Titanic (in 3D) (2012)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Mark H

  
  Titanic is the embodiment of a gifted director working at the top of his craft. His eye for detail is masterful. Of course there's that spectacular final act that is the standard for non-stop, heart pounding excitement. But what many directors fail to establish is a cast we… More
  Titanic is the embodiment of a gifted director working at the top of his craft. His eye for detail is masterful. Of course there's that spectacular final act that is the standard for non-stop, heart pounding excitement. But what many directors fail to establish is a cast we sincerely care about. That's what makes a tragedy something we merely endure versus something we actually tear up over. We should be emotionally connected to the people. Throughout the course of 3 hours and 14 minutes Cameron expertly builds a real connection to our leads. A masterpiece combining technical skill of an action picture with the engaging theatrics of a tear-jerker, James Cameron's Titanic is a stunning achievement. Critics continue to deride its success as dubious hype over a feature that is unwarranted. I disagree, It deserves its place among such popular works as The Sound of Music and Star Wars as one of the great achievements committed to celluloid. This is a film for people who love film.

• Alice S

  
  In the middle of watching this again for the first time in probably a decade, I thought, "Meh. The dialogue IS pretty overwrought." But by the end, it won me over as it did before with its pure and earnest portrayal of unburdened love, despite this harrowing tragedy.… More
  In the middle of watching this again for the first time in probably a decade, I thought, "Meh. The dialogue IS pretty overwrought." But by the end, it won me over as it did before with its pure and earnest portrayal of unburdened love, despite this harrowing tragedy. It's just lovely. The 3D IMAX doesn't add much, but at least it's not obtrusive like most post-production 3D. There are some nice 3D hair tendrils, and the distance from which the guy fell to hit the propeller did indeed look higher.

• Josh M

  
  Does the world need another Titanic review? Emphatically NO - BUT after screening this many years after its release in 3D with a couple of teen aged relatives last week I have a new appreciation for this warhorse and liked it much more on a second viewing many years later. It's… More
  Does the world need another Titanic review? Emphatically NO - BUT after screening this many years after its release in 3D with a couple of teen aged relatives last week I have a new appreciation for this warhorse and liked it much more on a second viewing many years later. It's a grand large epic film that is generous of heart and soul. It's brimming full of old fashioned film values, both from a visual and story telling point of view. They literally 'don't make 'em like like that anymore', and I don't think they had 'made it like that' for many years before the 1990's, when this film was released. Let's get this out of the way first: the 3D adds very little to the enjoyment of the film. Cameron has done it meticulously ($18 million K, apparently!) , but it only seems to make a difference in close up and rack focused scenes, and very little in the wide epic effect driven shots. Also, apparently the only changes he made were to change the night sky in a couple of shots, which was originally geographically inaccurate. To me the only other thing he should have amended is the tiny, bug like humans on the wide shots, which still look like computer generated people. They are still fake looking. The film has two big assets that are still very much in its favor: A) A superbly executed romance story that makes us care deeply about both characters. The unlikely upstairs downstairs romance is richly justified and believable, both due to Cameron's Romeo and Juliet-esque simple but effective writing (in this story instance, anyway, more quibbles later) and flawless, charismatic and beautiful performances from Leo DeCaprio and Kate Winslet, never better or more utterly committed and passionate. Before I get off this topic, how many films have failed to make similar situations believable and failed? Thousands. And the DeCaprio/Winslet chemistry is literally lightning in a bottle. B) Cameron's meticulously constructed and imaginative visual film-making chops. The set up scenes showing of the boat's beauty and gargantuan majesty make you feel like you are touring the Titanic in person. Then, the last hour where the boat gets destroyed and sunken contains a treasure trove of creative and thrilling set pieces all of which top the one before it, from the amazing flooding, the boat's systematic destruction, to the stunning choreographed passengers panicking and going to the top of the boat's nose, till its inevitable sinking. Though long, Cameron never repeats himself and is full of new surprises through the film's exhaustive 3 hour plus length. The aftermath and the floating dead bodies are as poignant as ever, and the film in a non didactic way, makes the social inequalities and class struggle palpable, especially to sensitive like kids my niece and nephew who have never read Das Capital or heard of Marx, either Karl OR Groucho. On the down side, every character who is not Jack or Rose is a one dimensional stereotype, from Billy Zane (at least he lots of panache and is quite memorable hamming his way through this) as Rose's evil fiance, to Frances Fisher as her selfish, cold social climbing mother, to David Warner as an evil, murderous (for no particular reason) butler. The film soundtrack with its Irish Celtic penny whistles and repetitive Celine Dion theme has aged badly and sounds stultifying, dated and stuck in the mid-nineties. The film is WAY long and could use about 45 minutes to an hour cut off its time. Here's where to start: The intro and extro scenes of the contemporary adventurers working for Bill Paxton, looking for treasure and particularly Winslet's legendary diamond necklace are far too long and unnecessary. These scenes are well executed, and it's nice to see actual footage of the undersea wreckage 100 years later. Still, we don't see Leo De Caprio and Kate Winslet until more than a half hour into the film. We see Gloria Stewart as the geriatric version of Rose, and she's fine, but I was impatiently wanted to see the Titanic in its glory and so did my niece and nephew. Grand film making with old fashioned and soul stirring story telling techniques is rare these days, and when it's been tried (i.e. Pearl Harbour, Australia, Amistad) it has failed miserably. James Cameron's Titanic achievement defied the odds and it's near impossible to hate this wide, crowd pleasing kind of film that crosses all cultural barriers to tell a story for the ages, thrilling for people from every age group, economic or ethnic background.

