Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mostly enjoyed Pulp Fiction, but I totally understand this criticism, and the criticism others are giving it. I think of the movie as Quentin Tarantino's public masturbation. He's just indulging himself, and stroking his own likes/dislikes and references to other movies, and inviting others to watch and agree how clever he is.
This, yes. There were some parts I enjoyed, but it was so overhyped and that could be what ruined it for me For people who've never seen any arthouse stuff , it might have been a big deal.
I didn't HATE it but I disliked Titanic as a whole. Didn't buy the love story, too cliche. Rich girl poor boy? Yawn. Leo was much better after this movie and after he stopped looking like a 13-year-old. Billy Zane was ridiculously villainous. I really wish that vapid storyline didn't take up 95% of the movie.
I did enjoy the sinking scenes. The parts with people resigned to dying was sad, and I appreciated the research Cameron's team put into it because I'm pretty sure the ship DID sink in that exact way.
Basically, the romance part sucked. The rest was ok.
"A National Lampoons Christmas Vacation." It just had too many changes with the cast and characters and the plot and writing was just not that funny. Its not even in a Top Ten Christmas movie list, IMO. Top 20, maybe. 19th or 20th to be kind.
" Meet The Fockers." Irritating characters that got more irritating characters added in the sequel.
" Saving Private Ryan" it started out epic but the plot became strictly movie quality and it became just that... you knew it was only a movie. Not a masterpiece, still it was far better than " Pearl Harbor". "Glory" was much better.
" Titanic". Forgettable characters, story and acting that at least had incredible real events story to salvage it. Also had stunning special effects. Mythbusters made my day when they proved that Jack could have survived the sinking had they used their life vests to make the wooden hatch more buoyant by putting them UNDER it instead of them wearing them.
Hah, hah, serves him right.
I didn't HATE it but I disliked Titanic as a whole. Didn't buy the love story, too cliche. Rich girl poor boy? Yawn. Leo was much better after this movie and after he stopped looking like a 13-year-old. Billy Zane was ridiculously villainous. I really wish that vapid storyline didn't take up 95% of the movie.
I did enjoy the sinking scenes. The parts with people resigned to dying was sad, and I appreciated the research Cameron's team put into it because I'm pretty sure the ship DID sink in that exact way.
Basically, the romance part sucked. The rest was ok.
I didn't hate it either, but had pretty much opposite reaction of yours. The characters' storyline was okay. Nothing special, but at least it kept me mildly interested. Then the boat start sinking. And sinking. And sinking. And sinking.
I actually got bored, went and took a shower, folded a basket of laundry, then came back to where my wife was still watching. And the boat was still sinking.
The last 18 hours of TITANIC are just disaster porn.
The Titanic was well done with it's reconstruction of the ship (interiors) and how the ship met it's fate.
However, the love story, well....ugh. Don't understand why Cameron couldn't find the files of actual
survivors who survived. I'm sure there were some stories there (seen several survivors who gave
lengthy interviews on many documentaries).
I commented somewhere else that you might be able to make yourself enjoy Titanic if you switch perspectives. As a love story within the frame of a historical disaster, it's awful. We mostly all agree the love story is ridiculous-bordering-on-annoying.
But the historical research they did was meticulous--they recreated the ship, the furnishings, even the dishes, to be historically accurate. The way the ship was shown sinking, was, at the time, the best understanding of how the sinking actually happened. When you actually think about all those people, who really did go through that tragedy, the movie actually did memorialize them in an accurate and respectful way. The whole thing with there not being enough lifeboats, the arrogance of the "unsinkability," and the resistance of those in the lifeboats about going back to fish people out of the water, were all historically accurate. The story of the men in the string quartet was supposedly true, and can actually bring tears to my eyes. Even the rich influential men who honorably chose to die so that women and children could have the lifeboats instead of them, that was true.
All the historical facts are pretty remarkable, and the special effects and the diligence of research done by the makers of the movie is pretty commendable. But the love story was just plain silly.
So I watched it again, and switched perspectives. Instead of watching the story of Jack and Rose, with them as the "picture" and the Titanic tragedy as the "picture frame," I watched it as the story of those who really died (and survived) on the Titanic, and the mostly-historically-accurate portrayal of that, with the "picture frame" being the silly Jack and Rose story. It actually made me like the movie, which I had been very annoyed by before. I kind of thought it did justice to the poor people who went through it, showing what it may have been like for them.
So just make Jack and Rose the background instead of the foreground, and the movie seems a lot better.
I can't stand "Oscar Bait" movies. You know the type. Inspirational, based on a true story, guaranteed to leave you in tears, etc. The kind of movie that American Dad made fun of in the "Tearjerker" 007 spoof episode.
I didn't HATE it but I disliked Titanic as a whole. Didn't buy the love story, too cliche. Rich girl poor boy? Yawn. Leo was much better after this movie and after he stopped looking like a 13-year-old. Billy Zane was ridiculously villainous. I really wish that vapid storyline didn't take up 95% of the movie.
I did enjoy the sinking scenes. The parts with people resigned to dying was sad, and I appreciated the research Cameron's team put into it because I'm pretty sure the ship DID sink in that exact way.
Basically, the romance part sucked. The rest was ok.
Thank you! I'm glad someone else feels the same way, except I thought even the non-romantic parts sucked. How come, in the middle of the night on a ship that's going down, all the water looked aqua and transparent, like swimming pool water, and seemed to be lit from below? How come most of the real-life passengers were British, but everybody in the movie spoke with an American accent? Since when would a well-bred young lady in 1912 drop her drawers for a third class passenger she's just met, even a studly one? Puh-leeze.
No matter how many historically accurate details they threw in, the love story was completely unhistorical and stinks to high heaven. It's pure 1990s soap opera and spoiled the whole movie for me. As baileyvpotter above commented, the real stories of the real passengers would have been worth telling. The best Titanic movie for me will always be 1958's A Night to Remember.
I absolutely hate Fight Club. I don't understand what in the hell is so appealing and "good" about that movie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure there were some stories there (seen several survivors who gave
