Rating: 
Summary: Very, Very Good
Review: The story is amply and clearly summarized by the editorial reviews and other customer reviews, and I will not be redundant."Titanic" could have been a special effects extravaganza and nothing more. But, James Cameron took it beyond that by inserting a fictional, Romeo-and-Juliet love story, featuring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett. Another step beyond was the insertion of the narrator -- Gloria Stuart playing the 101-year-old version of Kate Winslett's character. Either part of the movie -- the sinking of the ship or the love story -- would have made a 2-star or 3-star movie. By intertwining the stories artfully, you get a movie that earns 4.5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Jack + Rose = Forever :)
Review: To all the bad reviewers who put down Leonardo DiCaprio, i say >>> GET LOST!!!! If it weren't for him trying to come between a bad relationship and "save" Rose from an unhappy future, then Rose would have stayed miserable for the rest of her life. Good thing Jack came between Rose and that bad mean guy!!! J.D. & Rose 4ever!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: I have no idea to review this so...
Review: Really I don't. I've seen the film at least 5 times and each time I feel entertained and bored. When the film was being filmed, people were already calling it a bomb: production delays, a MASSIVE budget and very little known stars caused the film to be on everyone's "doesn't look interesting but watch it anyway" list. Since, it's won 11 out of the 14 Oscars it was nominated for, made 600 million in just Canada and US alone, 1.7 billion if you add overseas and one of the biggest selling soundtracks of all time(including the most overplayed song of all time) and another great look at Kate Winslet. You know the story: Maiden voyage, April 14, 1912, 2,200 people onboard the massive, unsinkable ship Titanic which sideswipes an iceberg, causing it to sink and thereby killing 1,500 of the 2,200. Well this film has 2 subplots: the romance between Leonardo Dicaprio, and Kate Winslet. Then there's the Heart of the Ocean, a valuable diamond believed to have gone down with the ship. I'll be honest: aside from the drawing scene, the love story bored me. I have the VHS release and I still have it queued at the part where it crashes cause the first hour and a half sucks. Now for that last half: holy.....****. Best use of effects. Now we're getting somewhere. Obviously the big highpoint was when the ship snaps in half cause of the pressure. Music also adds to that by creating a goosebump feeling. All is not perfect though: while the ship is being completely vertical, notice how odd the characters on top of the ship look strange next to the backdrop. Almost ghastly looking. It was a phenomenon. It was a money maker. Now it's "overrated". While I will agree with most that the first half is boring, the last half is worthy of watching. If they cut maybe 45-50 minutes of love story, this would've been clearly the best recently filmed epic from Hollywood
Rating: 
Summary: The sinking was good...
Review: The special effects were quite good as the ship went down, but the unlikely love story was contrived and unconvincing. Leo is miscast big time as Jack. With the sappy love story between him and Kate Winslet, I anxiously awaited the sinking of the boat.
Best picture of 1997? Yeah, right!
Rating:
Summary: A Classic!
Review: This movie was very quintessential. For 1 thing the love story was intense and you will never forget it! Second is the ending is whta you would never expect and will have you wanting to watch it again to relieve the magic, and memories of Jack Dawson!
Rating:
Summary: Awesome!!
Review: Music was astounding. I loved the music. It was so beautiful. It got stuck in my head for months. The acting was good with Leonardo and Winslet. They played their parts really good. The movie was very good. The special effects and atmosphere were great. I loved it and i'm going to buy the soundtrack.
Rating:
Summary: I thought it was great
Review: I thought that Titanic was a meaningful, touching, and powerful story about two young lovers who find each other on the ill-fated voyage of the Titanic. Though very predictable, the script, actors, and made this film rise above it's cliched story and certain ending. The part that touched me the most, was how Jack saved Rose "in every way that someone can be saved", as it says in the movie. He convinces her to not commit suicide when she thought that she'd never break free from her rich and meaningless society. He makes that journey the best three days of her life, and gives her a reason to go on living once he dies in the icey waters; to keep his memory alive. In the end, when she dies as an old lady, warm in her bed, it shows pictures sitting on the table by her bed. They are pictures of Rose going on to live the dream that she and Jack hoped to live together once the ship docked. Then you follow her spirit once she passes. It goes back to the Titanic, where Jack is waiting for her at the top of the grand staircase. It just makes tears spring to your eyes, no matter how hard you try to keep them away.
