Yes Germain is a ton of fun, he was an interesting characters interesting. I don't know just something about the oddness of the story that sold well was just weird. Also just to see how it was taken and completely changed once it was in the hands f another writer.

I enjoyed it but I think more for the sheer weird absurdity of it.

It certainly just oozed that same feel Napoleon Dynamite did which wasn't all in it's favour.
But I went into this movie completely blind, All I know was the title and that I had to see it.

RATING: 4/4

In the nearly 15 years since Titanic first washed into cinemas across the world and made film history, I only just yesterday took the opportunity to see it. At the time of its release, it quickly became the most expensive, high-profile event film of all time, with a $200 million budget, state of the art filmmaking technology that broke previously unset boundaries, and a stacked cast. However, despite a drop of negative controversy, the film went on to be the highest grossing film of all time, and has earned its place in film history not only by winning 11 Oscars, but the hearts of millions (billions?) of movie goers throughout the years. A movie of such daunting reputation brings a lot of baggage with it, and not all of it for the better. One of the film's biggest detractors is Mark Kermode, who happens to be one of my favorite film critics. For months, I've listened to Kermode smash Titanic to pieces at every possible turn, wether it be Radio 5 Live or his book "The Good, The Bad, and the Multiplex." Not only that, but it seems that simply admitting that you liked Titanic is enough to put your "man card" through the paper shredder. So, naturally, I walked into this movie with... shall we say, certain preconceptions. On top of that, the film has been retrofitted into 3D, a process I deride on a fundamental, political level. If I'm to tell you the truth, a small part of me went into this actually wanting to hate this film. So, how did I feel about it?

It's one of the most beautiful, moving films I've ever seen.

Am I saying its a perfect film? Of course not. I could sit here and count all of the problems this film has from the very beginning: badly played cultural stereotypes, an antagonist that doesn't have dimension beyond his assigned role, a few contrived character situations (especially near the beginning), and occasionally clunky dialog. But 30 minutes into this lavish 3-and-a-quarter hour epic, I struggled to care about any of it. The moment the audience is finally introduced to the ghost of the Titanic, the shimmering, unsinkable ship, I was immediately swept up in the pure spectacle of it. How could I not be? This is exactly the kind of sweeping, beautifully filmed Hollywood melodrama that makes a poor sap like myself open the floodgates and cry like an adolescent girl. It floored me.

James Cameron is a visual genius and a brilliant filmmaker. I suspected it after seeing lush, extraterrestrial landscapes of Avatar, but his talents are in full effect here. Every inch of every set is impeccably constructed and detailed to fulfill Cameron's vision of a soapy, Hollywood romance on the cusp of tragedy. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that vision. If he doesn't achieve it without the occasional misstep, it's so gorgeously rendered that we can grant him one or two flaws. Once we've boarded the Titanic and set sail, I found myself swept up in the atmosphere of the ship and the energy of those aboard it. Every scene with Jack and Rose could have easily slipped into contrived hoakiness, but thanks to the power of the performances, the score, and James Cameron's direction, each moment rings with real passion. I've always said that there's nothing wrong with sentimentality if it's earned, and I feel the same way about Titanic. Even taking into account the moments and aspects that don't worry, there's never a moment when you feel you're witnessing something less than human.

And we haven't even discussed the sinking of the Titanic, easily one of the most harrowing sequences in recent film history. This is where the power of the film becomes fully realized. Forget how realistic it's staged or how well it's filmed and edited. Although we've followed and fallen in love with Jack and Rose for the past 2 hours, it is during this sequence that the real scope of the tragedy sets in. It isn't just about wether or not Jack and Rose will survive; it's the realization that no matter what's done by anyone on board, 50% of the passengers - mothers, fathers, children - are going to die a death so traumatic I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. There are two consecutive shots that underline this perfectly: one of an elderly couple hugging each other on their bed as their room fills with water, and one of a mother telling her blissfully unaware children a bedtime story. As these images played out, I couldn't help but shed a few tears.

