Titanic

I liked this movie. I liked it from the day I saw it. No doubt. It was a GOOD movie. The acting may have not been perfect, BUT it wasn't bad acting. It was a hell of a lot better than some other movies. Now I'm not going to say that I cried at the end, because thats not true, BUT the movie did movie. Thats the truth. I don't see why everyone hates it!! I really don't! The scene with the old couple holding each other while the water rushes underneath their bed. I was moved. It seemed to me that all of the characters were all perfectly developed. The visuals were amazing. The love story wasn't amazing, but what makes it any worse than most other tragic love stories? It is a good movie. It is overrated, but it is still a rather good movie. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say it is one of the best movies ever, BUT it is still a damn good piece of motion picture history. I watch it whenever it's on HBO, I'm not ashamed to say so.

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

The love story is crap, all because of DiCaprio. The guy totally ruins it, save for one scene, which I've mentioned above. They needed someone else like Matthew McConaughey -- who's a solid actor, and who was the original choice before someone insisted on Leo -- I forget who. Either the producers or Cameron.

If the male lead could act worth crap, it would have been decent.

As for it's factualness: Steve, I like ya man, I really do, but there's one thing I will never agree with you on, and it's this notion that movies like this can just do what they want, regardless of it's validity. Gladiator isn't really based on truth -- it's mostly fictional. Titanic is based on a very real, and fairly recent event.

The part with people being held below decks for lack of "class"? Not true. Men losing their honor and scrambling around like animals for survival, ignoring women and children? Not true. The ratio of women to men in terms of survivors was truly staggering. These things were added for dramatic effect -- I see no justification for that whatsoever, when you consider one important difference between this and other fictional works: this is recent enough that relatives of some of these people they have spit on have actuall come forward with lawsuits, and won! And with good reason, in my opinion.

If you're going to call the movie "Titanic", then why make it all about two stupid kids having premarital sex? If you're going to spend hours and hours making sure you're using the right type of wood for the rooms, why can't you spend 15 damn minutes to avoid blatantly lying for dramatic effect? This doesn't wash man.

Explain to me why movies like this absolutely HAVE to be bathed in fact. I want to know. The cinema is ideal for imagination, the printed word for fact. Why can't a movie transcend the mundane aspects of everyday life, or at least skew them? It's sad when a movie that dares to have imagination is disliked for not being realistic enough.

Where is this line drawn? There's a such thing as pyramids, with mummies buried in them, but did you have a problem with the story of The Mummy Returns? Titanic is the same way.

Leo is a wonderful actor, as anyone who's seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape can attest. In Titanic, his line readings weren't bad, it was the lines themselves that sucked. The actors can't help it if their script sucks, particularly their dialogue. Leo is a solid, solid actor, who can carry a movie dramatically if needed.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Bathed in fact? Why, to keep clean of course.

In all seriousness, though, they need to be reasonably factual if they're going to be making stuff up about ACTUAL people who's families are only a couple generations removed, or if they're going to make it appear as fact. Titanic is presented in a factual way. The title indicates that it's about the ship sinking, yet it focuses on something else, and makes the rest of it up, for the most part.

I really want to know what they were thinking when focusing on every little detail, but none of the big ones, when it comes to historical accuracy.


No way. The Mummy Returns is not based on an actual event, and no one's family is insulted by what is claims today. Titantic takes real people and a real event and then messes up what they do.


Gilbert Grape? He played a retarded boy. Doesn't sound like acting to me. I don't think the script was bad either -- I think it was pretty solid, but he mucked it up. The "spit like a man" sequence was mostly adlibbed, by the way.

I couldn't agree with you more, Steve that is. I sometimes get the feeling most people don't think highly of Leo's acting abilities simply because they don't like him. Most guys I know hate him, and its obviously because they just don't like how other people react to him. I really don't think you should attack his acting abilities. He was damn good in Gilbert. I'm sure it is very hard to portray a handicaped boy. He's good in every movie I've seen him in. Never below average, always way above it. Very unapreciated I'd say.