• Candy R

  
  The story starts in present time (1997), with the sole living survivor of the Titanic disaster. She reveals a love story between two classes on board the maiden voyage of the Titanic across the Atlantic. The Titanic hits an iceberg and sinks. My fave scenes are the spitting and axe… More
  The story starts in present time (1997), with the sole living survivor of the Titanic disaster. She reveals a love story between two classes on board the maiden voyage of the Titanic across the Atlantic. The Titanic hits an iceberg and sinks. My fave scenes are the spitting and axe scenes. Leo and Kate make a great on screen couple. Great lines like "I'm the King of the World" and iconic music. My fave line is "he does landscapes". Excellent graphics! An epic masterpiece! I've seen this movie 100s of times and never tire of it. With the centenary of the Titanic disaster, the new 3D version introduces the movie to a whole new generation.

• Raymond W

  
  James Cameron's Titanic is no doubt a classic and it boasts some awesome visual spectacles, music, and costumes. The acting is for the most part fantastic, especially that of Kate Winslet, Frances Fisher, Victor Garber and Gloria Stuart. Other supporting actors such as Bill… More
  James Cameron's Titanic is no doubt a classic and it boasts some awesome visual spectacles, music, and costumes. The acting is for the most part fantastic, especially that of Kate Winslet, Frances Fisher, Victor Garber and Gloria Stuart. Other supporting actors such as Bill Paxton, Suzy Amis and Danny Nucci make for somewhat cheesy and/or cringeworthy sections, but perhaps that's partly because of some horrible dialogue in those parts. Cheesy as the story and execution is, Titanic draws audiences in, but (for me) fails to move me in any noticeable way. With Avatar, Cameron had me really involved and sending urgent telepathic messages to the characters on screen telling them what to do or what not to do. With Titanic, most people are really bawling their eyes out, but for me, the film just glosses over the real tragedy, but it worked in the way it was supposed to. There is no doubt in my mind that James Cameron is a great director, and that Titanic will be a classic for many many years to come.

• Carlos M

  
  A monumental epic, technically spectacular and incredibly moving. A dazzling emotional roller-coaster that makes you really care about its characters and even feel like one of the survivors. The newly converted 3D is relatively well done, though obviously not perfect.

