“As if!”
LOL…Clueless was great. It was SATIRE…that’s why it was so good.
Then they made a television show out of it, which WASN’T satire, and so it sucked.
It was the first film where i actually noticed the lack of plot and character development. A bit of a landmark really!
Well I liked it, and I usually nit-pick the hell out of movies. I was really hooked during the lifeboat scene, when Rose jumps back on to the ship. I wish I could find a woman that would feel that strongly about me. [/Incurable romantic]
Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!
~I remember running through the wet grass, falling a step behind… -Better Than Ezra
oooooo! That is what I hated most of all!! Here we have a ship sinking and by this point in the movie the passengers are becoming very aware of how grave the situation has become and what happens. Kate jumps back in the ship, Billy Zane goes after the two with a gun! You know I forgot about this film, the scars were healing and now I’m getting angry again! I hate James Cameron’s writing!
I know it’s “just a movie” But why oh why did this one do so well that whenever I say I don’t like it I’m treated like an insensitive freak?
Ditto. I’d seen bad films before, but I attributed their badness to bad acting (only vaguely attributable to Titantic), production values (not at all attributable to Titanic) or just plain bein boring (the midle acts did drag).
I think what I dislkied most was that I could see Cameron pulling the strings on the audience. I don’t mind it when movies are a bit manipulative, but that was beyond the pale. And the villian sucked.
Ellen, I am going to hijack your thread for a minute, if it drags on, I will make another thread.
kingpengvin and Menocchio:
I am trying to get to the bottom of this mystery, so work with me here…What are the names of the last 3 movies you have seen?
Mine are:
The Legend of Bagger Vance
Barfly (Can’t believe I am admitting THAT one)
Rushmore
Just for comparison sake, I am not trying to pick a fight or anything.
Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!
~Marry Mack’s mother is making Mary Mack marry me, my mother is making me marry Mary Mack… -Carbon Leaf
Well, you whooshed me on the reasoning behind your hijack, jcmckaig, but have at it.
I must say that the detrators’ comments here have been enlightening! When something doesn’t work for you, it just doesn’t work. Me, captivated by the story, costuming, etc., etc., was not bothered in the least by some of the problems listed here, magnified or legitimate (though I must say most of the errors listed by IMDb are so nitpicky that I almost dismiss the whole list out of hand. As someone said before, every movie has its techinical problem and even the greatest/most beloved films have their howlers. This one faces the added burded of being based on a real, much studied historical event, thus the preponderence of fact problems, like the buttons).
Anyway, sorry to re-open your old wounds, there, kingpengvin ;).
Gadarene, interesting what you say about Leo in Gilbert Grape. I found him to be really convincing in the role and I’m surprised you call it mimicry. Maybe a thread on that would be interesting. I just read a quote by Harrison Ford the other day. He said something along the lines of “I don’t use any particular method. I come from the ‘let’s pretend’ school of acting.” Perhaps you can quibble with his acting ability, but one must concede it is a successful actor. (I found him particularly good in Regarding Henry.)
Guinastasia, gotta agree with you on Billy Zane. Mmmm mmm good. Twirl that mustache all you want, baby. I’ll go with it. Although I do agree that the character could have more convincingly be portrayed by an older actor. It would have made Rose’s desperation more believable.
fchick, et. al, Clueless is a great movie! It’s an update of Jane Austen’s Emma.
Sorry Ellen, forgot to mention the method behind my madness. I was just trying to see what differences there would be in movie tastes, amongst kingpengvin, Menocchio, and myself.
Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!
~Did you love before? Did they love you for you? -Better Than Ezra
You shouldn’t be; how can anyone argue with whether you liked it or not? You’re entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else. I don’t happen to agree with it, but like someone much smarter than I said, I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. My beef is with people who mistake their opinion for a fact.
Not to hijack the hijack, but…
That was, quite possibly, the worst movie I’ve ever seen in my entire life. I say this with no hyperbole whatsoever.
