Ranking Every James Cameron Film: From Blockbuster Hits to Iconic Masterpieces

Cameron’s work is synonymous with grand-scale epics, often breaking records for their production costs. However, beyond these financial milestones and the aura surrounding his name, it’s worth exploring the artistic value of each film. Which of his directorial ventures truly reflect his legendary status, and which fall short? Evaluating his films from least to most successful offers a deeper insight into this question.

This kind of analysis uncovers some recurring flaws in Cameron’s work but also underscores the remarkable ambition that sets him apart from many of his peers. Not every film is a triumph, yet his filmography collectively showcases a director who consistently aims for greatness.

Long before the world of Pandora, the iconic “Titanic” anthem, or Bill Paxton’s memorable role in “Aliens,” Cameron embarked on his directorial journey with “Piranha II: The Spawning.” This sequel to Joe Dante’s 1978 film “Piranha” marked his first attempt at a feature-length film, albeit under challenging circumstances. Cameron faced a language barrier on set and was ultimately relieved of his directorial duties before filming concluded. He has since distanced himself from the project, not considering it his true debut in filmmaking. It was a tough introduction to directing longer narratives.

Before Pandora, before “My Heart Will Go On,” and before Bill Paxton stole the show in “Aliens,” there was “Piranha II: The Spawning.” This movie, a sequel to Joe Dante’s 1978 film “Piranha,” marked James Cameron’s feature-length directorial debut. Cameron had a nightmarish experience on the production, to put it mildly. He was stuck filming a movie where nobody else on the set spoke English, and eventually was fired as director before shooting was done. Cameron has even gone on record to say that he doesn’t consider it his first proper filmmaking voyage. It was a baptism by fire in terms of Cameron discovering how to direct longer narrative motion pictures. 

All of that to say, it’s unsurprising that “Piranha II: The Spawning” is janky in its final form. The dismally reviewed feature has been lambasted by audiences and critics alike for generations, thanks to the film’s lackluster visual effects and dearth of actual frights. What a contrast to later Cameron films, which would push the envelope on what cinematic visual effects techniques could accomplish. Further criticism was also directed at the stilted performances and how little fun there was in this schlocky B-movie. In Cameron’s filmography, “Piranha II: The Spawning” is an anomaly in many ways, including in its abysmal overall quality. Perhaps the producers should have just let Cameron carry out whatever his vision was for this flying piranha horror movie.

James Cameron’s imaginative zeal when it comes to spectacle serves “True Lies” well in its best action sequences, including one fun set piece involving Arnold Schwarzenegger on horseback chasing a villain through a crowded city. Unfortunately, too much of “True Lies” is instead focused on tired jokes and plot points about strained marriages. Among the many things you forgot happened in “True Lies” is lead characters Harry (Schwarzenegger) and Helen Tasker (Jamie Lee Curtis) sharing stale “take my wife, please” antics. The latter character doesn’t do much more than yelp or get psychologically manipulated by her husband. It should be a crime to waste Jamie Lee Curtis like “True Lies” does.

The strengths of other Cameron blockbusters are also absent here, including the lack of a memorable foe. They may not be Darth Vader or Erik Killmonger in depth, but “Avatar’s” General Quaritch or “Terminator 2: Judgment Day’s” T-1000 were memorably imposing adversaries. “True Lies,” meanwhile, has forgettable antagonist Salim Abu Aziz (Art Malik) and his equally generic henchmen. The “True Lies” finale is also a step down from normal Cameron productions. No grandiose escalation of spectacle here. Instead, Harry Tasker’s tussle with a jet while saving his kidnapped daughter is a visceral step down from earlier “True Lies” action scenes.

Equal parts derivative and inert, “True Lies” lacks the racing pulse and ambition driving so many Cameron movies. The last Cameron/Schwarzenegger collaboration to date, this was a whimper of a finale for a legendary cinematic duo.

Much like Moana, James Cameron is drawn to the ocean. “Titanic” and “Avatar: The Way of Water” would cement watery depths as being an integral part of his filmography (not to mention all those aquatic killers in “Piranha II: The Spawning”). Eons before those big blockbusters, though, was “The Abyss,” his 1989 feature that combined aliens with underwater exploration. This is also an early example of Cameron making cinema where man is very much at the mercy of nature. His blockbusters aren’t about humanity conquering the natural world. On the contrary, titles like “Avatar” implore audiences to cheer as earthbound humans are crushed under animals and collapsing trees.