As for the 3D, it fulfilled expectations. Though James Cameron spent millions of dollars and many weeks perfecting the post-production 3D process, it remains just as superfluous as any other example. The film was not shot in 3D, and thus feels like a gimmick rather than a genuine storytelling device à la Scorsese's Hugo. I'd have enjoyed this film just as much in 2D, if not more thanks to the 20% light loss caused by 3D glasses. However, I'm glad that I saw the film in 3D. It gave me the chance to see this wondrous movie on a gigantic cinema screen, exactly how it was meant to be seen.

As for Mark Kermode (or anyone detractor for that matter), I'll throw his very own words right back at him: "Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong." This is magnificent, epic filmmaking at it's most audacious. If it falls short of more recent efforts like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, it can't be helped. James Cameron may not be the most polished writer, but he's a brilliant storyteller, and this film has so much to offer that I can easily overlook the obvious bruises and scuff marks. People can snicker, guffaw, and/or insult me however they'd like, and I won't feel any different about it. If appreciating greatness when you see it means cashing in your credibility as a cinephile and a man, then I'd gladly do so any day of the week. In my eyes, Titanic has rightfully earned its place in cinema history, and to be honest, seeing it now makes me wish I'd been a part of that initial fandom. If it shocks me even today, think of how bowled over I'd have been if I'd seen it 15 years ago with everyone else.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6htyGEhaCU[/youtube]

Lord Of The Flies. Watched it this afternoon.

Is it good? I remember loving it when I was a kid, but the last time I saw it I was probably 11 or 12.

Come on, Naut, spoilers. I know the begginning now, there's no point in watching it.

I'm probably going to watch Get Carter at some point this week. I hear it's quite good, if a little violent.

Nautilidae wrote:James Cameron is a visual genius and a brilliant filmmaker. I suspected it after seeing lush, extraterrestrial landscapes of Avatar, but his talents are in full effect here.

Hmm, weird. I'm a Cameron fan, but I think Titanic and Avatar are his two weakest films. Biggest budgets and most impressive visuals, certainly, but neither can hold a candle to Abyss, T2 or Aliens in my opinion.

MacIver wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:James Cameron is a visual genius and a brilliant filmmaker. I suspected it after seeing lush, extraterrestrial landscapes of Avatar, but his talents are in full effect here.

Hmm, weird. I'm a Cameron fan, but I think Titanic and Avatar are his two weakest films. Biggest budgets and most impressive visuals, certainly, but neither can hold a candle to Abyss, T2 or Aliens in my opinion.

I haven't seen Titanic, but there's no way anything with that song in it could get a 4/4.

You seem to have a minority opinion.

Hunger Games - true to the novels... well crafted and cast. Score was up to the task - both GF and I agreed one of the most satisfying film experiences in a while

We both thought the extended Avatar in iMax 3d. Worthwhile revisit.

I'd see Titanic in 3D I thought the conceit of the pendant a useful vehicle in the tale. The tale of the audition on "that song" was wonderful. Dion singing a capella had them all in tears. Cameron made the decision on the spot.

Seems some cannot suspend their disbelief adequately.

Shrunk wrote:

MacIver wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:James Cameron is a visual genius and a brilliant filmmaker. I suspected it after seeing lush, extraterrestrial landscapes of Avatar, but his talents are in full effect here.

Hmm, weird. I'm a Cameron fan, but I think Titanic and Avatar are his two weakest films. Biggest budgets and most impressive visuals, certainly, but neither can hold a candle to Abyss, T2 or Aliens in my opinion.

I haven't seen Titanic, but there's no way anything with that song in it could get a 4/4.

That Song doesn't begin playing until the end credits.

Macdoc wrote:Hunger Games - true to the novels... well crafted and cast. Score was up to the task - both GF and I agreed one of the most satisfying film experiences in a while

I saw this last week with my parents, and as we were walking out of the cinema, my father told me he thought Twilight was better.

Wonder if he read the books...

Of course the allegory against the US is perhaps a bit uncomfortable for some as well.

The second half of Titanic is ok. Nude what's-her-face was nice. Irish stereotypes and DiCaprio were annoying.
Can't remember much after that.

pretty sure the Irish are a stereotype

I'm too hungover to rebut this now

Nautilidae wrote:That Song doesn't begin playing until the end credits.

