Titanic (1997)

4.9/5

James Cameron's Titanic is an engrossing film, epic in scope yet focused on the individual players. It is a romance, certainly, but a classic one that will appeal even to non-romantics because it is a good story first and foremost. While there is nothing particularly original about the plot, it is a universal and timeless tale, well-told: doomed love attempting to escape the shackles of modern society; man's hubris resulting in their inevitable demise. Where it succeeds is in allowing the plot to go where the characters find themselves, instead of forcing the characters down the writer's pre-ordained path.

The technical achievements in the film are extraordinary for the time, and mesmerizing still. The cinematography and special effects are awe-inspiring, and the editing keeps the 3 hour movie surprisingly brisk and fast-paced. The acting, however, is where the movie really shines. Not only impressive for their ages, but impressive in their own right, DiCaprio and Winslet give heart-wrenching and breathtaking performances. I somehow forgot that they can make your heart skip with anticipation, with dread, with hope. You really care for the leads, and the stakes are raised that much higher when the big ship starts its slow descent.

The movie isn't perfect. It has a somewhat silly narrator structure wrapped around the perfectly self-sufficient story, and Bill Paxton's acting therein just left me cold. The script is also full of sailing cliches and movie tropes, from the captain sinking with the ship to the overly noble orchestra playing waltzes while the Titanic literally sinks inch by inch. Even if that stuff actually happened, that shouldn't have been the focus of the movie. Regardless, I finally appreciate why this movie holds such power to nearly everybody who watches it. It is a phenomenal achievement all around.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/

The Mummy (1999)

2/5

I will, for once, start out my review by saying that it is an unfair assessment. I was not paying attention for most of the movie due to a number of distractions, mostly involving volume, exhaustion, and my contact lenses. (For example, I did not realize that the female protagonist was Rachel Weisz until I looked it up on IMDb later to write this very review you are now reading!) However, I remain confident in my reviewing abilities and am fairly certain my star rating is accurate, give or take 0.5 stars (which I don't use anyway).

To get more to the point: The Mummy takes place in the mid 1920's, except for an intro involving an overbearing voice-over narration, a nearly-nude Egyptian woman with a complicated and oft-repeated name, a pharaoh, a high priest, their love triangle, and an ancient curse involving reincarnation, which takes place ~3,500 years earlier. Back to the 1920's, Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and her onscreen brother go and wake the mummy up from the dead and then eventually send him back to the dead by film's end. The plot really is quite preposterous and predictable (Sameer figured it out 45 minutes in and then left). It reminded me of a mix between Aladdin, Star Wars, The Da Vinci Code, and The Ten Commandments.

I did actually notice a few shots that I thought were fantastic. Typically they were not, however. The editing and music did not do much; in fact, the mood was so dead for most of the movie that the rhythmic humming of a nearby dishwasher made the movie far more tense than it intended to be. I found the acting surprising, for two reasons. 1) Brendan Fraser was not as bad as I thought he'd be and 2) Rachel Weisz was not as good as I thought she'd be. The character I liked the most was Weisz's brother, who was always hilarious. The action itself was alright, although it never really held my attention. Neither did the first hour. Still, it will probably keep you glued to the screen if you find it playing on TV, whether you like it or not. So I guess that counts for something.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/