Ellen: I’d participate in that thread, if you started it. Long story short: I once played the part of an autistic teenager in a play. I was asked to do the part a week and a half before opening night and, though I had few lines, I was onstage from curtain to curtain. I was convincing enough in the part that a fair number of people during the play’s run came up to me to tell me that I had made them cry. I was approached by the mother of an actual autistic child who told me that she couldn’t tell the difference between my behavior and the behavior of her son when I was onstage, and that the play moved her enough that she’d like to continue its run up and down the coast, to show other parents. She wanted to play the mother. She wanted me to be the son.
I dunno, perhaps I’m extrapolating overly from my personal experiences and observations. But I know I’m not that good an actor. And I know that what Dustin Hoffman did in Rain Man, for example, and (in my opinion) what DiCaprio did in Gilbert Grape is just skilled mimicry. If the internal world of a character is largely shrouded from the view of the audience–if what we see is mostly physical and vocal tics–I think it’s easier to play the character. It’s a subject of debate, I guess. I’m more impressed with actors like Johnny Depp, Ed Harris, or John Turturro, who are able to inhabit a wide range of characters.
I also have a theory that movie stars become movie stars by getting by on their ability to mostly play themselves from movie to movie–although some of them do it with more charm and presence than others. I enjoy watching Harrison Ford, and I think he’s a great movie star–and a serviceable actor. YMMV, of course; my opinions on this subject are no more legitimate than anyone else’s.
It was mildly diverting, but not what I’d consider a “good” movie. A good movie draws you into a sense of suspended disbelief. I found it impossible to relate to whatever Kate Winslet found appealing in Jack. I snickered while he drowned. Not the reaction the director was going for, I think.
I think it was just mindless entertainment-for me, at least. Escapism, etc etc.
The one part I did like was the corset scene, where Frances Fisher’s character kisses her daughter on the cheek-it just made her seem less-cookie-cutter, I suppose.
And I would KILL for that butterfly comb.
That said, I don’t think Cameron should be allowed to do a movie on the Lusitania. WHY oh WHY hasn’t there been a movie made about this-except for some stupid propaganda film from 1918!!!
I did like DiCaprio in This Boy’s Life, btw.
Cameron is doing a movie on the Lusitania?! I didn’t see anything on IMDB…
Saw it as part of a group $4 matinee with my family (the only time any of us saw a movie in that theater, BTW). Not horrible, but not great either, and IMHO it should never have won best picture. On the whole, I give it 3 out of 6. (Yes, I use a 6-point rating system…for an explanation of this, go to the Bio on my website, http://home.hawaii.rr.com/dkwff)
In a nutshell, the technical values are superb, but the story is a serious drag. I loved seeing the ship and all its workings, and I couldn’t care less about authenticity or any mistakes (and I’m sure there were at least a few); it looked great, really projecting the sense of grandeur it had in real life. The backstory…the environment on the ship before, during, and after the sinking…was handled beautifully, with a poignancy I’ve rarely seen even in the best movies.
I would have much preferred that the entire movie revolved around that backstory, as opposed to the dull, predictable “doomed romance” Mr. Cameron decided to throw at us instead.
Jack was a likable guy, and lord knows that he was a better person than some of the first-class folks (a point the movie drove home maybe a little too strongly), but I never bought his romance with Rose. What does he even see in her? Is it so hard to find a suitable lady in third or even second class? (Really, weren’t their any other emotionally troubled beauties on that ship?) His dying was regrettable, but I consider it a tragedy only in the sense that he never got to live a real life. Rose, well, I pitied her; she was dealt a bad hand, and I don’t blame her for trying to start something with Jack. But it looked like an act of desperation more than anything, and her final moments on the ship edged dangerously close to “coo-coo!” territory.
