Titanic

Rating:
Summary: up, down and up again!
Review: Titanic is predictable, sappy, overly melodramatic and filled with many movie cliches, and you want to know something? It doesn't bother me a bit. When I first saw this movie on its opening day I thought it was wonderful. As its popularity grew though I found myself having a strange reaction to it success. I started to dislike the movie more and more. And when it swept the Academy awards I was possitive that I hated the film, probably because I'm such a huge fan of LA Confidential. Last night I watched Titanic again for the first time in two or three years and I must say that I was surprised at how much I found myself getting involved. I must say that I now feel that Titanic is a great movie once again.
All of the things that I mentioned above, the "flaws" as some may consider them to be, don't diminish the enjoyment of the film at all. I don't care how unoriginal the love story was. It was kept simple. THe film is so brilliantly executed, both thematically and technically, that I can dismiss these "flaws" with the wave of a hand. When a film is done this well who really care about how ridiculous the love triange is.
I will not waste time discussing the plot and all that nonsense. I see so many reviews talking about the lack of originality in films. How come when a truely daring and original film does come along (ex: Crash, Dancer in the Dark, Moulin Rouge), films that try to break conventions and give the audience something new for a change, so many people complain about them because they don't follow conventional Hollywood formulas? A catch-22?

Rating:
Summary: good, but don't believe all the hype
Review: James Cameron is best known for directing such action slash science fiction classics as The Terminator (1984) and Aliens (1986). As a result a love story between an
upper class women Rose (Kate Winslet) and a lower class free spirit Jake (Leonardo DiCaprio) constructed around the sinking of a the supposedly "unsinkable" ship in
1912 could be seen as a change of pace. It is a change of pace which works, albeit it not completely.
The story of the Titanic is a very familiar one and has developed its own mythology.
Cameron allows one character to helpfully outline what happened on that fateful night and thus allows the viewer to concentrate upon the love story between the star
crossed lovers instead of worrying about the sinking of the ship. There is also asubplot about the fiancee of Rose Cal (Billy Zane) and henchman Lovejoy (David Warner) trying to prevent the lovers from being together.
Titanic really is a return to the old fashioned epics that Hollywood used to make. The film is at it best when it is concentrating upon the recreation of the microcosm of
Edwardian society that Titanic was and the actual sinking of the boat. Unfortunately Cameron is not as good a writter as a director and the dialogue is often risible. Saying that though Cameron manages, like Neil Jordan in Interview with a Vampire (1994), to create some memorable set pieces, for example, when Jake and Rose descend in tothe engine room of the ship it resembles hell with the red of the flames or seeing the
bodies of dead people in the first class accommodation and of course of sinking of the ship. He also manages to convey the sheer terror the people must have felt as the ship
sank.
The performances are merely adequate though Warner as Cal's villainous henchmen gives an enjoyable performance. Saying that though the actors and actresses are merely there to show case the special effects. They are mostly excellent though some
have aged badly. As an amalgam of a love story and a disaster movie it is not bad.When Cameron moves on to politics it flounders badly and he is on much more shaky ground.
The film was hyped a lot and it possibly did not deserve the shed loads of Oscars it got. It is not one of the best films of the 90s or even the year it was made, but it is not
bad. The scale of the film making which Cameron has made is similar to the films which Cecil De Mille was making and for that he is to be applauded. Titanic is not innovative, but it is not meant to be new and within the narrow parameters it sets for
itself it works.

Rating:
Summary: Sterling Cast, Magical DiCaprio
Review: So much has been said about this amazing achievement in film, it's difficult to come up with any new insights as to why it touched so many people. To be sure, Leonardo and Kate shine, the story involves one of the world's foremost tragedies, and the visual splendor of the film remains unchallenged. Perhaps the best endorsement I can make however, is that it speaks a universal language - I took my Cuban born mother to see it when it opened. She doesn't speak English, but was immediately wrapped up in the film, so much so that she was one of the first to cheer it at the end. That speaks volumes - despite the language obstacle, here was a 65 year old woman who enjoyed the film from its opening scene right through the end. To me, that alone makes "Titanic" a triumph.

Rating:
Summary: Sink the Titanic!
Review: Titanic has to be one of the worse films ever. There is no two ways about it. It is dreadful and I don't care how much money it pulled in at the box office or how many Oscars were showered on it. The plot is corny beyond belief. You will find stories of more sophistication and credibility in a Barbara Cartland novel. The portrayal of the Irish (below decks, of course) is patronising beyond belief. The special effects are not particularly special. (The computer generated Titanic looks like a badly drawn cartoon.) The acting is okay but everyone is miscast. DiCaprio, who looks as if he has come straight out of choir practice, does not convince as the Jack London figure he is obviously suppose to represent. Kate Winslet is not quite young enough to be the innocent abroad. However, they tackle their miscast roles with greater skill and artistry than James Cameron tackles his.