As for the factualness of the movie. Did it really offend you that much that it made the movie horrible? The focus of the movie was the love between a man and a woman. The setting was the Titanic. And thus fitting, they had to have sub plots on the ship it's self. They went through the process of getting all the details down, to give it that realistic feel. I personally don't really care whether or not that is the EXACT way it all went down(so to speak). They could have made everything in the movie completely factual, but then it wouldn't be "Titanic". It would not have a love story, half the characters would not be there, and it would of basically been a documentary.

Titanic isn't presented as fact, it's presented as story. There's a difference. It tries to be realistic from a technical standpoint, but the emotions in the film are bona fide, 100% made up. What's wrong with that? Movies aren't about facts. They're about emotions. The big details don't matter. The movie uses the ship sinking to show this love story, and vice versa. That's all. A cycle, if you will. What do you want, TWT? You seem to be the type who goes for "old-fashioned" films. This is one if they ever existed. Try not to be cynical about it, and let the film tell its story.

The reason I parallel it with The Mummy Returns is because mummies and pyramids and Egypt work on the same level that the boat sinking does in Titanic. To tell the story. People are disgraced? What if someone descending from Commodus in Gladiator doesn't like the way he's depicted? Would you have a problem with the realism of the movie? All movies are based in imagination, where it goes from there is the movie's decision.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no way to justify making stuff up when depicting recent events just to try to jerk some tears out of you. It's stupid and in excusable. If you're not going to focus on the event, and you're going to make crap up, then make it REALLY obvious. They did not.

If the entire movie becomes less interesting and less emotionally moving when the fabricated, slanderous nonsense is taken out, then it's got some serious flaws, as is the case here.

If the movie is about a love story, then why did they need to make things up about the sinking? Fact of the matter is that they're trying to be realistic in some areas, but they're blatantly ignoring more important ones.

No way, and here's why: no one on earth believes The Mummy Returns is based on any real fact. Titanic is obviously, and blatantly, based on a real live event, and I'm sure many people believe it to be highly factual.

Let me ask YOU where the line is drawn: what if someone makes a movie called "The Civil War", that details how some black people oppressed whites and turned them into slaves? What if a movie is made depicting Hitler as a victim, and the Jews as deserving of their fate? If someone complained about it's horrible historical accuracy, would you tell them to back off because it's just a movie, and that it's not presenting itself as fact? I think not, sir!

You've misinterpreted what I've said.

I would tell the people to back up off this (highly unlikely) movie you've presented, because if a film were to be made on this subject, there would surely be a justifiable reason for it to be watchable. What I'm saying is that historical accuracy is irrelevant to a movie's entertainment value. If a movie intends to be historically correct and it's not entertaining, do you applaud that movie? Is realism really all that necessary? I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, I'm saying that a movie should be good, solid entertainment before it's being called historically inaccurate.

Titanic isn't based on anything, it's just set somewhere. The love story isn't presented as fact, it's presented as story. The boat is the setting for the story, just as Egypt is the setting for the story in the Mummy and Rome is the partial setting of Gladiator. That's all it is. Those are real places, are they not? Real things happened there, did they not? It's merely the venue for this story to be told.
How is the movie so blatantly depicting real life events? It is above all a movie, and if you have a problem with some of the most basic aspects of cinema, then it is your problem, not the film's.

I don't believe I said Titanic was not entertaining. However, there is no contradiction here between accuracy and entertainment...and if there is, make some other dang movie. If you have to make up things while depicting a major historical event, then you're making the wrong movie.


The story eh? The story of love, in the case of Titanic? Okay, then why do they supplement the story with made up stuff? Simple: because it's not just some generic venue. If what you say is true, then why would they make things up to supplement it? The venue is part of the movie! When the venue is part of the movie, and is something this serious, it's a slap in the face to those people who died to depict them as cowards in front of millions. How can you NOT be upset by that?

Titanic IS based on something. Let's be realistic here. It's a love story set with a backdrop of the sinking of the Titanic -- which is something the story truly hinges on. They couldn't have set this whole thing in Ohio.


Oh no, I have no problem with the basic aspects of a movie. I have a problem with directors who take historical events and twist them around for the sake of entertainment. Creativity and imagination are one thing, but why on earth would you use them to take a very serious, important event, and depict certain people involved as cowards, regardless of their actual role? Why not put that talent to use on that love story you're harping on?

