It’s easy today to make fun of Raise the Titanic (1980) and its now quaint notion that the Titanic went down in one piece, but that was the prevalent belief at the time the film was made (and the book was written). Anyway, there’s so much more to make fun of about this misbegotten mess, why bother with that? Just look at the preposterous plot. The idea is to raise the ship from the bottom of the ocean by patching the hull, floatation devices, and what amounts to blowing up some really balloons — all of which has to be done via slow-moving, murkily photographed deep-sea diving vessels. Besides being improbable, it’s also the antithesis of exciting to watch. And why are we doing this in the first place? Well, it seems that the ship went down with a load of some mystery element called “byzanium,” which, we’re told, can put an end to the Cold War. Naturally, this means those pesky commies are interested, too, since they know what most of the good guys fail to perceive — this is the source of a super weapon. (The forces of good are none too bright.)
While all this foolishness sounds like it might be entertaining, it isn’t. Why? Well, first of all, it’s so damned slow and the characters are uninteresting. But worse, apart from raising the ship, nothing much happens. Any excitement such a screwy scenario might generate never materializes. Even the showdown with those Russkies fizzles without a shot fired. Dull, dull, dull. On the plus side, Alec Guinness gets one rather charming scene as a steward who survived the sinking in 1912. Plus, yes, the effects work, the models, and the ship itself are all impressive — in a way that CGI so rarely is. But whether this makes it worth slogging through the movie…well, I certainly won’t be revisiting it.
The Hendersonville Film Society will show Raise the Titanic Sunday, March 29, at 2 p.m. in the Smoky Mountain Theater at Lake Pointe Landing Retirement Community (behind Epic Cinemas), 333 Thompson St., Hendersonville.
I’ve always heard bad things about this one…..Ive got to see it.
It’s your two hours.
Just imagine what it would have been like if the original director, Stanley Kramer, had stayed on the picture
Pompous and boring.
Considering what we did not know at the time, like the fact that the Titanic broke in two when it sank and could not be raised whole, the concept and the novel were not too bad. The movie was just plain boring.
Arthur C. Clarke included the movie “Raise the Titanic” in one of his novels about the 21st century, although all references to smoking were edited out, a prediction of how art really would mirror reality, and Clarke’s novel also had the Titanic raised in one piece, so Cussler could be forgiven this error.
I found most of Cussler’s novels entertaining until “Shock Wave”, when he demonstrated a total ignorance of technical knowledge related to the subject of the ship Glomar Explorer, and “Sahara” where he predicted a military force deployed by the U.N. Fortunately this idea, both outrageous and offensive, was excluded from the movie, which I found to be just good enough to watch ONCE.
the world’s first inaction hero.
Ha! You really come up with some good ones sometimes. I’ll have to remember that the next time one of these geriatric “action hero” movies gets released. Speaking of which, I haven’t seen Ahnold, Sly or Brucie lately. And it’ll be another 5 months for the next Neeson inactioner, right?
Well, since the attempt to make Sean Penn the next Liam Neeson was such a critical and commercial fiasco, they may have to trot ol’ Liam out sooner.
Was Gunmen really that bad??
I didn’t see it — Justin reviewed it — but apparently so. It sure crashed and burned. Nothing Justin said made me even slightly interested in seeing it. Gotta admit I just don’t see Sean Penn, action star. And I have zero interest in seeing the latest film from the director of Taken.
>>>>Lew Grade — or Sir Lew Grade or Lord Grade (depending on where you are in his career)<<<<
You left out Low Grade…
What a zany I am!