| I just saw Ghosts of the Abyss and I think Fast Forward reviewer Neal Ozano must have seen a different movie than I did (Ghosts a Titanic flop, Film, April 10 - 16, 2003). Now, I have to admit I've always liked Titanic history – I preferred Ballard's research book to Cameron's overwrought feature film. This new IMAX film is somewhere in between, and should be judged for what it is: high-tech eye candy.
I disagree with Ozano's comment that the film was "rife with references to 9/11." The terrorist attacks were only mentioned in the last 10 minutes of the film, and of course the filmmakers drew parallels to the shock and numbness the public felt when news of the Titanic tragedy was broadcast.
Ozano also feels the film is tainted with "American egocentricity," although the ship itself "had little to do with the U.S." Um, OK. Considering the Titanic was a British-American ship carrying several prominent Americans to New York, I don't quite see how the film could avoid mentioning the United States. I saw a movie about a shipwreck, filmed from a Russian submarine by a Canadian-born director. If there was any jingoism, it must have been too subtle for us regular folks. It certainly wasn't as blatant as CNN, for example.
Your reviewer was right about Bill Paxton's awkward narration, but no one goes to an IMAX film to hear snappy Mamet-like dialogue. At least it didn't have that damn Celine Dion song.
So, caveat emptor when reading reviews. The movie may not be Neal Ozano's cup of tea, but until regularly scheduled submarine tours are available to the RMS Titanic wrecksite, I thought Ghosts of the Abyss is a pretty exciting way to see the Great Ship "up close".
|
Copyright ©2003 FFWD. All rights reserved.