What a fine turn of phrase! 
[tip of the language-lover’s hat to you]
The Rose & Jack thing didn’t turn me on at all. I don’t understand how Kate Winslett was nominated for an Oscar. I’m just glad she didn’t win.
That being said, I loved the movie. From the minute they hit the iceberg, I was completely glued. Like other folks here, the woman tucking her kids in to bed and the death of the Strausses really got me. I cried. Then there’s the scene after the ship is down, where they show a woman floating in the water, holding a baby. I lost it there, too.
I lost it here, too. When they finish playing, and they see the water rushing up, and the one violin player says “Gentlemen, it’s been an honor playing with you tonight,” I had tears rolling down my cheeks.
Kate Winslett did have one shining moment, though, after she lets go of Jack, and she sees the dead guy with the whistle. The look of determination on her face as she’s swimming to him, then yanks the whistle from his dead lips and starts blowing is just amazing. After her rather uninspiring performace throughout the rest of the movie, that one scene really impressed me.
No, actually, you weren’t the only one! I never saw it, had no desire, and only caught a glimpse at the infamous “Billion Dollar Sinking” when I happenned upon a friend’s house where she was watching it! (BTW, you didn’t miss much!) Is it true that the actual sinking of the boat didn’t take half as long in real life as it did in the movie! A&E gave a much better account than Leo and Kate!!!
Sassy
I liked Titanic also. Mostly the stuff with the ship sinking. The love story in the first half was kinda “bla”.
However a friend of mine pointed out the following fact which will forever color my view of the movie.
SPOILER
At one point Rose is put in a lifeboat. She jumps off so she and Jack can escape together. If she had stayed in the lifeboat Jack could have floated to safety on the same piece of wood she uses later in the film.
And that’s why he died.
Semi Related Fact:
On our trip to London Mrs. Trion took a dinner cruise up the Thames to celebrate our anniversary. The entertainmen on board was a woman singing show tunes (she was actually pretty good). Before the show one of the wait staff went around asking people if they were celebrating anything. Guess what song was sung especially for us. On a boat. If you guessed “My Heart Will Go On” you are correct.
sigh
I think everyone is mentioning LA Confidential because I brought it up. I have heard many great things about the Sweet Hereafter, but it wasn’t showing in any theaters near me, and now I can’t find it on video. I haven’t compared it to LA Confidential or Titanic here simply because I haven’t seen it.
No. IIRC, the sinkings in the movie and IRL took the same length of time, from the moment the iceberg was spotted to the time the ship went under. I thought that was kinda neat.
The repetition of that Celine Dion song back when this movie was out made me want to ram an icepick through my eardrums just to make the pain go away.
Outside of that, I thought that it was a pretty well-done flick.
It’s a James Cameron film centered around a strong female character with lots of High Drama and Action. What’s not to love?
BTW, I have no problem with the cliches. They gave the movie form, a point of reference. Complaining about cliches in this kind of film is like complaining that all haikus contain 17 syllables.
Um, how about the dialogue? The tired, worn out plot?
Big difference here. A haiku is a form of poetic expression and the highly structured form it takes it what makes it what it is, just the same as a sonnet has 14 lines. A haiku needs 17 syllables to make it a haiku. A film does not need a recycled plot as a point of reference to make a good film. You don’t need cliches to give people a point of reference; they need well-written, sympathetic characters to identify with. Let’s look at Animal House as an example. Why is this such a popluar, successful film, especially with a cast of mainly unknowns and a director who (at the time) didn’t carry much weight? Because at some point in your life you met a Flounder or an Otter or a Bluto. People could identify with these characters, if not the situations, even if (like me) you didn’t go to a four-year college and live in the dorms or belong to a fraternity.
A film should not have to be the same exact story we’ve all seen before - why didn’t Cameron just do a remake of A Night to Remember if he was going to recycle plots. And even if you use a tired cliche, at least save it with a good screenplay - take American Beauty for example: This film was stocked with almost every suburban cliche you can imagine, but it was so well written many people forgave that. Cameron used a tired, cliche story and didn’t even back it up with good writing to make it feel fresh and new.
Saying you’re ok with the cliches is like saying you’re happy having the same leftovers for dinner every night. That’s as may be, but I occasionally like something new.
