Titanic

Well it's been a while, 4 years now I guess. Titanic, the most commercially successful film of all time was seen by everyone. The first couple of months were bliss for James Cameron. The critics adored it, the public loved it. But then something went wrong. People got tired of Titanic; tired of watching it (it's not as good the fourteenth time), tired of hearing about it, tired of talking about it. By the time it won 11 Oscars, there was a wave of backlash against it. James Cameron's acceptance speeches didn't help.

4 years on, has the world forgiven Cameron for his acceptance? Can the world appreciate Titanic for its outstanding spectacle again? There is still a divide. Some love Titanic. Some hate it. There's very little middle ground. So which way are you inclined?

I love it.

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

I didn't hate the movie, but I didn't think it was better than L.A. Confidential, and therefore, I don't think Titanic should have won the Best Picture Oscar.

I liked the Titanic, but for all the wrong reasons...sure, the special effects were great, and I love the movie for showing so vividly the human tragedy of the sinking. But when DiCaprio went under, I was cheering more than I was feeling sad

__________________
Black Holes Suck!

Titanic is very, very over-rated. What's wrong with it, you ask?

1 - It should have been rated "R" - tough crap if that will kill your blockbuster profits. Take out the naked chick if you want that rating so bad.

2 - DiCaprio is horrible, absolutely horrible. She sounds British, and he sounds like he's from L.A. I have nothing against the fact that girls think he's cute, but I do have something against his sickening acting.

He's not always bad, he's downright average at times, but in Titanic, he should have gone down before the ship.

3 - The movie is inaccurate. The producers have been sued at least once, and have settled with some families whose uncle/grandfather/etc were portrayed inaccurately in the film. It's sickening, it really is, when you think about the kind of things they made up to increase drama.

4 - It promotes promiscuity. Look, some people are young and in love, that's fine, but those two sure didn't seem to be. Besides, it was said Rose married later: what about her husband? When he dies, is he all alone? Geez.

I hope you're joking Mr Commish.

1. Agreed. It should have been rated R. The painting scene was a commercial ploy by Cameron and I don't know how he got it past the MPAA.

2. Leonardo Di Caprio is not a bad actor. The poor guy has men all over the world hating him simply because he starred in a successful film. Check out his oscar nominated work in "What's eating Gilbert Grape?" He is fantastic in that. He stole Romeo and Juliet. Claire Danes was the weak link in that picture. And the Beach, a real disappointment, had nothing to do with Di Caprio. His performance was great. That film was Danny Boyle's fault.

3. Inaccuracies?!? You know a guy is in trouble when he starts saying the film is inaccurate. It's not a documentary! It doesn't say "A TRUE STORY" in the credits, does it? Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Thirteen Days, these all changed history to create more interesting drama. Titanic did the same.

4. Promotes Promiscuity. What film or TV show doesn't? How many people do the cast of Friends sleep with in a year? The world is sex mad my friend. It's wrong but it's a fact.

Nope.

Big time lobbying, I'm sure. A disgrace.

I find his only two decent performances are in Gilbert Grape and Marvin's room, where he plays a retarded boy, and a maniac - what does that tell you about him?

As I said, he's not always terrible, but he was incredibly out of place in Titantic. I didn't believe for even a second that he was actually the character he was playing.


I don't believe I've supported those movies. And besides, inaccuracy is tolerated, but not in forms as blatant as they were in Titanic. The thing about locking lower class citizens below deck and not letting them up? Not true. The thing about officers shooting people and such? Highly exaggerated.

In fact, I have read several accounts that have basically stated that the men on the boat were very, very honorable, and that women and children dominated the boats, as was the right thing to do.

The problem here is that a lot of the fear and drama in Titanic was based on the men acting cowardly, out of control officers, people being locked below decks to await their doom, etc, when it basically did not happen. Thirteen Days, at the very least, seems to have all the basics down, and didn't resort to making things up for pure drama.

Did it have it's own inaccuracies? Heck yeah, but at Least Kenny O'Donnell actually exited. Titanic's are inexscusable. We've got a bunch of ditzy teenage girls walking around believing all that actually happened.


Yeah, a lot of them do, those are bad points they have. I was simply disgusted with the lack of respect for marriage.

What y'all think?

__________________
**** the Lakers!

It was better than getting poked in the eye with a sharp stick.

I'm still waitin for the sequel!!

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Boooo!! for even making this forum. I was the movie and laughed the entire time. Nothing in that whole movie touched me emotionally which it was supposed to do.

I liked it when they all drowned & Leo became a popsicle in the freezin waters & kate winslet whishpered help me help me, like teeny vincent price in The fly. But I think james cameron was very nasty to the Brits, ITS A LIE that the officers locked up the 3rd class people, A LIE A LIE A LIE!!!! thank you.

__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!

Leo spends the whole movie just talking. Not acting: talking. He reads his lines, and then goes home. He sounds like he's from Los Angeles, for crying out loud. He doesn't sound the part at all. There was one scene, however, which I thought he nailed: the scene where they're below the deck, dancing around. He was good there. A glimpse of what he's capable of, I suppose.

yeah, i think just about anyone who takes movies seriously hated titanic. i know i did. let's face it, if you're going because you're a history buff (which i am) you'll bury your face in shame over the hollywood-style bs that pervades the entire film. generally, this movie was made for a specific audience, and that is women who like big, flashy tearjerkers. they are an audience that the studios completely ignore, so when titanic came out, girls and women flocked to the theaters. and they took there boyfriends and husbands, which is why it made so much money. i'm not saying that guys can't like it, too. there are a lot of aspects of the movie i thought were pretty good, but it was the only "chick flick" that made that kind of money, just because it knew its audience and went for it. if nothing else, i would say it was a good venture in money making. a horrible one in movie making, though. the acting sucks, the script sucks. i hate to use the word "sucks" because it's not very descriptive, but i can't even think of another word that comes close. you will have to laugh so many times during the course of this movie, i promise. it's that bad. i've heard bad things about it's not too distant cousin pearl harbor, too, and i'm proud to say i refused to see it, and hopefully i won't have to anytime soon. i'm tired of the studios forcing that type of crap onto us. what garbage.

