I needed to post this after years of grinding my teeth over Mr Cameron's contribution to the world of cinema.

I find myself cringing, yawning and scratching my head at what exactly is supposed to be good about these films - take away the huge budget and special effects and you're left with dreadful acting and questionable 'moral' subtexts. And why are his films so long? I nearly fell asleep in 'the abyss'.

I don't even rate Aliens too highly. The dialogue between the marines is godawful and Newt is the worst child actor I've ever seen apart from the girl in '28 days later'. The aliens are poorly constructed - they look like rejects from a 70s episode of Doctor Who. It was fun when I was 14, but it hasn't aged well at all. Ridley Scott's masterpiece wipes the floor with it.

Titanic gives me nausea, Pirahna 2 is laughable, Terminator is passable as an action romp but the second one is ridiculous. True Lies is embarrassing. If James Cameron had small budgets he'd be a modern day Ed Wood. Despite this, there are few bad reviews.

Does anyone else find him seriously overrated?

Agreed. Overrated. I think he constructs great visuals, but I've not bitten on that "he's great with women's roles" rep he's been given.

The man is a genious. Terminator II is the best sequel to any movie outside of the Godfather II. Alien was great but Aliens took it to another level. True Lies was so good it made Tom Arnold look funny and Titanic, thirteen Oscars and the highest grossing movie of all time speak for itself.

"Game over man! Game Over!

That's exactly what I'm on about.

Titanic - 13 Oscars and the highest grossing movie of all time but it's a dreadful, dreadful film. A real stinker. Not since Rocky has a film been less deserving of so much attention.

With Aliens, Cameron tried and failed to better the genius of Ridley Scott.

That Scott's film was released in the 70s is amazing. Every shot is immaculate, the soundtrack is incredible, the tension is still there and the character development works brilliantly. The casting is flawless - John Hurt, Ian Holm, Harry Dean Stanton - all give convincing performances. The monumental sets are absolutely stunning and Scott only gives us glimpses of the creature, so we are left to imagine what foul horror is stalking the crew. As a horror film it is a resounding success. As a blending of sci-fi and horror, it was revolutionary.

Enter Jim Cameron with an idea that will make a skip full of money, a load of pyrotechnics, some very bad actors and 6 rubber Alien suits.

By comparison, Cameron's sequel is very dated and the dialogue between the Marines is severely embarrassing. Vasquez is portrayed as a tough ethnic female, but in a comical twist she looks like she's covered in boot polish and her headscarf is reminiscent of Rambo. As for Newt - am I the only person who can see how bad that child actress is?

It's interesting to note that whilst Cameron very obviously set out to make everything 'bigger and better' than Scott's original, most of his sets are actually a fraction of the size of Scott's. He often uses models and bluescreen effects to convey size (bar the queen alien). The vehicles - particularly the dropship - often resemble an episode of Thunderbirds. In Alien, models were used minimally - the chambers in the derelict and the Nostromo interior were truly enormous. The whole Nostromo interior was one huge film set. All these things give Alien a sense of Claustrophobia which is lacking in the sequel.

Terminator 2 is the lesser of Cameron's evils. True Lies, not so - I'm afraid I cringed all the way through that too. I just don't see why he's such a respected film maker.

I am reluctantly getting myself involved in this discussion because it's interesting and on topic since I've seen most of the movies mentioned here though I wish I had a better recollection of The Abyss (1989). It appears that Mr. Cameron is another director like Michael Bay who has not really had a long filmography from which to strike an impressive lifetime legacy yet. Nor has Mr. Cameron really directed any so-called serious dramatic film that usually is credited with bestowing an director with lifetime awards for distinguished movie making. As for individual movies, the appreciation of each movie depends somewhat on how one judges them.

It's really difficult to compare Alien with Aliens because personally they are really two different based on two different movie genres requiring different evaluation criteria. Alien, my personal favorite, is essentially a horror/science fiction movie while Aliens is essentially a horror/adventure/action movie with outer space as a backdrop for which those pumping action testerone interested audience members appeared to have been won over. Again, Aliens captured the imagination of military action thrills while Alien captured the more intimate frightening horror of outerspace monsters.

Terminator, on the otherhand, can be considered a remarkable improvement on the science fiction genre for its epic connection with time travel and robots and the humanity connection. Again, this movie was more targeted towards popular culture and its introduction to a mass audience of science fiction/technology is a credit to Mr. Cameron.

True Lies was entertaining for the sake of adventure comedy that likely spawned Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005). The movie for me was purely mindless entertainment handled decently, and I've been willing to watch it a number of times when I had not much else to do. However, as a distinguished piece of work I haven't put it on my most favorite list of movies.

Titanic was visually stunning and the overall storyline line haunting and sad, the big epic movie. However, I was stunned and bewildered how this movie could have surpassed for Oscar's best picture of 1997 such as: The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, The Sweet Hereafter (which is some ways had an even more haunting ending) or L.A. Confidential the last which time has appeared to have lent this movie high critical acclaim. Even Amidstad or Kundun were more heavy-weight movies. It appears this Titanic was judged on its epic public response and dazzling visual connection with romantic love.

Personally, James Cameron is a powerhouse in Hollywood whose influence cannot be ignored but in terms of his movies, he hasn't really accomplished or reached the level of most of the most notable directors of this century or last century.

i think he uses his huge budget to the max and makes films with great special effects, I also think that his movies are good, even without speical effects, Terminator II is probaly one of the best sequels ever, Titanic's Oscars speak for it, and True Lies was decent to me, but I think he's one of the best directors

I find Cameron's legacy so far to be of a high standard, as far as mainstream cinema goes.