Simple: because it's not totally a love story. Titanic can't make up it's dang mind. It wants to be about their love, but it wants to have a broader appeal, so it makes itself look classical, and it tugs are your heartstrings with inventions of Cameron's mind that are an insult to those they've slandered in front of the entire world.

ok, obviously NOTHING is going to change steve's mind. lol. but i would just like to say that when a movie is a period piece that is supposed to portray a certain time in history, it should at least be as realistic as possible. no one said that movies have to be realistic all the time, but when the movie sets out to be historically accurate, it should follow through. also, what i said about pretending to be a historical docudrama was that it seemed to be that cameron was making a realistic, true to fact movie, when in fact he was making sappy love smarm. also, you asked how is it cheesy? how is it NOT?!? like i said, the acting is bad, the lines are crap, and the love story is throw-away. you said aren't love stories all mainly alike? um... no. sometimes you get shakespeare, sometimes you get hokey, hollywood love. the difference is everywhere. the lines, the expression on faces, the setup, the delivery. it's a completely different ballgame. ok, imagine the difference in language, even. there are so many ways that this movie differs from a belivable well told love story. and commish is right about the movie being totally about kids in love. no one even gives a crap about everyone else on board, or the ship, or anything, really. even the central characters are poorly portrayed and difficult to empathize with. you need hooks to get an audience into a movie, and titanic lacked. i didn't give a flying (censored) what happened to the morons. and don't act like the historical accuracy wasn't relevant. bullcrap. go watch "saving private ryan". or "schindler's list".

Alright, stop the presses, we've got the next Ebert over here. A movie just HAS to be historically accurate if it's set at a certain point in history? Ever seen Titus? Wait, slow down, daddio, I don't wanna hurt 'em.

My theory is that emotions matter in a movie above all...Historical accuracy ISN'T relevant, unless the accuracy puts some sort of spin on the emotions of the film. In Titanic's case, certain things may have been exaggerated or even made up, but it's to enhance the drama, and it works well. If someone is offended by how the crew or the British are portrayed, what do you do? Do you outlaw the film? Do you judge Uncle Tom's Cabin because of how it portrays whites? What if someone falls down an elevator shaft? Do you outlaw them? The point is, movies can be about whatever they want and they can alter whatever they want, as long as the emotions stay the same. Just because it's not completely accurate doesn't make it automatically an awful, offensive work of art.

And TWT, you say you don't have a problem with the basic aspects of cinema, yet you're complaining because of something as umimportant as historical accuracy? When I asked where you draw the line, I was asking when does historical accuracy matter and when doesn't it? Commodus was a real person, correct? But he's portrayed as a sadistic twit in Gladiator. What if he wasn't really like that? The cinema can be about whatever it chooses, as long as emotion stays intact. When historical accuracy starts to take the place of drama, comedy, and above all imagination then I'm going to quit watching movies.

Oh, and all the things you said about the love story, Brodie, were quite subjective. I'm sorry if "but just LOOK at the dialogue" doesn't convince me. The movie is old-fashioned, has a heart, and expects its audience to as well. What did you think of Dr. Zhivago? How about, on a smaller scale, Manhattan? If grand, romantic gestures aren't your cup of tea, don't go talking about how they're cheesy.

Did I say it was awful? No, just careless. I heavily dislike it, though. Don't be so melodramatic, no one is suggesting we should STOP people from making movies like this, but I'm sure going to be ticked if it continues to happen. They have no place doing that.


What if he wasn't like that? I didn't say I thought Gladiator was perfect. Seems like you may be assuming a few things here. I havn't commented on Gladiator's historical accuracy.

There is a major difference, however. Two of them, in fact:
1 - The Titanic is recent, and there is no doubt as to some of these facts...this indicates total carelessness.
2 - They went out of their way to be accurate concerning stupid junk, but then just threw in a bunch of stuff that didn't happen to make it more dramatic.

I'm sorry, but these people have a responsibility here. People ARE going to believe what they see in the movies, and James Cameron, or any other director, knows that quite well. As such, there's no excuse for making things up in some places and being needlessly precise in others.

Steve: if you want to keep talking about how this is a love story, etc, then how do you defend them resorting to making things up? If it's about Rose and Jack, then why do they supplement that with made up things that slander honorable crewmen? Why? Why? Why?

