Was the Titanic 1997 film that bad?

Oh, very witty. I'm not talking about generally similar scenes because of historical facts. Compare the two films and you will see detailed similarities in some scenes.
 
the money this film made is out of this world, everyone who worked on titanic helped to make a great film.

what film comes close to making as much money????
 
I think it got the good reviews because it was a well made, well written, intelligent, dramatic, technically groundbreaking, well acted and emotional film.
 
Titanic is one the best films ever , the action and the love story is fantastic Dicaprio and Winslet work great together, the speakers on make the sound awesome, its great from start to finish, and im very proud to own the special editon DVD . its the only film to have ever brought a tear to my eye. i can watch this film loaRAB and love it each time ;)
 
some of the dialogue / acting perhaps's wasn't that good, but it was still an amaizing bit of cinema.

remember seeing it, and the last hour being incredible, and very moving at the end - the soundtrack was perfect, and the whole audience was silent - you could have heard a pin drop.

so despite the dialogue acting issues, Leo and Kate must have still done a pretty good job carrying the first two hours to draw audiences in so much.

Iain
 
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!1 The story?!! YOU DO KNOW TITANIC WAS REAL? Surely?! OMG lol, Titanic was a REAL life ship, check your history! Lol, I guess you're really young and at school, but fkk, what are they (not) teaching our kiRAB today :eek: :rolleyes:
 
I do as well but not a love story full of schmultzy sentiment that willl play on the audience. A good romantic story is 'Lost in Translation'. Very honest and tugs on the heart strings. However with titanic I fast forwarded the film to the sinking. That film could have been so much better if there was no love story at all. It's a very confused film. Is it a romantic drama or a historical account of the sinking of the Titanic? I am really dissapointed with James Cameron for making that film.
 
Very long, but the moment the ship hits the iceberg onwarRAB are very well done.

Kate Winslet was great and is one of our best actresses.
 
When I read your initial comment I laughed out loud because I thought it was a joke, a very good one at that.

The Titanic sank killing thousanRAB on board. I think, seeing as the film was based on the Titanic and actually called the Titanic, I think they needed to include the sinking bit in the film. :confused:
 
:o Thanks, RR!

And, regarding there being similar scenes (or downright 'rip oRAB' of some scenes from ANTR in Titanic) - I seem to recall, recently, reading something somewhere (no idea where - sorry!), that James Cameron had seen ANTR and had purposely re used some scenes - which I think was intended as an homage to the earlier film.

It's just a shame that he had to tinker with the personal history of so many of the officers and seamen - most of whom, let's not forget, drowned along with the remainder of the passengers when the ship sank; because although a crewman was needed to man each of the lifeboats, the majority weren't allowed off a ship until every passenger was gone.

In my view, his depiction of them did them a tremendous disservice as films can have an enormous impact on their audiences (particularly one as famous as this one). And most people won't research into the actual disaster and find out any actual truth or evidence. They'll just take Cameron's word for it that the British acted like thugs and barbarians (whereas most of the Americans depicted in it acted heroically and with honour).

And as I said before, that's my biggest criticism of this movie.

Of course movies are a fantasy (in most cases), but when something is based on a real life event such as this, I do expect a little respect toward those who gave up their lives for others.

And, as for the Oscar argument (it won Oscar(s) and therefore it Must be good), that's not necessarily the truth.

Sometimes great movies which deserve the honour do win. However, Hollywood is very much a political arena and is run by very powerful people with their own agendas. And the Oscars, let's not forget, are voted for by people within the industry, so the votes are not entirely always objective, but very subjective. It's very much a 'taste' thing as opposed to how good a movie is. (Or how good a performance is within that movie). It's why we see such diverse winners (the winning performances not always coming from the winning film).

The Oscars are therefore awarRAB of taste and opinion rather than pedigree.

And I didn't agree with the awarRAB to Titanic - I thought there were much better made and more worthy winners that year (as there are most years). It's why, whilst I love watching them, I don't often agree with them.

It's a matter of individual taste (as are the films that win!).
 
I believe the Harry Potter films have come the closest.

Personally, I liked Titanic, but so what. The only opinion that should have any true value or meaning to you should be your own. Everyone else's is just background mush.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Back
Top