prudhoeboy
Joined Feb 2010
Welcome to the new profile
We're making some updates, and some features will be temporarily unavailable while we enhance your experience. The previous version will not be accessible after 7/14. Stay tuned for the upcoming relaunch.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews70
prudhoeboy's rating
This show re-enacts true survival stories where people get into trouble in the outdoors and must withstand the elements or die. What is really shocking to see is how people who should know better but apparently have no common sense or anything between their ears gets others into trouble with them. In many cases someone venturing out into nature without having properly planned the trip or adventure or given any consideration to what could go wrong. Examples include not taking water, not taking a map, going into areas where cell phones don't work, not taking any signalling device like a mirror or flare in case one gets lost. Not even a compass. What one also realizes that these stories are of those who survived, so eventually we see them get rescued at the end of the ordeal. What we don't see is all the other idiots who did not survive, that doesn't make good television. So I ask, how many people don't survive these ordeals for every person who does? I would guess maybe not very many so the show only tells about the small minority that survived. The show is an education though for all those inclined to do extreme activities or go out in nature. Overall the show is good entertainment for those of us who would rather sit in the livingroom and watch dumb or overconfident risk takers put themselves in mortal peril and expose themselves to the wrath of nature by their own stupidity. For this reason I would recommend watching this series.
The movie was quite excellent, but I'm taking off a point due to some deficiencies that cause it to limp to port. The first is the beginning of the movie where we see the salvage ship and manned submersible. To me this was a bit of a yawn and took away from the story.
The movie should have started with a professor Lovett lecturing maritime museum attendees about famous ship wreck and then come to the Titanic display. He could then describe the construction of the Titanic not letting on plans to find it. Then flashback to the planning and building of the ship and voyage back in the day. I would rather have seen the crew on board the salvage ship yakking it up while going over the ghostly camera views of the ship as it lies on the ocean floor.
The movie theme song, which evoked Irish folk music, did not give the viewer any other connection to Ireland either. It's ghostly tone would have played well panning over the graveyards to give an appreciation of the victims.
Another big problem was the older Rose who recounted the story on the salvage ship did not look 101 years old! She looked about 84 years old and would have been but a baby at the time of the Titanic. In no way would she have been able to be transported by helicopter to the salvage ship to tell the story. To me, this mistake sunk the movie at the outset because it is the old lady that gives one a sense of how long ago the ship sank. So if Rose was 16 years old at that time, this movie would have been appropriate for the year 1981, not 1997. In 1997, the older Rose should have been in a nursing home in a wheelchair and being help along to tell the story. At the very least the make-up artists should have aged the Rose character actress by 16 years to make her really look like a 101 on the ship. Notice the older Rose was far to alert and animated for someone that age. If you've lived to be 100 years old or older, you're talking much slower. All that said, it is interesting that the actress who play the older Rose, was actually 87 at the time of the movie and actually lived to be 100 in real life! Also, she was born in Santa Monica which Dawson mention in the movie regaling one of his adventures. The casting really was spot on in this movie, she just needed a little more time in the makeup room to look the part and should have talked slower and tired.
Leo and Kate put in a good performance in the movie, and the cast was generally excellent, but to me Brad Pitt would have been a far more credible choice for Jack Dawson as a dashing, adventure-seeking lad. Frankly, Kate looked third class so I had more of a problem imaging her as upper class of that era. She certainly would not have been fetching enough for a Brad Pitt as Dawson. So for me that was a bit of an issue.
The special effects may have been state of the art for 1997, but to me I never felt like I was on the ship. There was no mist spray in the face or rain falling on the deck. The set fan wind and cgi dolphins did not do it for me and I don't think they can survive in cold water just above freezing like Dawson described it. So the elements of nature were never really brought into the movie until the end. At that point it is too late to draw the viewer into the movie and the viewer is asked to believe all that happens then. In summary, the movie should have made sure the viewer was on the ship long before the sinking.
There should also have been a little more character development of the famous people on the ship explaining how they boarded it other than just the fictional character portrayed by Leo.