But by far the character that was beyond saving was Cal. Not for a second was I able to take him seriously as a human being. He looked, more than anything, like an amazingly lifelike robot programmed to spew out sancimonious drivel on cue. The Titanic book tried to excuse this by saying that he was hemmed in by “Edwardian” morality, but I doubt even the most stuffed shirt was never this bad in real life. And the gun chase looked like something out of America’s Funniest Home Videos. It was that silly. More than one critic blasted Billy Zane’s acting ability, but in all honestly, I don’t think it even mattered.
In short, everything worked out fine except the love story. And since that’s what the movie was built around, it made all the difference in the world.
I have always been a nautical buff so the movie appealed to me because of the working of the ship.
I can appreciate Rose wanting to break out of the constraints of society and bolting from a marriage to a cad however I have trouble with she did to her mother via her “death.” What sort of child could let her mother believe she is dead? When at the end of the movie Rose’s pictures and memories show she had a wonderful life I always think of her mother grieving at her daughters death.
I haven’t been to the theatre in a while but I watch a lot of Movies on DVD. The last three I have watched are
MOMENTO
GODFATHER II
GLORY
No, he’s not. But I only said that because I think there SHOULD be a movie made about it, and if so, Cameron shouldn’t do it.
I remember I went to this movie under duress. I didn’t care for Leo, typically abhor movies with better special effects than plotline (and everyone kept telling me this was the case), and so expected not to like it. I also hate so-called romance movies that don’t end up with the principals happily together in the end. I like my happy endings, I do! But my husband wanted to see it, so off I went.
Despite all those preconceptions, I ended up enjoying it thoroughly. Is it my favorite film of all time? No, but it was certainly good enough to go see again at the theater, which we did. (My all time favorite, btw, is Branagh’s Henry V.)
First, I think I see it with a different POV because having seen what the expectations for my mother’s life were before she married my father (who while of good enough family, had no money and no Society connections), so I can see where someone as free as Jack (spitting and all) would seem tremendously appealing to someone who had been as controlled as Rose. Further, Billy Zane’s character reminded me eerily of my ex-husband (someone who also thought it appropriate to put his wife in her place with a slap) – if they got anything right in that movie, it was the way he snapped when he realized he absolutely could not control Rose. Overblown? Maybe. But not unbelievable, at least to me.
Secondly, I tend to watch movies with a pretty sharp eye as to continuity, particularly with regard to visible anachronisms. I saw a few flaws, but nothing terribly glaring. That in itself is quite a feat. I appreciated the attention to detail as far as the props and so on go, also. The soundtrack was great, too.
If I didn’t like anything, it was that I had always had a romantic’s picture of brave and chivalrous men performing the utmost act of chivalry – staying behind to die gallantly while the women and children got saved. I have to admit that while logically, I know Titanic’s scenario was probably more correct, I much prefer my delusions. 
What made the movie truly memorable for me, though, was that as much of a history buff as I am (and I have always had an interest in the Titanic), I could never really put faces or really visualize the tragedy, so it never really hit home. The scene of the mother telling her children the old Gaelic tale and the old couple lying together in bed, not to mention the frozen bodies and the scene where they’re going through yelling, “Anyone alive out there?” sucker-punched me but good and made me look beyond the facts and statistics. Maybe there are better movies about this incident, but the impact of that would be hard to beat.
I think I also liked it because Rose was not a heroine who just threw up her hands and screamed uselessly while things were falling apart around her. Maybe she didn’t always act logically, but she didn’t fall apart, and I’d give the movie higher marks than most other disaster flicks just on that alone.
As far as Best Picture goes…well, again, flaws aside (and they were there, I freely admit), it certainly was better than the Helen Hunt/Jack Nicholson bomb As Good As It Gets, which if I recall correctly, was one of the leading contenders that year. Even being a Jack Nicholson fan, I hated that one passionately. (No offense, of course, to anyone who thought it was great…just not my style.) I also never saw The Full Monty, so I have no idea how good that might have been.