“The Abyss” is a quieter example of those thematic tendencies. Unfortunately, it’s sometimes too buttoned up for its own good. The lavish, audacious visual effects of the “Avatar” movies and the sweeping romance of “Titanic” are sorely missed in a project that (despite being set underwater) is awfully dry. Few of the characters register as compelling, while the glacial pacing leaves one impatient rather than absorbed. Thankfully, the impressive production design and groundbreaking CG work still register as remarkable today. Human performers like Ed Harris also give the proceedings a certain panache despite the so-so screenwriting.

Too often, though, “The Abyss” feels like a test run for concepts Cameron will more interestingly explore later in his career. You have to walk before you can run. In this case, you have to make “The Abyss” before you deliver “Titanic.”

While so many modern blockbusters struggle to lend weight and humanity to their heightened characters, “Avatar: The Way of Water” effortlessly gets viewers captivated by the exploits of the space whale Payakan. This big cosmic beastie doesn’t need to speak to get one invested in his plight. What moviegoing audience wouldn’t cheer once Payakan gets his revenge on human hunters in “The Way of Water’s” sweeping finale? Other elements, such as the fun evolution of Quaritch (now trapped in an Avatar body), are also a hoot, while the digital effects techniques used to realize the new Pandora realms are exceptional. James Cameron movies are known for their eye candy, and “Water” delivers when it comes to CG wonders.

It’s sometimes hard to appreciate those wonders, though, when “The Way of Water” keeps jostling between frame rates. The High Frame Rate format used for random shots in IMAX, digital 3D, and other premium formats is incredibly distracting and makes any character movement look off-putting. It’s bizarre that Camerone’s creative vision involves simultaneously pushing VFX boundaries and then making it harder to appreciate those accomplishments. Meanwhile, any screenwriting involving new character Spider (Jake Champion) is dreadful. This youngster and his atrocious dialogue getting significantly more screentime than original “Avatar” characters like Neytiri is a crime.

“The Way of Water” wows in many respects, largely justifying its lengthy runtime. However, its shortcomings are shockingly basic, especially for a movie that turns a space whale into a crowdpleasing hero.

“Avatar” is an old-school adventure story. Coming out in 2009, when so many blockbusters adhered to drably-colored grim-and-gritty storytelling, James Cameron weaved a yarn about how cool it would be to fly on an alien planet with bright blue extra-terrestrials. The best parts of “Avatar,” like James Horner’s sweeping score or the intoxicating finale, revel in those classical sensibilities. They lean into the idea that “Avatar” is channeling classical myths rather than post-modern snarky superhero films. There’s a genuineness to the grandeur that’s tremendously involving, while Pandora as a world is immensely engaging.

However, being so traditional does lead to some problems for “Avatar,” including its lack of truly breathtaking narrative surprises. More pressingly, the lead character, Jake Sully, isn’t a very exciting protagonist. His actor, Sam Worthington, doesn’t help by delivering a performance shockingly devoid of personality. His ineffectiveness in this role is exacerbated by Worthington often sharing the screen with Zoe Saldana’s richly powerful turn as Neytiri or Stephen Lang’s go-for-broke nastiness as General Quaritch. Plus, not all of the Na’vi character designs quite work. They’re a little too perfect-looking, with everyone rocking tiny waists and beefy muscles. The lack of variety in appearance makes it harder to buy them as a believable otherworldly species.

Still, even with these shortcomings, “Avatar” is charming and engaging more often than not. Despite its derivative and simpler impulses, those big emotional swings do work, as do the cheer-worthy cathartic moments in the finale. 

As of this writing, nine of the 10 biggest movies in history at the domestic box office are action movies. They’re features prioritizing explosions, punching, and other forms of physical violence above all else in their narratives. Even back in the 1990s, there was a tendency for action films to rule over all other kinds of cinema, as seen by the success of “Jurassic Park,” “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” and “Independence Day.” As a stark contrast to those norms, though, is “Titanic,” an unabashedly romantic old-school epic. This historical feature was different from Cameron’s past motion pictures, but you wouldn’t know it, given how at ease he is behind the camera.

That confidence extends to “Titanic’s” willingness to wear its heart on its sleeve with an unblinking embrace of what many might deem “cornball” material. This is a feature with soaring Celine Dion tunes, sneaky sexual encounters in other people’s cars, and sequences hinging on the joys of the wind fluttering in your hair. The lack of snark makes it all exceedingly moving and gripping. This quality also ensures that the inevitably grim third act involving the titular ship sinking is appropriately impactful. Unspeakable disaster has come to this charmingly romantic world, and it’s bound to make even the most cynical heart a little weepy.