That's not good enough. What if I'm in the theatre trying to scramble to the exit before the song starts, but get caught behind a crush of people trying to do the same, and I'm helplessly caught as It starts to play? Or even if I'm just watching the DVD, the remote control could malfunction just when I need to shut the player off, and again there I am, trapped, helpless.

I'm sorry, the risk is just too great. I will never watch this movie.

(In al seriousness, it just doesn't seem to be my thing. There just too many other films ahead of it on my "Watch Before You Die" list.)

I did like this, though:

In the “Titanic” scene where Rose is lying on a piece of driftwood, most viewers — those who weren’t bawling their eyes out, or about to — saw a girl contemplating her survival and loss. When astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson saw the scene, all he could see was a blaring historical inaccuracy.

The starfield above Rose, played by Kate Winslet, would not have been the same as the one a real passenger at that latitude and longitude at that time of day in 1912 would have seen it, Tyson noted. He sent a “snarky” message to noted perfectionist James Cameron, who adjusted the 3D re-release of the film accordingly, according to Discovery.

“Neil deGrasse Tyson sent me quite a snarky e-mail saying that, at that time of year, in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose (Kate Winslet) is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen,” Cameron told to Discovery.

“And with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in. So I said ‘All right, send me the right stars for that exact time and I'll put it in the movie.’ ”

The Telegraph notes that the adjustment is the only major technical change to the drama. In a panel discussion, Tyson said that he felt he should hold Cameron accountable because of his infamous precision in the movie. Cameron took painstaking care to recreate every historical detail in the film, even using the original blueprint of the ship — but he didn’t take as much care when it came to the sky, apparently.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/art ... _blog.html

Jennifer Lawrence has been on the watch list since Hunger Games and some dark movies indeed.

Winter Bone and Burning Plains

very tough roles for a teen......and she was up for both. Not for all.

Shrunk wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:That Song doesn't begin playing until the end credits.

That's not good enough. What if I'm in the theatre trying to scramble to the exit before the song starts, but get caught behind a crush of people trying to do the same, and I'm helplessly caught as It starts to play? Or even if I'm just watching the DVD, the remote control could malfunction just when I need to shut the player off, and again there I am, trapped, helpless.

I'm sorry, the risk is just too great. I will never watch this movie.

(In al seriousness, it just doesn't seem to be my thing. There just too many other films ahead of it on my "Watch Before You Die" list.)

You're not missing much. It's exactly the soppy, manipulative drivel you imagine it to be. Perfectly suited to Celine Dion. Albeit well-crafted drivel.

Shrunk wrote:I did like this, though:

In the “Titanic” scene where Rose is lying on a piece of driftwood, most viewers — those who weren’t bawling their eyes out, or about to — saw a girl contemplating her survival and loss. When astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson saw the scene, all he could see was a blaring historical inaccuracy.

The starfield above Rose, played by Kate Winslet, would not have been the same as the one a real passenger at that latitude and longitude at that time of day in 1912 would have seen it, Tyson noted. He sent a “snarky” message to noted perfectionist James Cameron, who adjusted the 3D re-release of the film accordingly, according to Discovery.

“Neil deGrasse Tyson sent me quite a snarky e-mail saying that, at that time of year, in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose (Kate Winslet) is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen,” Cameron told to Discovery.

“And with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in. So I said ‘All right, send me the right stars for that exact time and I'll put it in the movie.’ ”

The Telegraph notes that the adjustment is the only major technical change to the drama. In a panel discussion, Tyson said that he felt he should hold Cameron accountable because of his infamous precision in the movie. Cameron took painstaking care to recreate every historical detail in the film, even using the original blueprint of the ship — but he didn’t take as much care when it came to the sky, apparently.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/art ... _blog.html

I saw him interviewed recently and said that someone contacted him for a night sky recently.
At around 39:00 he gives the end of that story.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg[/youtube]

Edit - your link has a video of the same story on a different interview. Oops.

A man who follows me on tumblr asked if my review of Titanic was meant to be satirical.

IT'S ON.