I didn't. I thought it was a skillful, entertaining picture. If it's not original, so what? It stays within the confines of its genre, and and tells its story much better than most of those types of movies (ie, Gone With the Wind. There's a bad film). I have lots of problems with it (particularly the whole Billy Zane subplot, and the awful, awful dialogue), but honestly, it is a superior movie. The visuals are absolutely fantastic, and it's just plain old-fashioned good storytelling. Everyone who hates it, give reasons! I haven't heard any reasonable explanations for why it "sucks" so much.

I used to hate it as much as everyone here (even when I started this thread I hated it), but I rewatched it last night, and was swept away by it. It's become the current fashion to hate that movie, I think. I don't know why. My theory is that with films of this stature, people are either swept up by the hype, or they try to be "ballsy" and "rebellious" and hate it. Whether it's good doesn't matter. (Case in point - Gladiator. Folks are sucked into the hype, and that takes precedent over the fact that it's a poor film.) Everyone's just trying to be a rebel by hating Titanic, when in reality you are the majority. Watch it again, everyone, and push your negative thoughts into the backs of your minds. It really is a good picture. Not "great" in any sense of the word, but it's truly a terrific movie.


And yes, Brodieman, I take movies seriously. I'm sorry, but I'm calling you on this. You just jumped on the bandwagon, along with everyone else.

Who's gonna respond? Anyone agree with me?

i haven't jumped on any bandwagons, because i decided i didn't like this movie while watching it, before i had ever heard anyone's opinions. i thought it would be pointless to elaborate on why i thought it sucked, just because this movie is so old, and i figure this topic has been debated straight into the ground... here's why i hated it:

first of all, the movie has no focus, which is what a movie should have before you throw in special effects, a big name director and what not. the movie pretends to be a realistic historical docu-drama, but all it really winds up being is a love story (not even a very realistic one) that is just worthy of a daytime soap opera.

secondly, the acting is bad. i don't care what anyone says, the acting is crappy, and that DOES count for something. whoever said leo just reads his lines is right. you should feel some sort of connection with the characters, and if the acting is as horrible as it is, it's difficult to establish that.

thirdly, the movie's selling point was the love story, and the love story was just dopey. i'm not gonna act like i'm too tough to see a movie that has centers around the themes of love and heartbreak. i'm not, it's just that when you do a love story in a movie, you shouldn't make it as laughably cheesy as this one. cheesiness makes a movie difficult to take seriously. it's no wonder they made fun of this film on a Mystery Science Theater Oscar special. how could you not laugh a thosand times at the crappy dialog, the hokey "movie love" look that the characters get in their eyes? the whole thing left me feeling like it should have been on a daytime soap, that's honestly my opinion.

now, if you're going to quote me, you should at least notice EVERYTHING i said. "there were a lot of aspects of this movie i thought were pretty good" i DO like the visuals, but that's just cause james cameron knows how to work a camera. that and the fact that he at least ATTEMPTED to make a period piece are two very admirable qualities of the movie, and i find them to be the movie's strong suits. but the couple things i liked could not make up for the sheer crappiness of the movie. period.

i'm sorry if you thought i was insulting you with that remark about people who take movies seriously. honestly, you're the first real film buff i met who doesn't hate it. but to each his own. watch what you like, but titanic is seriously not my thing.

Word Steve! Word! I completely agree with you!

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

It's quite difficult for me to enjoy a movie that blatantly slanders the past, and seems to make no apologies for it. It's such a shame that we've not got a few hundred thousand ditzy teenage girls walking around thinking that the Titanic's sinking really did happen that way. Pisha. Nonsense.

to quote Zweeedorf: "I laughed the entire time. Nothing in that whole movie touched me emotionally which it was supposed to do."

exactly.

that's another good point, commish! when is hollywood gonna quit making movies that screw up people's perception of history. it makes me sick when they do that... anything for money.

Firstly, since when were movies supposed to be factual? Who says that a movie has to be truthful to history to be good? Nobody complains when we see Rome looking like a desert in Gladiator. Do you go to the movies to see real life? In film, now more than ever, nearly anything is possible. Why show boring realism in a story that demands majesty and a huge vision? Also, how does the film "pretend" to be a historic docu drama? Give reasons.

The movie has a love story - so what? No teenage girl with half a brain is going to believe that the movie really was showing a story that happened. The Titanic sunk -James Cameron wanted to film it. He did. The love story, however untrue it is, is just what we follow to see the ship sink. You guys seem to be ignoring the fact that it's skillfully mounted and beautifully filmed. Take the movie for what it is: A classic love story, that may not be particularly original, but holds our interest and maybe even moves us. The visuals give it an extraordinary power that elevate the love story from other such films like Gone with the Wind. Brodie, you say that the love story feels like a soap opera story, but aren't all love stories like this the same? Forgive me for using Gladiator again, but the entire court-intrigue thing was just as smarmy and soap-opera-ish as the love story here. Give REASONS why its bad and cheesy. You're basically repeating yourself. Telly WHY you feel this way.

The movie's focus is to show the ship sinking. The love story is merely the vessel (forgive the pun ) to show us this. And it does it beautifully.