Titanic was ok, but I much preferred TIE-Tanic. I’d post a link, but I can’t find one that isn’t broken. Basically, Titanic gets attacked by TIE Fighters, AT-ATs, the Death Star…
I think my dislike of this film has been documented here before. I don’t hate the film, I don’t think it sucks, but I do dislike it and IMO it’s on of the most overrated films I can remember.
My complaints, as has been mentioned by Ace_Face and Bossk (oh my god, I’m agreeing with Bossk!), has to do with the characters and the script.
Kate Winslet’s character: What was wrong with Billy Zane? Ok, we’re told she doesn’t want to marry him, but why? She doesn’t love him. WHY? What is the motivation behind this character other than teenage rebellion? As a writer, one of the things I’ve learned is that your characters should have a motivation and justification for their actions. These should either be told in the narration, through dialogue, or suggested by the actions of the other characters. I didn’t see that here. Without a sense of motivation for why the character is acting that way, I have trouble finding later actions believable.
Billy Zane’s characature: I won’t even go so far as consider this guy a real character in the film. Tied in to my comments about Rose above, Zane didn’t seem so bad at first. Yeah, he was snobby and rich, but so was she. It wasn’t until Winslet started seeing another man did he become Snidely Whiplash. Would it have been so difficult for Cameron to add a layer of depth to this character and actually made Zane care for his fiance?
In other great romance stories, namely Casablanca and Last of the Mohicans – warning - SPOILERS – both men truly cared for the woman in question. in Casablanca, Rick sacrificed his happiness because he knew she loved Lazlo and he would take care of and love her. In Last of the Mohicans, the English soldier (I forget his name) sacrificed his own life so the woman he cared for could be happy and safe with Hawkeye, who was also willing to give his life.
That’s all it would have taken, if Cameron had written Zane’s character so that he truly cared about Winslett, to make this character more complete and added another deeper layer to the film as a whole.
Leonardo DiCaprio’s character - Huh. I didn’t Han Solo was on the Titanic when he was a kid! As for him being a bad actor, I will disagree. He can be very good. In What’s Eating gilbert Grape, The Basketball Diaries, and This Boy’s Life he showed he has some real acting chops. Too bad it wasn’t so apparent here though.
Janes Cameron’s direction: James Cameron has got to be one of the best, top-echelon, A-list action directors out there today. Drama he’s just ok. I say the same of his screenwriting skills. Billy Zane’s cardboard character may have worked in a straight-out action film, but it didn’t work for me in a dramatic epic. The ill-timed, unnecessary, and unfunny attempts at humor were glaring to me (Billy Zane has a line about Picasso amounting to nothing or some BS like that, for one lame example. I think Winslett also has a misplaced line of “comic relief” while DiCaprio is handcuffed to a pipe whie the ship is sinking).
And then there’s the bookends with the old lady. Those were ok, they set up the story and all, but when Cameron chooses to re-visit the old lady and Bill Paxton (another gripe of mine. I wish Paxton would quit blowing Cameron so I wouldn’t have to see him in so many movies. Billy Zane may have had a cardboard character, but Paxton is cardboard!) Anyway, when we interrput the flashbacks to go back to the salvage crew and the old Rose, we’re yanked from the time period he’s recreated so wonderfully and intricately to put us there and suspend our disbelief. He reminds us we’re being told a story instead of letting the audience get swept up in it until the end.
My at-the-time fiance had seen this film 3 times. I refused to go, teling her I knew what the film was already from the previews. I said it’s a cliche love-story about a spoiled rich girl and a poor boy from the wrong side of the tracks, her jealous lover, and then the boat sinks and one of them dies. Oh no, she claims, there’s so much more to it than that! Bull. That’s exactly what it was. My disappointment in the film is that it was exactly what I thought it would be.
IMO, and from this I don’t think I’ll ever be swayed, Titanic was not the Best Picture of that year (LA Confidential was) or one of the best films I’ve ever seen. It was okay. It didn’t suck, but I also saw nothing extraordinary aside from the special effects and set design, it’s only saving grace really.