Throw in a pair of star-making turns from Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, and it’s clear why “Titanic” is the only non-action film among America’s 10 biggest movies ever.

Before all the crummy “Terminator” sequels came the franchise’s lone sublime follow-up: “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” While later installments were content to just regurgitate plot beats and fan service from “Judgment Day” and “The Terminator,” this 1991 blockbuster wasn’t afraid to stand on its own. The stripped-down, darker ambiance of “The Terminator” was jettisoned here in favor of a sprawling blockbuster full of moments bound to inspire cheers. Arnold Schwarzengger’s Terminator was even reconfigured into a hero that was protecting John (Edward Furlong) and Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) rather than hunting them down.

Embracing these tendencies ensured “Judgment Day” worked gloriously as a standalone exercise and expanded the “Terminator” universe in interesting ways. Grit your teeth through inevitable shortcomings in Cameron’s writing (namely, his difficulty writing believable child characters) and one uncovers a zippy blockbuster delivering an impressive amount of thrills and showmanship. The latter quality especially bolsters “Judgment Day.” Cameron is in rare form, executing pyrotechnic razzle-dazzle as the Terminator and T-1000 (Robert Patrick) duke it out. These set pieces rely heavily on visual effects work that still impresses decades later, especially since they’re accompanied by a deluge of tremendous practical effects wizardry.

James Cameron blockbusters would get bigger in the wake of “Judgment Day.” However, rarely would his subsequent action films reach the dazzling heights or narrative creativity of this production. Plus, the “Terminator” franchise never again produced a sequel remotely as good as this one.

Recently, sci-fi icon James Cameron revealed that he’s struggling to write a new “Terminator” movie. It’s a reality reflecting how difficult it’s been to make the “Terminator” franchise an ongoing property. However, to Cameron’s credit, part of those difficulties must be rooted in how he got it so right in the earliest “Terminator” outings. When you hit it out of the ballpark on the first swing, where do you go next? 1984’s “The Terminator” remains a superb thriller, even if it did mean that the world had to endure movies like “Terminator: Genisys.”

Running only 107 minutes, “The Terminator” is a very stripped-down exercise compared to subsequent Cameron epics that would run 180+ minutes. That reflects the streamlined ambitions of Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd’s screenplay, which simply follows Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) going on the run from the titular killer robot (Arnold Schwarzenegger) with the aid of future warrior Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). Creating this project wasn’t easy, as seen by problems like Schwarzenegger and Cameron arguing over executing an iconic “Terminator” line. In its final form, though, “The Terminator” is a propulsive exercise full of compelling chase sequences and an inspired, menacing use of Schwarzenegger’s tremendous frame. 

All the practical stunt work and sets ensure that such an outlandish sci-fi premise registers as emotionally tangible in every frame. Cameron may be struggling in the modern world to crack another “Terminator” installment, but at least we’ll always have the original sci-fi classic.

It took seven years for “Aliens” to get made. That lengthy development process proved once again that slow and steady wins the race, since “Aliens” was an outstanding creation. No mere recreation of the original “Alien,” James Cameron (taking over for “Alien” director Ridley Scott) ramped up the action and tossed Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) into a pit of hardened marines as hordes of Xenomorph aliens start attacking everyone. So begins a relentlessly entertaining exercise that doesn’t let up in its excitement or gasp-inducing jump scares. However, in the middle of all this sci-fi action, what really grips the eyeballs is Weaver’s transfixing performance as Ripley.

Reprising her performance as this cosmic icon, Weaver is never anything less than compelling on-screen, particularly in her versatility. She can exude steadfast prowess, making her so much more intimidating than any of the surrounding Marines, but then effortlessly shift into a warmer ambiance as Ripley tends to the displaced youngster Newt (Carrie Henn). Across every single Sigourney Weaver movie in her esteemed filmography, this particular take on Ellen Ripley is among her best performances. Plus, the surrounding cast is full of unforgettable supporting turns, especially Bill Paxton as an out-of-his-depth soldier.

Having such gripping characters populating “Aliens” ensures that there’s always a beating human heart to this sci-fi action madness. The otherworldly baddies are realized with extraordinary puppetry, and the set design is outstanding. Any way you look at it, “Aliens” endures as James Cameron’s crowning achievement in blockbuster cinema.