Like I said: would you or would you not be annoyed with a movie that depicted Nazis as victims and the Jews as horrible people, deserving of the Holocaust? Be honest. Would you or would you not be upset and offended by it? Does a filmmaker really have any place making a movie like that?

Brodieman, it's not IMPOSSIBLE to change Steve's mind, b/c it has been done before as this very thread can attest to. I remember Steve chiding me endlessly for even liking TITANIC at all.

That said, I think Steve and OG have sufficiently shown that this movie is an extraordinary visual encapsulation of an era, an event, a romance.

Most of you, I would presume, are insecure men who dislike Leonardo DiCaprio for the sake of disliking a popular "pretty boy" who perhaps gets more attention than he's worth. That is, if you're a guy and if you dislike ol' Leo, of course. I am not one of those swooning teeny girls, either, and in fact, Leo is not nearly one of my favorites. I would have gone with someone else, but he did just fine. "Solid" as someone wrote.

I also think that this "I HATE TITANIC" button you've been toting is trendy; I bet you didn't hate it when it won all those Oscars. Just like you don't hate GLADIATOR. Now. Wait two years. What will you think of it then?

Why must movies be historically accurate? Does THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST claim to be the actual story of a one Jesus Christ? No, but it got blasted for it anyway. Did Roman gladiators have Australian accents back in the day? As a Latin scholar of many years, I can indubitably say No. However, that was not why I disliked GLADIATOR. Do we care that there were pieces completely excluded from ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN that were included in the book? No. B/c films don't have enough TIME to be completely, utterly accurate. Plus, if we wanted a history, we'd read a history book. Or we'd watch an insufferably boring History Channel documentary. But, we go to the movies thinking that we will be entertained, and Cameron entertained me with TITANIC.

Come on, guys, LOOK at the director we're talking about: James Cameron. When did he ever do a low-budget, to-the-letter historical fiction? He's a man of action, of emotion, of visual awe. He needs a story to move and (thogh it took three hours) it does.

That doesn't wash, because Cameron went out of his way to make things up -- which took more TIME than it would have to ignore it altogether. Of course there is not enough time to get it all right, but where is the justification for making up horrible things about the crew members? The time argument doesn't wash with that one.

Oh, and I'm not insecure about such things. Not in the least. I think N'Sync has made some great songs, and I think Brad Pitt kicks a**. DiCaprio, however, was crap through 90% of Titanic, save for one scene, which I mentioned earlier. If he were like that throughout the entire movie, I would have been thoroughly impressed.

Yes, I did. When Sean Connery said "Titanic", I said "damn."

They don't always have to be, but there is a line here. There's a point at which the director has no damn excuse.

Finally someone said it!! Thank you.

Who's she referring to, though? I've never liked him, and it's got everything to do with his performance in Titanic. Is he a bad actor? I dunno...he is in that movie. Then again, you can think what you want.

My my. Getting a little testy, aren't we Commish?

Yeah, I guess I am. I'm becoming increasingly bothered by how AMAZINGLY often people online make assumptions or generalizations about others. My apologies if I seem downright angry -- I'm not.

I would necessarily say that. People have all sorts of reasons for not liking someone. Sometimes they are mundane reasons, sometimes they are well thought out reasons.

Personally, I don't have any real feelings toward DiCaprio. I don't dislike him (and have like him in movies like The Basketball Diaries and What's Eating Gilbert Grape?), but I don't make a point to see something because he's in it (which I do for some other actors).



I hated it when Titanic won the Academy Award because there was a far more deserving picture, in my opinion, also up for the award. I hated all the hype about the picture when it was out in theaters and absolutely refused to go see it.

Once the hype died down, I ended up watching it on HBO or one of those, and while I still don't think it deserved best picture, I didn't hate the movie. There were some parts that went on too long, in my opinion, but I'd still put it in the "good" category. It's not really my kind of movie, but it wasn't bad, either.

L.A. Confidential was the superior picture, though.

And P.S. I didn't see Gladiator. Nothing I saw or heard about that movie appealed to me at all. Traffic would've had to have gotten my vote for Best Picture (by default, though, because I didn't see the other four nominees), and I liked Wonder Boys better than that (and probably some other ones, but I don't recall every movie that came out last year).