The movie should have started with a professor Lovett lecturing maritime museum attendees about famous ship wreck and then come to the Titanic display. He could then describe the construction of the Titanic not letting on plans to find it. Then flashback to the planning and building of the ship and voyage back in the day. I would rather have seen the crew on board the salvage ship yakking it up while going over the ghostly camera views of the ship as it lies on the ocean floor.
The movie theme song, which evoked Irish folk music, did not give the viewer any other connection to Ireland either. It's ghostly tone would have played well panning over the graveyards to give an appreciation of the victims.
Another big problem was the older Rose who recounted the story on the salvage ship did not look 101 years old! She looked about 84 years old and would have been but a baby at the time of the Titanic. In no way would she have been able to be transported by helicopter to the salvage ship to tell the story. To me, this mistake sunk the movie at the outset because it is the old lady that gives one a sense of how long ago the ship sank. So if Rose was 16 years old at that time, this movie would have been appropriate for the year 1981, not 1997. In 1997, the older Rose should have been in a nursing home in a wheelchair and being help along to tell the story. At the very least the make-up artists should have aged the Rose character actress by 16 years to make her really look like a 101 on the ship. Notice the older Rose was far to alert and animated for someone that age. If you've lived to be 100 years old or older, you're talking much slower. All that said, it is interesting that the actress who play the older Rose, was actually 87 at the time of the movie and actually lived to be 100 in real life! Also, she was born in Santa Monica which Dawson mention in the movie regaling one of his adventures. The casting really was spot on in this movie, she just needed a little more time in the makeup room to look the part and should have talked slower and tired.
Leo and Kate put in a good performance in the movie, and the cast was generally excellent, but to me Brad Pitt would have been a far more credible choice for Jack Dawson as a dashing, adventure-seeking lad. Frankly, Kate looked third class so I had more of a problem imaging her as upper class of that era. She certainly would not have been fetching enough for a Brad Pitt as Dawson. So for me that was a bit of an issue.
The special effects may have been state of the art for 1997, but to me I never felt like I was on the ship. There was no mist spray in the face or rain falling on the deck. The set fan wind and cgi dolphins did not do it for me and I don't think they can survive in cold water just above freezing like Dawson described it. So the elements of nature were never really brought into the movie until the end. At that point it is too late to draw the viewer into the movie and the viewer is asked to believe all that happens then. In summary, the movie should have made sure the viewer was on the ship long before the sinking.
There should also have been a little more character development of the famous people on the ship explaining how they boarded it other than just the fictional character portrayed by Leo.
Hard to believe this timeless Xmas classic is now 75 years old. It's interesting how times have changed since then, when children respected adults and were well behaved. The plot also mostly from an adult perspective with NYC and a court room looming large in plot. A very adult NYC way to resolve things too, putting Santa on trial. Compare to Home Alone, which is now over 30 years old. Both movies captured culture of that time period more or less.
Notice child steals the show and leads the adults to a more stable family life in the suburbs at the end. Most of the Christmas classics seem to involve getting back to a simpler way of living like the country or suburbs. The idea of celebrating Xmas downtown in a big city with children does not seem to have been explored but even in this movie we see children I wonder if a plot could be written where the family stays downtown. NYC seems to have solved this issue by constructing winter recreation facilities like ice rinks and decorating commercial places like Times Square. This movie should be judged in the context of its day and more modern ones compared to it to tell us something about ourselves and how times have changed. A takeaway from this movie is that it is much easier to believe in Santa in your own home in the suburbs where you are living the American dream with family.
Notice child steals the show and leads the adults to a more stable family life in the suburbs at the end. Most of the Christmas classics seem to involve getting back to a simpler way of living like the country or suburbs. The idea of celebrating Xmas downtown in a big city with children does not seem to have been explored but even in this movie we see children I wonder if a plot could be written where the family stays downtown. NYC seems to have solved this issue by constructing winter recreation facilities like ice rinks and decorating commercial places like Times Square. This movie should be judged in the context of its day and more modern ones compared to it to tell us something about ourselves and how times have changed. A takeaway from this movie is that it is much easier to believe in Santa in your own home in the suburbs where you are living the American dream with family.