Titanic

Rating:
Summary: I would give it no stars, but that isn't an option.
Review: If you are going to buy the video, you are presumeably doing it for one of three reasons. For each, I have advice:

(1) Reason for purchase: You missed it on the big screen. Advice: Don't bother. This is an awful film, and even worse for all of the hype.

(2) Reason: Buying it as a present. Advice: Flowers or a book would be nicer. If you have to buy a *video*, try *Good Will Hunting* (dir: van Sant) or *Rainmaker* (Coppola).

(3) Reason: You watched it a dozen times on the big screen and now can't wait to own it. Advice: Sorry, I cannot help you.

Rating:
Summary: It was Brilliant
Review: It was fun, scary and at time sad. I enjoyed it fully and never took my eyes off the tv. Leanardo and Kate were really good (like usual) The effects were were really good especially in the bit where the ship is sinking.

Rating:
Summary: Just love it
Review: I saw Titanic three times and i can see it a hundred times more. Its very romantic. How can people being so cold? When you see this film you can`t think about any else than love and passion. How can you think about sexual exhibition or something similar? Please enjoy every moments , thinking about something or really do it. Imagination is all we need to have good times.

Rating:
Summary: Amazing!
Review: I'm fifteen and have been a Titanic freak for eight years {rivet counter to be exact}and I loved the film. What I hate the worst are these all- knowing buttheads who trash it! I found the effects amazing and the sets incredible {I should know} the worst error I saw was a door that should have been painted white instead of natural finish.

Rating:
Summary: The best looking since sliced bread.
Review: Casting the criticism of individual performances aside (both in front of and behind the camera)Titanic has to be appreciated for the sheer level of skill that has been plundered in its creation. So many people and so much combined talent has made this a memorable movie for me, personally. While it is easier to pick holes in the cloth, sometimes it is more pleasurable to just take the journey and look beyond the hype that preceeded the cinematic and video release of this film. Take it from me - I am not an easy critic to win over. The whole of the picture is a visual delight, individual details slightly flawed. But the question would be - is it escapist entertainment?. Yes, but buy it on WIDESCREEN!

Rating:
Summary: Visually Stunning, a little sappy
Review: Beautiful film, Kate Winslet is great, but Decaprio was much better in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape". The sets are spectacular and the love story and other side stories enhance the feeling of tragedy when the ship, well, you know...... END

Rating:
Summary: TITANIC: Big Ship, No Cargo
Review: People who get worked up in either direction miss the point -- Titanic is an average, underwritten, overfinanced, Hollywood epic, only more so. END

Rating:
Summary: Why was this movie given best picture
Review: I am going to keep it brief. Yes, the effects were amazing, but the acting was weak, and the dialouge was nothing special at all. I suspected the Oscars were rigged, and now I know for sure. END

Rating:
Summary: James Cameron's "Titanic" sinks in a deep sea of mediocrity
Review: "Titanic" has not become the most popular movie of all time because it has such a great story or because it is masterfully executed. It's success rests--in my opinion--on one main factor: Leonardo DiCaprio. For example, teenage girls are the ones that flocked to the theaters seven times to see this three-hour flick. (Why do you think "The Man In the Iron Mask"-with Leo playing two parts, no less-fared so well? It wasn't because people wanted to see the Three Amigos in action again!)

While innumerable people the world over have been rocked in the wake of "Titanic," I am one of the few who missed the boat, so to speak. Yes, even I cried in a few of the scenes (there's no denying the emotional pull this film has on its audience), but it takes a lot more than emotionalism to make a movie great. James Cameron has erred in several areas, making "Titanic" much less than what it is heralded as--and certainly not worthy of eleven Oscars.

First of all, Rose is the one telling us the story--her story. Therefore, the movie should concentrate on the voyage of the Titanic from her POV and no one else's. However, there are several scenes where she is nowhere to be found--the first few scenes with Jack, the scenes with the Titanic crew members in the wheelhouse, and so on. How did Rose come to know what happened in these situations? Now, of course the movie would be much less than it is if it didn't have the scenes without Rose, but it is bad art nonetheless. Since James Cameron chose to include these scenes, he should have also chosen a way to tell us the story other than through Rose.

Second, there are at least a few historical discrepancies. For instance, Kate Winslet's character (young Rose) smokes at a dinner table and gives one man "the finger." A 1912 teenager would not have done these things, or so I've heard from different historians. Then there are the twentieth-century phrases that are littered throughout the film. And for it's three-hour length, it's surprising that there is not one mention of the Californian (although this is more of an omission than a discrepancy). Also, John Smith is portrayed as something of a wimp--definitely not the take-charge captain I've seen (in the movie version of A Night to Remember) and read about.

Third, the fairy-tale aspects in this "romance" are in no way comparable to Romeo and Juliet. Whether he realizes it or not, James Cameron admitted to the unbelievability of his "love" story when he scripted the part where Jack and Rose discuss their plan to elope. "This is crazy," Jack says. "I know," Rose answers, gazing into his eyes (sigh). "It doesn't make any sense. That's why I trust it." Yeah, right. Contrary to what Hollywood is telling us, choosing a life partner is not a three-day process; and the prerequisites for finding that special someone are not if they (a) look good and (b) can perform well in bed (or, in this case, a car). Also, it usually is not customary to browse for your future mate in the married/engaged group. This is, I believe, where James Cameron makes his greatest error. In disguising a "lust story" as a love story, Cameron has filled the minds of countless impressionable young girls--and guys, for that matter--with pure tripe. How many teenagers are going to reenact what they have seen Jack and Rose doing? Too many. While some may think Cameron deserves a slap on the back for this "classic" love story, I must say I think he does deserve a slap--but not on the back. And yes, the nudity (which should have, along with the tragic mayhem, warranted an "R" rating) was totally inexcusable.

Fourth, the special effects, while decent, are (or at least were for me) a letdown. I did not see $200,000,000 + on the screen. In fact, the only part that looks exceptionally better than the effects in "A Night to Remember" is the actual sinking, and even that doesn't look as real as it should have. Of course, before I saw the film, I heard a lot about how spectacular the effects were, so maybe my expectations were a little too high to begin with.

These are the main problems I have with the movie. But just so I don't sound completely biased, let me share two of the few things I think are good about "Titanic." Some of the characters, like Molly Brown and Cal Hockley, are fun to watch, and the charisma and gentle nobility of Thomas Andrews make him extremely likeable. The greatest aspect, though, of "Titanic"--again, in my opinion--can't even be attributed to James Cameron, but to James Horner. The composer's score adds depth and meaning to what's happening on the screen. His haunting theme song--as well as "My Heart Will Go On"--is some of the most stirring music I have ever heard.

One person on the actual Titanic said, "Not even God himself could sink this ship," and God sank it. Similarly, on Oscar night, James Cameron said, "I'm the king of the world!" but he isn't--and neither is his movie. END

Rating:
Summary: A One Of A Kind Film
Review: Titanic is truly a one of a kind film. The film is extremely accurate technically as there are only a few historical flaws, and a few chronological flaws. The story of Jack & Rose while fictional, brings out (and makes a statement about) the class distinctions of the time and carries the viewer through the triumph and tragedy of the ship's short life. Without this story line, the movie would simply be another documentary. The only areas where the movie fails in my opinion are the event's leading up to the building of the Titanic, the presence of the Californian only 10 -19 miles away from Titanic at the time of its sinking, and the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Including these would, however, make the movie about 4-5 hours long, but they're stories that need to be told to the masses in my opinion. The special effects are nothing short of astounding. The music bewildering. The story triumphant yet tragic. The memory everlasting. END