Rating: 
Summary: Terribly overrated
Review: Only James Cameron could make such a bloated movie like "Titanic". If there is one thing I can't stand about the guy is that he makes movies in the vein of Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay, lots of special effects and no plot. As much as I enjoy Kate Winslet as an actress, even she couldn't save this turkey of a movie. I have never seen so much hype and bad parodies over this atrocious mess. I only saw this movie when it was aired on NBC a couple of years ago. Needless to say, I wasted three hours of my life and I want them back. The only good scene was when Jack kicked the bucket. I was waiting for that moment to happen. Now "Casablanca" is a classic. "Silence of the Lambs" is a classic but "Titantic" is anything but a classic. This movie stands for everything I can't stand about mainstream Hollywood, big budgets, over the top special effects, bad acting, and awful scripts. Leonardo DiCaprio is not all that and a bag of chips. Billy Zane is no much better than Leo. His cartoony acting belongs in a soft porn flick, oh wait. Billy has already done soft porn. It's called "Lake Consequence". I can't believe "Titanic" made so much money on so little writing and imagination.
Rating:
Summary: Sink Turky, sink
Review: Cannot believe it has a nation actually woke up, when this turkey was first released the amount media and critical praise it gained was unreal, years since many people have admitted and now it's official this is the worst movie ever made and I can't agree more. This is one looser of movie, it so sad not because of the tragic end of the vessel, because this is so boring, the ... So all those Hollywood jokers and Oscar winning crap just goes out the window, don't bother watching you'll save three hours of your life, this pile pooh should of sank along time ago, I have vowed never to watch a James Cameron movie again.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, but is it a classic? Take the historian's view...
Review: Right now we're still too close to "Titanic" to say whether or not, flaws and all (especially its screenplay, which wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award), will be considered a classic. "Ben Hur," the other film that won 11 Oscars, made the American Film Institute's top 100 list, but beyond the great chariot race, few people have great affection for it because of its aloof and emotionally distant tone. But my best guess is in about 20 years, people will come to better appreciate this film as being deserving to be placed in the "classic" category, flaws and all, primarily because of its global impact at the time it was released and its INTENTIONAL use of maudlin themes and a romantic narrative that truly borrows from the glory days of romantic American cinema of the 1930s and 1940s. This is perhaps why Janet Maslin of the New York Times declared that "Titanic" was the first film in decades that earned the right to be debated and compared to "Gone with the Wind" (now let's be honest, that was a corny movie too, wasn't it?). "Titanic" may not be "Gone With the Wind," but the comparison is good. Gable was well known, but who knew Vivien Leigh? DiCaprio and Winslet, before "Titanic," were accomplished young film actors, both with previous Oscar nominations, but not in the upper box office tier of stars. And this is "Titanic's" overriding strength. What if more well-known stars had been cast in the lead roles? It would've cast a completely different light and tone. The fact that "Titanic" became a pop culture phenomenon has diminished it in many ways to elitist critics and others who have parodied everything about it, from its over-played Celine Dion theme song to its stick-figure characters (e.g., it reminds me of what happened to "Rocky" after winning Best Picture in 1976, only to have its accomplishments diluted by its bad sequels). My recollection is that NO ONE, least of all the critics, expected "Titanic" to become a hit. In fact, there was initial fondness that the film still "held together," despite well-known and horrific delays associated with bringing this "summer release" to the screen in December 1997. As the film's gross returns got bigger each week, "Titanic," despite high production costs, became regarded as the three-hour "underdog" that prevailed. In my mind, the voices of dissent became noticeably louder only after the film was nominated for a record-tying 14 Academy Awards. Historical inaccuracies abound, but like "Gone With the Wind," romantic considerations were paramount to avoid a "flat" telling of what everyone knows will happen to the ship. Hence upon seeing "Titanic" the first time, I was amazed the story was engaging at all, albeit in an idealized 1940s style, cliches and all. It's equally amazing that any film can become a box-office champ without a single computer-generated alien, dinosaur or space ship. The "romance" is what made "Titanic" popular, especially with young people. It's not the "romance" of great literature, it's the romance of the type we saw in "Gone With the Wind." It's simple and uncomplicated, and again, it's executed in a style borrowed from the golden age of cinema. In sum, the intellectual snobbery against "Titanic" will never threaten its universal popularity. The money put into this film is all on the screen, and the lack of an "intelligent" script -- is overwhelmed by the momentum of the film's idealized romance and impending destruction -- lifted even higher by its perfect ending (always the most important factor determining whether a film has a chance of entering the pantheon of greats.) If you take the historian's view, "Titanic's" accomplishments are too large to dismiss. And if it had been released in 1947 instead of 1997, I'm convinced even MORE people would be in its corner today. But this will never change the minds of people who hate it. So just don't listen.
| 
