Way better than the Cameron movie.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — A Night to Remember
I-Sank-The-Titanic — 9 years ago(November 19, 2016 10:05 PM)
I like this movie better. I just finished watching it on Youtube:
. The acting was way better, and I HATED that "love sappiness" with the whole Jack&Rose story in the '97 version. Plus, who cannot forget the dreadful Celine Dion theme song (ugh). The only thing better about the Cameron movie was the special effects and that's it.
Now you agree with me! -
johnnypolo — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 06:04 AM)
I can live without the Rose/Jack stuff but I can see why they did it. But one thing that Cameron's movie does way better (and it's probably due in large part having the means to do it) is portray the water as an enemy. The flooding scenes in Cameron's are so more intense (again, making a film like this in 1997 vs 1958 contributes to that). If you knew absolutely nothing about the Titanic and watched A Night To Remember, you wouldn't even know the water was freezing. I guess you should assume that it is cause there's an iceberg. But Cameron's does a great job portraying the danger of the water.
One weird thing about both movies is the portrayal of Charles Lightoller. In A Night To Remember, they gloss over how strictly he enforced the Women and Children First thing. He made it Women and Children ONLY and sent out a lifeboat with only 12 women on it and refused to let men on. In Cameron's film on the other hand, they gloss over his survival in the water and how he led people to safety on the a capsized boat.
Frankly, in a perfect Titanic for me, Cameron's movie would be a remake of A Night To Remember rather than a love story set on the Titanic. I love Cameron's movie, so much of the fictional stuff could have been replaced with historical stuff. And that's not to say I hate the fictional stuff because I don't. But there's too much at times.