Nope
Real Titanic took about 2 hours to sink. The movie, which cover 4 days in flash back last a little over three. The sinking is a litle more than the last third of the film.
But I really liked the movie. It’s no Empire of the Sun to be sure but then again neither is Casablanca.
Actually, I believe from the time they hit the berg, until the time the ship sank was about 2 hours and almost 45 minutes.
Perhaps you’re thinking of the Lusitania-which took only 18 minutes to sink.
But I digress. I like Kate and all, but she wasn’t the one who deserved the Oscar. Neither did Helen Hunt, for that matter. It really should have gone to Judi Dench, for her portrayal of Queen Victoria in Mrs. Brown.
I’m not sure what you mean by “literate,” ArchiveGuy (maybe because I haven’t seen The Sweet Hereafter). In what way is one film more “literate” than another? Are we talking about references made or themes drawn from classic literature?
The Sweet Hereafter was a well made, thoughtful and heart-wrenching film, but it was as slow as creeping death.
I don’t need car chases and explosions to get me to like a film, but a do need a little pace. I did like it, but there were too many moments of eerie reflections and awkward silences.
Say, here’s another “chic-flic” that I thoroughly enjoyed, in fact, I’d say it’s the best film I’ve seen this year … Billy Elliot. Do yourself a favor and see this if you can.
Holy Italics, Batman!
vB code got away from me on that one.
Isn’t he still handcuffed down on the 3rd class deck when she does that?
And by jumping out, she selfishly wastes a space that could have saved someone else.
Actually, given that it was up for a load of Oscars and won a virtually unheard of Best Picture from all 4 major critics groups, it is the more obvious comparison, and I certainly didn’t mean it as a criticism. I just wanted to throw out a more interesting comparison (especially for a movie that I know has gone largely unseen)
No (although Sweet does make a slightly strained analogy with the Pied Piper children’s tale). What I meant was that one film is better written, offering more complex characterization and believable dialogue and motivation. The less “literate” film resorts to cardboard characters, atrocious dialogue, and trite plot contrivances. It is the difference between a thoughtful screenplay and a cliche-ridden one.
I’ll admit that Egoyan in general is a hard sell, and its glacial pace is oppressive (a bit by design, actually). But I think the point is that the film is saturated in grief, and grief is an emotion that lingers amidst those “eerie reflections and awkward silences.” It is certainly a film that one needs to be in a certain mindset for, but as for me, I’ll usually take a meditative film over an amped up one anytime.
Thank you. 
I’m working from memory here Opal, but I’m pretty sure the answer is “No”. Can anyone confirm?
Yes, I can confirm. By then Rose had already sprung Jack, at which point they made their way up to the deck by way of a bench/battering-ram through a locked gate.
In fact, if you remember that scene, she is looking up at Jack and Cal as the boat is being lowered. When she jumps out, Jack runs below deck to berate her for doing so.
Yet another guy who liked Kate Winslet’s breasts, I mean, Titanic. Didn’t love it, but it was very, very good. Doesn’t crack my Top 10 list but possibly is good enough for Top 25 inclusion:
What I liked about it?
–Nice visual effects
–Gripping, well-paced story
–Blending of history with romance.
–Likeable Characters with whom one emphatizes.
–Leonardo DiCaprio’s acting: great! His character was supposed to be full of vitality, passion and optimism. Guess what? Those were exactly the feelings he conveyed: a young guy full of an enviable zest for life and courage to boot.
–Kate Winslet breasts’ acting: even better. They exuded a certain presumptuousness and were subtly ostentatious while evoking admiration and desire. Nice histrionic ability showed by those hooters. Also, great breast direction by James Cameron. They should hand out an Oscar for that; breast directing is an underestimated, yet poignant, talent that adds a new dimension to the narration of the story.
Watch out for Titanic II: The Search for More Money, where Rose invents a time machine, goes back in time, warns Captain Smith about the iceberg, the ship makes it safely to port, she marries Jack, and still has time to flash her new and improved silicon-stuffed breasts in front of the camera yet one more time.
Coming soon to a theater near you…Or not.
[hijack]
Shit, I guess that means I am too. Won’t my boyfriend be surprised!
[/hijack]