As much as it almost pains me to admit it, there were good performances across the board.
Tom Hanks was good, Christopher Walken was great in is short supporting role, and Leonardo DiCaprio…
This isn’t fun to say…
For many males, it can be difficult to praise Leo. I blame this solely on the media machine designed to portray him as a major-league, grade-A, hunky superstar during his “Titanic phase.”
The period that lasted from 1996 up until the 2002 release of the movie "Gangs of New York." During this time, he was cast as a pretty boy stud-muffin who was to die for.
This kind of media coverage started the year before Titanic was released (coinciding with "William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet" [I’m personally always wary of remakes that have to tack the original writer’s name to the title to help the audience remember where it came from. Example: "Bram Stoker’s" Dracula. I rest my case]). Press coverage after the movie came out capitalized (as in tried to make even more money) on his Titanic-fame. This is easily displayed in the campaigns for the easily forgotten flicks "The Man in the Iron Mask" and "The Beach."
I will give him some credit in that at least he did a better job than Kate Winslet did; though that is only saying so much.
I don’t want to blame him personally for the way he was painted. I realize there’s only so much a celebrities can do to impact their image. Cosmetic surgery, allegations of substance abuse, or surprise weddings are all popular attempts at making a difference. Of course, it should be remembered that even in cases where all are used, the end result may still be unavoidable (see Michael Jackson).
Prior to his role as the beloved or be-loathed Jack (opinions often determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome), he recorded many critically praised performances in "The Basketball Diaries," "What’s Eating Gilbert Grape," and "The Quick and the Dead" (though his role in the last movie is now more praised due to the fact Gene Hackman offs him). I even have some recollections of when he played “Luke” on Growing Pains. He was good, and I will admit he still is good.
The major thing is tied to the hell that "Titanic" was for males. If one was dating, it was a must-see movie (and as proven by ticket sales, it was often a multiple-must see). One could take some refuge in the special effects - see "Propeller Guy," the elaborate staging, or Kate Winslet, but in the end, for many guys, the best part of the movie was when Jack, the human ice cube, finally went to the bottom of the Atlantic.
Personally, I cracked up at this “tragic” point (afterwards, I also admit, for a moment, based on the murderous looks momentarily directed at me, I thought I was going to become a final, belated Titanic victim).
It’s been my long personal opinion that the annoying aspects of the film outweighed the other aspects of the film. The experience of seeing the movie, and later being swamped by “Titanic-fever” and “Leo-mania” (both terms I can recall actually being used) turned me off to thinking of Leo as an actor. His next few movie choices, with roles relying more on his looks than his acting ability did little to change my opinion.
Now, I will admit that by going back to what he is good at, he’s regained part of my respect. With movies like Catch Me If You Can and Gangs of New York (a flick I haven’t seen, but was praised by friends I trust) I think Leo is back on track to a respectable career.
Though he will probably always be referenced as that “Titanic guy,” I wish him luck in finding roles that will challenge his talents and not insult his audience’s IQ.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go finish making my Celine Dion voodoo doll so I can get that stupid “My Heart Will Go On” song out of my head.
Have a good day.