I sat through three hours of this monstrous tripe wishing like mad that a U-Boat would come along and sink this turkey. Now that would have been a revisionist plot twist that could have saved this movie. Where is the German navy when you want them?

Rating:
Summary: Extras?
Review: First of all let me say I loved this movie. It is one of my favorites. So why am I giving it 2 stars? This DVD has no extras! Titanic is the biggest movie ever and there's no extras! There have been countless TV specials on this movie about the history of the ship and how they did the special effects but none of that show up on this DVD. Not even the Celine Dion music video of "My Heart Will Go On" which is one of the biggest songs of all time. I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before Titanic is re-released as "The Collectors Edition" with everything I've been talking about but that makes me even more angry. These movie companies release a DVD and then a short time later they bring out "The Collectors Edition" so everybody who bought the first one got ripped off!

Rating:
Summary: Titanic
Review: It was very well done and gives a very good insite into the liner Titanic. It is with a great understanding of the liner.

Rating:
Summary: Horrible!
Review: I'm not one to talk [bad] about movies, and I'll probably be one of the only people not to have liked this, but Titanic didn't do it for me. I fell asleep twice, and I never fall asleep in movies. The special effects were great, but the story and acting was awful. This just isn't up to it's billing.

Rating:
Summary: Disasterpiece!
Review: Hey, man, if you love, Love storys( wich I don't either way),
wich last about an hour longer than they should, and love stories with the cheeseist screenplays known to mankind. Than this is a must buy for you, and only you.
The sick part is that this waste of money and mostly time won eleven oscors. That has not been done scence 1959 with "Ben Her".
If you want great cinama than please get "A night to remamber"
That is an underated masterpiece that is to about the Titanic.

Rating:
Summary: Hollywood produces another sinking ship.
Review: Titanic may have been a movie that garnered a record number of academy nominations and awards. But that doesn't make it a great movie, and here's why. Basically the movie consists of two separate halves. In the first half, the Titanic is merely the setting of events, because the story revolves around a forbidden romance between a poor young man called Jack, and an upper class lady Rose who is engaged to be married, her fiance also on the ship. But this classic love triangle is more representative of 1997 than 1912. Rose is introduced as a dignified upper class lady, but is soon spouting off profanities and makes obscene ... jokes with allusions to Freud. And surprisingly, one moment she hates Jack, but the next moment she is posing nude for him, and romping around naked with him in a steamy scene in the back of a vehicle. Not only is she applauded for being unfaithful to her fiance, but she tops it off by walking off with his diamond although his insurance company makes a heavy loss on it. This kind of language and behaviour may be normal for 1997, but it certainly was not in 1912.

The second half of the movie is much better, picturing the actual sinking of the Titanic, and Jack and Rose's mad struggle for survival. Hollywood has outdone itself in recreating the sinking, with epic scenes of struggle and survival. This is probably the only thing the movie has going for it, but even this is rather overdone and overly dramatic. And the historicity of many events that occurred during the actual sinking seriously needs to be questioned. The movie presents a small Christian group praying for help in an escapist manner that is rather outlandish and out of touch with reality; while in reality the majority of people of the Titanic were Christians and sang hymns and prayers as the boat sank. The movie presents the captain as a suicidal selfish and incompetent..., while in reality he was speaking encouraging words from the ship until the very end. The movie presents the upper class as selfish survivors who lock the oppressed lower class in the lower decks of the ship for a watery grave; while in reality it was an equal number of upper and lower class that perished. Incidentally the movie relies here on a horribly inaccurate cliché: the wealthy are selfish, greedy and dishonest (Cal), while the poor are selfless, generous and loving (Jack).

Pointing these historical inaccuracies out won't make me popular, but it doesn't make them untrue. The truth is that portraying a historically accurate version of the Titanic sinking would not be popular to today's masses. Today's masses want Hollywood, not history, they want the immoral, not the moral. It's little wonder this movie was more Hollywood than historical. And it's little wonder it was so popular for the people of 1997. That, to me, says it all. The people of 1912 would have been horrified. Too bad, because it's precisely the 1997 aspects of this movie that turned this movie into another sinking ship.

Rating:
Summary: Waste of plastic.
Review: So this film is a good film? It has every cliche and sterio type ever seen in hollywood. Billy Zane, you know the bad guy who get's mad when DiCaprio swipes his fiancee, is a great actor and this role was complete beneaith him. I think this destroyed his career.

Di Caprio was miscast as the lead. he would have been better in another role, but he soesn;'t ratiater power and isn't charimatic. I don not worhip di caprio.

Ok, so this is really two filsms, the firts part being a chick flick with 5romace and umentionable behavior, the second half a guy flick with action and the ship sinming.

The jewel thing wasa carbon copy purple ditto of Rosebud of citizen kane. This would have been a better film without the unmentyionable scene. Wow! we can put these on a film, but cand say it anywhere else.