The Terminators are thoroughly enjoyable; The Abyss is full of wonder; True Lies is stylish and full of great set pieces; Titanic is lovely, tight and moving; and Aliens is a film I have watched regularly since it arrived, (though I hate the Newt kid too).

I could write a thesis on this, but it's enough to say that I think he has created good, solid entertainment.

Hello Mr Coffin (long time no see) -

Was there nothing you found a tad overrated about The Abyss?

I had severe problems with that scene where they brought that woman back from the dead. It was way too long and obvious she'd come back to life (I'm sure people in the cinema were checking their watches). When she finally opened her eyes and puked, the bloke in the seat next to me burst out laughing. The scene was totally bereft of tension.

I found the film dragged and my eyelids got very heavy. At the climax, Cameron resorted to using minitures again, with a plastic mushroomhead covered in toy ships. It was dissapointing and possibly the least entertaining film Cameron has made (close run thing between that and Pirahna 2).

I can see why the Terminators are enjoyable and I too have watched Aliens regularly since I was 15 - I own a copy of it for my sins, but with repeated viewings it just hasn't stood up as well as Scott's visionary work - I lost faith in it a couple of years back (maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age). It's safe to say the nostalgia has worn off.

And Titanic. Considering it was based on 'actual events', it's very silly and overblown. At times I thought I was watching The Abyss again (not a pleasant feeling).

Cameron's survival situations push suspension of disbelief a little too far. I can accept that it's fiction, but when plotlines defy the laws of physics in such a heavy handed manner, I can't identify with anything because the story is so ridiculous.

I knew I'd be in for some criticism on this one, and I realise that his films are well loved, but I just can't get my head round it.

I believe you have a similar problem with Quentin Tarrantino, or am I thinking of someone else?

Dunc, me old china, I share your concerns about Cameron. I'm certainly not claiming he is without flaw or is any kind of auteur.

The Abyss does drag a little, but I still find it good popcorn.
Aliens is not a patch on Alien, but then again, what is?
Camerons film moves well, is funny and does what it sets out to do effectively.
Titanic I have a soft spot for, although I think the modern day scenes should have been cut out. Otherwise, I think Cameron manages to make a rather sweet teen romance. I don't find it overblown, because at all times we are with faces, Rose's, Jacks', just like oldy-time cinema. Check it out again, if you can, and notice how Cameron is constantly searching for the close up, and mid shot and how much of the film is dependent on Rose and Jack watching one another.

All of this is relative of course. Cameron is no Hitchcock, or Peckinpah, and his romance is one dimensional compared to say, Casablanca, but he for the most part crafts solid tales.

Physics defying don't bother me too much...if they did, I would have to stop watching Jackie Chan.

Tarantino? He's the real hack. Dull, repetitive and uninspired. Yep, that'd be me slagging off the zeitgeist fave, ha ha.

I know Tarantino is flogging a dead horse now, but what about Pulp Fiction? That was a really perfect little film - one of my favourites.

Having said that, I actually lost interest in Tarantino soon afterwards and he never topped it. Reservoir Dogs was good and Pulp was the height of his creativity. Everything since has been so-so.

4 rooms was a stinker, Jackie Brown was a rehash of old ideas. Dusk till Dawn was entertaining, but hardly a classic (I realise that Rodriguez directed half of Dusk before the pedantic squad move in for the kill).

I understand what you mean about him being repetitive. There is always a disconjunctive element in the film's sense of time or situation. The characters predictably discuss mundane topics whilst performing unspeakable acts and Tarantino takes his ideas from cult or extreme cinema (usually foreign) and converts them into hi-art 'concepts'.

Whereas Pulp and Dogs innovated these techniques into cinema, everything else has milked the idea. Something once clever and unexpected is now predictable and lacks vision.

Anyways, I'm off topic here. I should get back to Cameron.

I have never liked James Cameron’s style of directing. While Alien and Terminator were enjoyable, I didn't think they were amazing films. I have always hated Titanic, I think it is the worst movie Leonardo DiCaprio ever decided to do and I find it to be wildly overrated. The fact that everyone will always remember it because of all the Oscars it won makes me cringe. It was deserving of its technical and special effects awards but it definitely did not deserve a Best Picture or Director win. Maybe it's because I have a soft spot for As Good As It Gets but there were other movies far more deserving that year.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
I know Tarantino is flogging a dead horse now

I hear this a lot and it puzzles me more and more each time. I think that what Tarantino has written and directed himself is pretty solid. The Kill Bill films were highly entertaining and featured great acting, writing and directing. It had fresh new ideas married with classic, old standards. Jackie Brown was also a terrific movie and his newest one, Death Proof, proves that he is arguably one of the best writer/directors we have right now. He is by no means a “dead horse,” and deserves a lot more credit for his continuing contribution to cinema.

Oooooh, Ishmael enjoyed "Titanic"? Just when I think I've gotta handle on what you find enjoyable, you go & throw this into the mix! Good gravy, man! Are you really a teenage girl who's been lying to me the whole time?! *SHUDDER*

I've enjoyed a number of his movies, with the exception of "Titanic". The director's cut of "The Abyss" gets a little "Al Gore" at the end, so I actually enjoy the theatrical version a tad more. I do enjoy the "Terminator" movies & the director's cut of the second is waaaaay better than the theatrical version in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
4 rooms was a stinker...

Um, you do know that Tarantino only directed the last room, right? Besides, the punchline was fantastic! All that talking & then... Really, just that last 3 seconds of the room make it the best one of the four. I have to rewind that last part several times for everyone in the room! I didn't really like the first room with the witches, but the next 3 rooms? I couldn't stop laughing!

My real name is Mary, and I like...um...stufff....

Where's my copy of Tiger beat??/