I’m genuinely curious because apparently as someone said in a movie ranking thread (I think it was the worst movies ever thread) that mentioning Titanic in such a discussion is now almost a cliche. So I went back and watched the DVD because I remembered that I didn’t feel any kind of bias about the movie and was pretty neutral about it looking back, having enjoyed it a lot watching it in theaters.
Rewatching it now I still very much enjoyed it. Now I don’t have any irrational hatred of DiCaprio and I’m not really poised against watching depictions of real world tragedies in cinema, nor did I find the movie’s cast as horribly wanting.
So why do you loathe this critically acclaimed piece of cinema?
In one interview Cameron mentioned doing a directors cut with the lovestory cut to a minimum and at least 30 minutes more footage of the actual disaster including all the scenes filmed on the neighbourinng ship (The Californian I think it was) - that’s the movie I wanted to see.
It wasn’t dreadfull, but the Celine Dion song expresses everything that was wrong and who the target demographic was. And it wasn’t me.
The gates. The endless supply of locked gates that no matter how much Leo shook them, none would give.
Oh and the entire first half of the tired rich girl meets poor down on his luck, but full of dreams boy who only needs to be given a chance in life to make good.
I enjoyed Titanic as a spectacle movie. The script isn’t great and the villain a cardboard Snidely Whiplash, but it looked great, had some wonderful cinematography and Victor Garber.
It’s worth mentioning that Titanic is the reason that so many people hate DiCaprio, and I think his part in it has caused him difficulty in being accepted as a serious actor ever since. I think that goes to show that, despite the hype at the time, Titanic hasn’t entered the collective conciousness as a serious film.
Oh jeez, I forgot about the Oscars. Yeah, that fact that it won Best Picture over four movies that were all significantly better movies was insane. That was the point when I realized that the Oscars are completely full of shit.
For me, that goes back to 1995 (Braveheart). Since then, or possibly since somewhat before then, they haven’t picked a single Best Picture that’s even better than the other nominees, and there are almost always far better films that don’t manage to get nominated.
Yeah, I don’t blame Mr. DiCaprio. He was just doing his job. The story was just the pits.
The hype served this movie more than any I can remember in recent memory. That and young girls seeing it 12 times each. I put off seeing it and let others, whose opinions I formerly trusted, tell me how much I “had to see it”. I have, seriously, never been so underwhelmed. I have seen plenty of movies I thought would be good and proceeded to suck ass, but nothing that did so little in living up to the positive word of mouth it received.
You’re bonkers, then. While it might be better than most of the other nominees (I haven’t seen Good Night and Good Luck, and it’s maybe better than the other three), they didn’t nominate far, far better films, such as Match Point, Lord of War, The Squid and the Whale, A History of Violence, Grizzly Man, Walk the Line, March of the Penguins, and so forth and so on.
Possibly, I haven’t watched the majority of the movies you listed, I was saying I preferred it to the other movies nominated for Best Picture like Brokeback Mountain, Munich, and Good Night and Good Luck.
He can be an amazing actor with the right character and script. The problem with Titanic was the stupid love story and the “I’m king of the world!” line. It would have been much better had it kept the disaster front and center. And not been over 3 hours long.
