i think that movie is sooo sad and wat happend if that was u???? all the littl kids and even babies die. but some people don't care about the movie.
2006-09-17 12:51:07 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
its soo sad!! u get soo in to it and u start to cry...and feel sorry for those people and the little kids.:(
2006-09-17 12:57:01 · update #1
I think the movie is OK except at the end when the boat is sinking and the two lovers are floating on a piece of wood or door, or something they found in the water. It occurred to me that the poor guy is stranded, freezing in the water when it looked like there was plenty of room for him too! She should have moved her butt over! I remember she watched him sink and did not attempt to even pull him on with her. I would have been ticked off with her and not willing to freeze to death when it could have all been prevented.The movie sure depicted something big enough to hold them both. It really looked like he had enough room to me. They probably would have conserved more body heat if both could have gotten on that floating wood. The last part of the movie was not realistic at all. Like judge Judy says,"don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining". Just my opinion!
2006-09-17 13:06:28 · answer #1 · answered by Marie 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I didn't much care for it. The special effects were awesome, but the whole Jack/Rose plot was cliched, contrived and flatter than a pancake. The movie would have been a thousand percent better if not for the Jack/Rose story. And I swear, that godawful Celine Dion song is a total abomination. It's playing constantly in some ring of Hell.
I prefer the older movie "A Night to Remember", which was filmed in 1958 about the Titanic. It's a superior movie in that it's actually about the Titanic and not about young emo twits in love. It also has better acting and deals with the issue of the Californian, which was a nearby ship that saw the flares but didn't come to help because their wireless operator was sleeping and they didn't receive the SOS and didn't know the ship was sinking. It was a much more emotional movie than Cameron's.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051994/
2006-09-17 22:16:57 · answer #2 · answered by Rose D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, they didn't show the kids and babies die, unless i am thinking of the wrong film, there are so many takes on that tragic true tale. i my self wouldn't take a baby on a tour ship. i might on a train or if it is dire, an airplane, but not a cruise-liner. if you mean the dicaprio movie, i enjoyed it, it was sad, but i really hope you don't mean that one. it focused too much on an affair of an already engaged rich woman with a peasant, as they were called at the time. never the mind on those others, the hero's, the mates, the ones who went down with the ship. they were, back then people of money, imagine the wealth that has been recovered and not ever mentioned. you know, ship wrecks and diving for treasures sound fascinating and pays much better than my sad supposedly inspiring line of work, it beats memorizing scripts and acting them out. thanks for the tip, lady...
2006-09-17 20:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by lee f 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Never mind the movie being sad - the film was based on a real event in which hundreds died. And then some pillock of a director goes and makes a very, very bad film about it littered with historical inaccuracies. And another thing - I just cant take Leonardo De whatisface seriously as a leading man. I've never seen a film that he has stared in where I haven't been expecting someone to tell him its past his bedtime. And he cant act for toffee!
2006-09-17 19:56:05 · answer #4 · answered by warden14 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I knew the outcome before I went to see it. Of course it was a horrific tragedy. Tragedy is all over the place, even today, if you pay attention. What about the 47,000 people that die every year in auto accidents, over half of which are caused by drinking and driving?
It might be nice for you to channel your outrage into something current, and fuel the impetus to do something about today's problems also.
2006-09-17 19:53:53 · answer #5 · answered by finaldx 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't like it because James Cameron slandered the reputation of one of the Titanic's officers. In the movie, as the boat is sinking, the officer accepts a bribe for one of the men to get on the boat and then he shoots others trying to get onto the lifeboats before finally shooting himself. That NEVER happened in real life and the family of the real officer was furious and they threatened to sue Cameron.
Typical Hollywood - if the real history isn't interesting enough then just make stuff up.
2006-09-17 19:56:44 · answer #6 · answered by Cardinal Richelieu 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Well, it's essentially a true story, so you can't really blame the sadness as a reason to not like it. However, my husband hates it because he feels they took what was a true tragedy and added some romance to it, which was an insult to the Titanic accident.
2006-09-17 20:00:17 · answer #7 · answered by chelle 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The event was sad enough without trying to turn it into stereo-typical Hollywood class warfare.
2006-09-17 21:05:06 · answer #8 · answered by dragunov 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
While the story of Titanic is sad, the movie is pathetically cheesy. I don't like that movie. Worst of Hollywood.
2006-09-17 20:03:10 · answer #9 · answered by Snowflake 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think the movie is really sad and knowing it really happened makes it worse
2006-09-17 19:56:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