• Everett J

  
  "Titanic" is by far the biggest movie to ever come out so far in my lifetime. It came out when I was a freshman in high school. I remember seeing it four times in the theater(not my choice,but everyone loved it and wanted to see it again and again). Until… More
  "Titanic" is by far the biggest movie to ever come out so far in my lifetime. It came out when I was a freshman in high school. I remember seeing it four times in the theater(not my choice,but everyone loved it and wanted to see it again and again). Until "Avatar" it was the highest grossing movie ever, but really i.m.o it's still the biggest movie of all time. Hell, I remember when it came to the Paris theater, they announced it over the intercom to the school, like our town was blessed with it's presence. Now, 15 years later it's been re-released in 3D. The good news is, the movie holds up. The acting and some of the lines are corny, but overall the movie is still fantastic. The love story of Jack and Rose set to the sinking of the massive boat is one of the true great cinematic love stories of all time. It's kind of funny watching Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in this now, as they have both grown into such better actors than they were then. Saying that though, the 3D adds absolutely nothing to the movie. I've seen several 3D movies, and this was probably the worst in terms of the way the technology was used. It's not really a movie designed for that medium anyway,but still, you would think it would be better than that. It was nice to go back and see this on the big screen again for pure nostalgia. But the 3D was unnecessary, and if I ever watch this again(which I'm sure I will), it will just be in regular old 2D, which is perfectly fine by me.

• Ross C

  
  I'm glad I waited 15 years to see this film long after the initial hullabaloo so that I could fairly judge its place in cinematic history. Yes, it's overly long and a few scenes could certainly had been made much shorter, particularly towards the end. However, it is a really… More
  I'm glad I waited 15 years to see this film long after the initial hullabaloo so that I could fairly judge its place in cinematic history. Yes, it's overly long and a few scenes could certainly had been made much shorter, particularly towards the end. However, it is a really well told love story on an epic scale and Cameron has beautifully recreated the period setting on the Titanic. Full of metaphors for the time (the engine room reminds me of Metropolis) that culminate in a series of absurdities as the cruise liner becomes a sinking ship. Oh, and Kate Winslet was stunning. The 3D digital retrofit is an amazing technological triumph, making it look like it was filmed only yesterday with truly immersive scenes. Though, of course, a few brief shots did suffer from the conversion, where the subject was intentionally out-of-focus, but it remained very pleasant to watch, even when the 3D effects were very subtle.

• Mark W

  
  Woohoo! "Titanic", the 1997 romantic epic that won 11 Academy Awards, has been re-released on an even grander scale. We are, once again, treated to over three hours of the most wearisome and banal piece of cinema to ever grace our screens. But wait... it's in 3D.… More
  Woohoo! "Titanic", the 1997 romantic epic that won 11 Academy Awards, has been re-released on an even grander scale. We are, once again, treated to over three hours of the most wearisome and banal piece of cinema to ever grace our screens. But wait... it's in 3D. I'm so happy, I could shit myself. An old woman, Rose DeWitt Bukater (Gloria Stuart) recounts her past to April, 1912 when she boarded the most advanced liner ever built - the Royal Mail Ship Titanic. It departed from Southampton with over 2,000 passengers aboard and we are taken back to when she was a younger woman (Kate Winslet), due to be married to aristocrat Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). On board though, she meets young, adventurous artist Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) who she falls in love with. But there is trouble ahead, in the shape of a giant iceberg that forces the ship and it's passengers into desperate survival. This, for me, stands as the most ridiculous and overrated of films. Amongst the (unwarranted) awards it received, there is only one that it could truly justify: Best Visual Effects. How the triteness of this film could overshadow the superb and labyrinthine "L.A. Confidential" during awards season, is beyond me. Anyone familiar with British pulp romantic novels, will known what I mean when I say, this is just "Mills & Boon" on a boat - the chivalrous Jack pursuing the chastised damsel Rose. The only thing that's missing, is the gardener with a rippling torso. DiCaprio and Winslet are fine actors and two that I admire greatly but they totally ham it up this absolute peace of trash. It's very stereotypical in everything it does; the impoverished Irish dance a jig below deck; the band plays on when everyone else is panicking; the steamed up car, were Jack and Rose consummate their relationship; even Jack's little Italian friend get's to shout the obligatory "Bastardo", as the shit is about to hit the propellers. The characterisation is frankly insulting and for the most part, the film is uneventful. That is, until the long-awaited Iceberg makes a welcome appearance. When it does, Cameron's use of visual effects really kick-in and they're undeniably impressive but by this point, I couldn't care less. If anything, it was quite enjoyable watching the irritating and underwritten characters plummet and drown to a slow and painful death. Shame the footage of this film couldn't have went down with the ship also. Originally released in 1997, James Cameron then followed it up in 2003 with documentary "Ghosts Of The Abyss" and now we get it again in 3D. Really James, let it go man... let it go. Woefully Bad. A * 1/2 star rating for the visuals and a solid supporting performance from the large glacial deposit. But being dazzled with special effects and technical achievements, ultimately doesn't change anything. You still can't polish a turd.

