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 know this is the general consensus among people today, whether they are movie snobs or average people. But I do give it credit for being enjoyable with regard to the special effects, and the action of the actual sinking. Plus I really liked how they meticulously researched to create the scenery, costumes, and props. I give credit for the china, glasses, spoons, towels, hallways, stairwells, chairs, etc, being exactly like the originals.
Sure the love story was silly, and unbelievable in the sense that people from two different classes would not have even had the chance to interact on the ship. I think most of us agree on that. But I just saw the love story as the "frame" within which the creators painted the painting. The "painting" to me was the history (some very exact and accurate, some "interpreted" or "based on" reality, but fairly) and the tremendous feeling associated with such a huge loss of life, and the study of human behavior in the face of the catastrophe. How fear of imminent death causes people to act in inhuman or heroic ways that they'd never imagined.
I can totally leave out Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet and all their drama, and appreciate the true tragedy of what happened. I kind of got the feeling that if some of those souls who died saw the movie, they would feel like "wow, our story has been told to this new generation--they can see that's what it was really like." When they were floating in the water toward the end, I actually felt cold. Not sure if that was the acting, the lighting, or the fake breath steam added in for effect, but dammit, I felt the cold. And seeing the sinking scenes on the big screen, I have to admit, was impressive in spite of the dumb story.
If you just accept that Titanic was a "spectacle," or "spectacular" kind of documentary, and meant to be a spectacle, not a piece of fine art or a love story for the ages, then you might appredicate it. It's not 100% accurate as a true documentary (no one completely agrees on how exactly the ship actually broke apart and went down), but it's dramatized in order to convey the enormity of the tragedy and loss. Anyway, I would disagree that it's total "crap."
I know this is the general consensus among people today, whether they are movie snobs or average people. But I do give it credit for being enjoyable with regard to the special effects, and the action of the actual sinking. Plus I really liked how they meticulously researched to create the scenery, costumes, and props. I give credit for the china, glasses, spoons, towels, hallways, stairwells, chairs, etc, being exactly like the originals.
Sure the love story was silly, and unbelievable in the sense that people from two different classes would not have even had the chance to interact on the ship. I think most of us agree on that. But I just saw the love story as the "frame" within which the creators painted the painting. The "painting" to me was the history (some very exact and accurate, some "interpreted" or "based on" reality, but fairly) and the tremendous feeling associated with such a huge loss of life, and the study of human behavior in the face of the catastrophe. How fear of imminent death causes people to act in inhuman or heroic ways that they'd never imagined.
I can totally leave out Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet and all their drama, and appreciate the true tragedy of what happened. I kind of got the feeling that if some of those souls who died saw the movie, they would feel like "wow, our story has been told to this new generation--they can see that's what it was really like." When they were floating in the water toward the end, I actually felt cold. Not sure if that was the acting, the lighting, or the fake breath steam added in for effect, but dammit, I felt the cold. And seeing the sinking scenes on the big screen, I have to admit, was impressive in spite of the dumb story.
If you just accept that Titanic was a "spectacle," or "spectacular" kind of documentary, and meant to be a spectacle, not a piece of fine art or a love story for the ages, then you might appredicate it. It's not 100% accurate as a true documentary (no one completely agrees on how exactly the ship actually broke apart and went down), but it's dramatized in order to convey the enormity of the tragedy and loss. Anyway, I would disagree that it's total "crap."
Hmmm. Well, okay. You've convinced me. There were aspects to it that were spectacular, as you mentioned. I did like the costumes. I guess I was really thrown off by the horrid dialogue between Winslet and DiCaprio and how that whole piece was so historically inaccurate. (I wouldn't have even minded the notion that two people from different social classes found a way to get together, however unlikely that might be in reality).
Most overrated Oscar Winner for Best Picture in my book: The Sound of Music. One of the most overrated movies ever. But I know I'm in the minority, and everyone else on this planet loves it, blah blah blah, but I had to cast my vote. I must be missing the "love the Sound of Music" gene, sorry.
Close second place winner for most overrated Oscar Winner: The English Patient. Painful, excruciatingly painful to sit through. I wanted to stick a fork in my eye. I wanted that 2 1/2 hours of my life back.
LOL! Okay, understood. I loved the Seinfeld episode on The English Patient because I felt it brilliantly and comically captured the great divide between people when it came to that movie. I happened to like it and appreciated it's complexity, and the way it depicted what war does to people, and how one's loyalty can shift under extreme stress. It was long but I didn't find that a problem. I like long sagas. It was a movie that I never want to see again, though. It was too painful.
Sound of Music is such a classic and I have childhood memories tied to it so it will always win a place on my favorites list.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I found Gone with the Wind over-rated and boring. It is too long for my tastes...
Then again, I also didn't like Casablanca...
A lot of these older movies don't age well. Or maybe I just can't get into that genre of film.
GWTW is my favorite movie of all time so it's really hard for me to understand when people don't like it or think it's boring, but I appreciate getting that perspective. I think it stands up well to modern movies in every area of filmmaking, but consider how outstanding it was for its time. Some of my ancestors were southerners and my great great grandfather was a colonel in the Confederate Army and owned a few slaves, so when I watch that movie, I think about how real this was for my ancestors. I feel like I'm watching a movie about my family. I like long sagas and I like period pieces so a movie is never "too long" for me. I also like mini series on tv.
I couldn't watch Casablanca the first time I attempted it. I just didn't get it. After a second attempt, I came to appreciate it and I do like it, but I don't share the enthusiasm for it that many people do. I didn't think it was all that, in other words.
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.
