first class passengers contrasted with the poorer people in the noisy and crowded decks below. Of coarse Richard and Julia also argue about the future of their children which leads to some brutal verbal exchanges and the unveiling of secrets that have been hidden for years. The scenes shared by Stanwyck and Webb are brilliantly written and performed and I found myself completely absorbed in every word.

Titanic1

There are several other interesting characters on the ship as well. I loved the wonderful Thelma Ritter as a straight-shooting wealthy woman who’s still grounded in her working class roots. I also enjoyed 22-year old Robert Wagner as a peppy Purdue University tennis player who tries to win over Annette. Richard Basehart has some fine scenes as an ex-Catholic priest struggling with alcoholism. Unfortunately his character is terribly underdeveloped. But I also have to mention Brian Aherne as the ship’s Captain. He gives a subtle but focused performance that paints the perfect picture of what I would imagine the Captain to be like. There are several other characters that work for me as well and while I do wish some had been given more screen time, they each have their moments where they capture my interest.

But regardless of how well these personal stories play out, this is still a story of the disastrous maiden voyage of the Titanic. The film only spends about 30 minutes on the collision with the iceberg and the subsequent sinking of the ship and that works out just fine especially considering the film’s compact overall running time of 98 minutes. As I mentioned earlier the special effects are quite good. Considering today’s heavy CGI approach to visuals, it’s interesting to see how these older movies approached their special effects. I think what makes these so effective is that director Jean Negulesco never keeps his camera focused on them. He shows us some incredible long shots of the ship in various stages of descent but in each scene he cuts his camera or puts something else in the shot to keep us from seeing his visual trickery. The results help create a perfect sense of peril that I really responded to.

titanic2

Charles Brackett, Richard Breen, and Walter Reisch won Oscars for their work on “Titanic’s” screenplay and while there is a level of sentimentality and melodrama, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. And I wouldn’t say that their story is striving to be the most accurate account of the disaster. As with the most recent movie, there are several things that Titanic history buffs could pick away at. But in terms of dramatic storytelling the trio collaborate to create a highly entertaining character-driven drama. The dialogue is smart and efficient and its easy to be enthralled when it’s handled by such a wonderful and capable cast.

1953’s “Titanic” will never match James Cameron’s film in visuals, size, or scope but for me it doesn’t have to. This is a movie that certainly stands on its own. Its character based storytelling approach draws you into the story, and by the time the ship begins to sink you’re thoroughly invested. In many ways its structure resembles that of Cameron’s epic minus the newer film’s bloated first half. This is a much tighter story and there’s never a wasted or throwaway scene. I do wish we could have spent more time getting to know some of the smaller underdeveloped characters but I wouldn’t trade that for a single scene that Stanwyck and Webb share together. So if the only “Titanic” picture you’ve seen was the 1997 box office smash, take time to give this one a watch. It certainly deserves a new audience today.