• Matt G

  
  3D Re-release (4/4/12) You call that 3D? Why can't we just have a normal, 35mm screening of a bloody fantastic film? I'm a huge fan of Titanic - one of my personal favorites, but this 3D was just horrible. The conversion supposedly took 60 weeks to complete where the… More
  3D Re-release (4/4/12) You call that 3D? Why can't we just have a normal, 35mm screening of a bloody fantastic film? I'm a huge fan of Titanic - one of my personal favorites, but this 3D was just horrible. The conversion supposedly took 60 weeks to complete where the technicians went frame-by-frame attempting to give the audiences a superb conversion while it is clear that it'll never happen. The 3D glasses took away about 25% of brightness off the screen. The only 3D scenes that are moderately noticeable are during the tightly shot scenes with Rose walking through the flooding corridor. Read all of my thoughts on the 3D at creedsdelight.com

• Mike S

  
  When it first set sail to the theaters in 1997, <i>Titanic</i> was a box-office giant, that broke all prior records and earned an unfathomable 600 million dollars in the U.S alone. For 12 consecutive years it would sit upon this throne, until finally surpassed in 2009 by… More
  When it first set sail to the theaters in 1997, <i>Titanic</i> was a box-office giant, that broke all prior records and earned an unfathomable 600 million dollars in the U.S alone. For 12 consecutive years it would sit upon this throne, until finally surpassed in 2009 by James Cameron's other mega hit, the epic science fiction wonder, <i>Avatar</i>. Besides the astounding success in the financial department, it's also a technical marvel, with award-winning special effects that still look fantastic by today's exceptional standards. At it's heart we also have the engaging love story, between adventurous charmer Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and an upper class girl named Rose (Kate Winslet), who against all odds and some extremely precarious situations, break free from the shackles placed upon them (in one scene quite literally), and let their love for each other guide their fates, to whatever uncertain end. Then, of course, there's the historically famous ship, which is like a character in itself with its sheer breath-taking size and majestic interiors. In the hands of any other film-maker, say Roland Emmerich for instance, this would have been a forgettable CGI-fest, with one-dimensional characters and a throw-away plot. But with James Cameron it became something else entirely, as he took the tragic fate of the RMS Titanic, and moulded it into a timeless, beautiful and grand piece of cinema. A triumphant picture, that is one of the most moving and gripping experiences I've ever had as a movie-goer. And even more so when seeing it now in 3D, which turned up the intensity and visual enchantment to even further extents. Simply put, I love this film, and will always regard as one of the greatest stories ever told. A real tear-jerker of a movie, that despite being over 3 hours long, is spellbinding, exciting and pure magic all the way!

• Matthew S

  
  In the beginning the treasure hunt director grabs a camera and starts a disengenuous, dramatic narration of the Titanic that afterwards even he calls "bull s---." The problem with this movie is that its own writer/director keeps piling it on, romanticizing the tragedy -- and… More
  In the beginning the treasure hunt director grabs a camera and starts a disengenuous, dramatic narration of the Titanic that afterwards even he calls "bull s---." The problem with this movie is that its own writer/director keeps piling it on, romanticizing the tragedy -- and I don't mean the love story -- in a way that disfavors the real event and the real people who suffered. So much here is a blatant, highly polished caricature. On a technical level, the film is near astounding, save for some spotty cgi, but the continual display of unrecognizable human nature in a crisis (see Discovery Channel's documentary of the Concordia disaster. There are no kids sleeping soundly or murder suicides) made this seem like more of what the treasure hunter was shoveling. In the movie's defense, I saw this 3 times in theaters when I was 13 and may now just be numb to what the film does well.

• Alexander D

  
  TITANIC may be over three hours long, but it does not at all feel like it. The plot, visuals, and acting leads to a feeling of it being half as long. If I were to compile the most engaging movies over three hours in length, this would easily rank number one. It's also great… More
  TITANIC may be over three hours long, but it does not at all feel like it. The plot, visuals, and acting leads to a feeling of it being half as long. If I were to compile the most engaging movies over three hours in length, this would easily rank number one. It's also great seeing TITANIC in 3-D, on the big screen. It's nice seeing the film on video and when they air it on TV till your eyes bleed, but seeing it this way is a much, much different experience. It's James Cameron (who also used 3-D technology splendidly with 2009's AVATAR) accomplishing what he couldn't at the time of the film's 1997 release, using modern technology. It cost approximately $18 million just to convert this masterpiece into 3-D, and more often than not, it's well worth the cost. Especially in the final scenes of shipwreck, when there is water flooding, sparks flying, and distress signals shooting off into the air, the technique is incredibly effective. Though from a glance the re-release may seem like a headache, ever could there ever be a more vivid and thoughtful way to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the best-known shipwreck. Seeing this in theaters again, we are also reminded of what we have forgotten from this cinematic grandeur. The best of these are the performances, especially of DiCaprio as Jack, Winslet as Rose, and Zane as her possessive fiancà (C). DiCaprio has too many memorable quotes for me to list; among his best are the unforgettable, "I'm the king of the world!!", and, "That's one of the good things about Paris. Lots of girls willing to take their clothes off." His and Winslet's performances both grow stronger and more endearing toward the end. I always tear up whenever I hear either one of them deliver the line, "Never let go." Billy Zane has such an aggravated, impatient character it's hard to see him as the charmer he looks like. The scene in which he overturns a table and demands his fiancà (C)e's respect is so shocking it hurts. READ THE ENTIRE REVIEW: http://themoviefreakblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/review-titanic-3d/

• Jason S

  
  A well made movie.

• Wildaly M

  
  A classic.

• Scott G

  
  A fair film, quite possibly the only film that still makes the people weep.

• Sajin P

  
  Definitely the plus points of the movie would be the technical artistry and the film-making skills of Cameron. The way the ship was re-created down to its last details gives a certain historical grandeur to the movie. And the final execution of the epic disaster deserves a standing… More
  Definitely the plus points of the movie would be the technical artistry and the film-making skills of Cameron. The way the ship was re-created down to its last details gives a certain historical grandeur to the movie. And the final execution of the epic disaster deserves a standing applause. But the cardboard characters and the cheesy romantic angle of the story fails to maintain even minimal credibility. Even with all his acting abliities DiCaprio's appearance does'nt really serve justice to his character; Who in the right frame of mind would pass him off as a teenager from the 19th century? Winslet's performance was'nt any better either. Throughout the movie she gave the impression of a stuffed puppet, emotion wise. It's ironic that her most recognized movie only brought out the worst performance of this wonderful actress. Both of them served better justice to their talents when they were re-united 10 years later in "Revolutionary Road".

• Michael E

  
  James Cameron is by far one of my favorite directors, and this being his second highest grossing film is well worth all the money it got. The acting was very fantastic and the drama is also very well told, Leonardo Dicaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Gloria Stuart, and even Bill… More
  James Cameron is by far one of my favorite directors, and this being his second highest grossing film is well worth all the money it got. The acting was very fantastic and the drama is also very well told, Leonardo Dicaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Gloria Stuart, and even Bill Paxton all did fantastically well. Billy Zane was great as being the douchebag millionare that is betrothed to Rose, so well that you literally wanted to punch him. Also the 3 hour time run is actually very well done, and it doesn't feel like it, it feels like 2 hours, there were some things they could've left out, like the sex scene or the nude art drawing, I understand that its to prove the two main characters are getting much closer and truly love each other, but they could've just kissed passionatley and do a 360 camera spin. But overall, this to me is Camerons best, Avatar was just a ripped off story and just mindless action, but this was legitimate and good drama and acting

• Eric A

  
  Who would've thought love and massive tragedy could blend so well?

• Eliza N

  
  This is a fiction,right? That's right! So i will come with a simple question:How on earth can she declare she loves him and at the same time watch him freeze to death?

Read all 20 featured audience ratings