Apparantly Titanic's the worst film ever... (1 Viewer)

[Ken Chan]

According to rottentomatoes.com not only did 88% of 73 movie reviewers/critics like the movie, they gave it an average rating of 8.6/10. Even with the perhaps more "discriminating" Cream of the Crop, 68% liked it with an average rating of 7.9/10. This is nowhere close to being "pretty bad", and far, far away from "worst".

//Ken

 

[Michael St. Clair]

According to rottentomatoes.com not only did 88% of 73 movie reviewers/critics like the movie, they gave it an average rating of 8.6/10. Even with the perhaps more "discriminating" Cream of the Crop, 68% liked it with an average rating of 7.9/10. This is nowhere close to being "pretty bad", and far, far away from "worst".

Time is the great equalizer. Critics are not always right, and some even admit this.

 

[george kaplan]

If pointing out that my particular taste in film (and music for that matter) isn't the same as 12 year old girls is denigrating to women, then I'm guilty. My problem with Titanic is that it is exactly the type of film that appeals to those 12 year old girls, and frankly, my opinion wouldn't change one iota if not a single 12 year old girl had ever seen the film.

The remark was in response to people saying that the huge box office proved that somehow Titanic was a good film, not an attempt to denigrate women.

I'm obviously irritating the pro-Titanic people by stating unpopular opinions about their film. Sorry.

You know, I have great respect for the Beatles. And 12 year old girls in 1964 were a big reason why they sold so many records. It wouldn't offend me if someone pointed that out. Just like the fact that their recent albums sold so much is due in large part (though not entirely) to sales to aging baby boomers.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

I think Titanic's amazing successes in both the critical and financial spheres cut the "Jay and Silent Bob"-crowd a little too close to home, as the film apparently knocked Star Wars out of the top spot on the box office charts.

Personally, I loved Titanic, and aside from my predilections for frilly pink panties and Mackenzie Phillips memorabilia, I am all man!!!

 

[Tino]

Yeah, but Titanic was PG-13, so those twelve year old girls had to go with some adults.

I don't think anyone has a problem with others opinions of Titanic. Who cares whether one loves it or hates it? Different strokes. And again, we know that boxoffice does not equate to quality of said film.

However when statements like a significant potion of it's Boxoffice, i.e a BILLION dollars, came from prepubescent pre teen girls, is given as a reason for its success, then these arguments get tired and old.

You can believe what you want, but Titanic succeeded by reaching EVERY demographic. Period. But if thinking that little girls are the reason Titanic is # 1 lets you sleep better at night, pleasant dreams!

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Re: teenage girls. Look at the demo graphic breakdown of votes on the IMDB. Almost every movie either gets its highest or lowest score from girls under 18.

 

[Vincent Matis]

horrible corny "heart-warming" typical Spielberg ending

I didn't find the ending happy. I found it to be really sad... and ironic.
The boy created for a mother has been given a mother (re)created for him... And the love he has for her isn't real either... After all this time and his journey, his feelings are still fake...

Vincent

 

[larry mac]

I'm obviously irritating the pro-Titanic people by stating unpopular opinions about their film. Sorry.

Everyone should be entitled to their opinions, but what irritates me is when someone (I'm not saying you) delights in being anti-something for no good reason. One of my co-workers bad-mouthed the movie before even seeing it and when she did finally see it (at home on her little TV), what a surprise that she hated it.

I too had absolutely no interest in seeing it, all the hype had turned me off. But on Valentines day I took my two teen daughters to the Northpark theater in Dallas, probably one of the best places one could have seen it (it was torn down shortly after to expand the mall). Star Wars opened there; I also was fortunate to see SW there the first night, what an event! Anyway, the next weekend I took my wife to the Northpark to see it and of course she loved it as much as my girls. I'll admit it is a "chick" movie. But it's a really good one. Maybe my experience was enhanced by the Northparks huge screen and excellent sound system. Plus the emotionalism of my parties.

I had a similar experience way back when. I took two different girls on consecutive Saturday nights when Gone with the Wind was playing the Northpark in '66. Talk about a cryfest.

 

[Ken Chan]

big box office doesn't mean a film is good or bad. It's uncorrelated.

It's not as simple as you'd like it to be. The film was #1 at the box office for almost four months. People went to see it again and told other people to see it. We're not talking about an opening weekend flash-in-the-pan here. For Titanic to get that good word-of-mouth, it could not have been that bad.

//Ken

 

[Paul_Sjordal]

I think it's inaccurate and misleading to say "product X" made the most money, therefore it must be of the highest quality.

However I also think that it is more than reasonable to assume that whatever makes the most money can't possibly be the worst. That's true of Pizza Hut, Titanic or whatever else you care to mention.

Just for the record, the worst pizza in the world is made in Luxemborg.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I didn't care for much of Pearl Harbor, but it is FAR FAR FAR from the worst film ever. The rest aren't even in the bottom 50% unless you have only seen about 12 films or are 17 years old and jaded against the world.


You don't have to care for the NARRATIVE of those films, you don't have to want to see them again, but even among moderately sized film releases there are films that appear to have cinematography, acting AND narrative done by 4 year olds, with effects done in a video mixer and music done on a toy Casio.

Those are the worst films ever. I'll tell you what, my solution is always this one. Force people to choose between seeing Titanic once or Bride of the Monster, Bloodsucking Freaks, or even Driven and it's no choice at all.

Titanic may be the worst "good" film people can think of, or the worst popular film, but it and the others couldn't sniff the jock of the truly worst films.

All this poll shows is the utter lack of real film knowledge the voters have. No one could ever convince me that Titanic was worse than Congo or the Rollerball remake, but I'd love to see someone try to going item by item. It wouldn't even be close. And the same goes for Blair Witch, Eyes Wide Shut, AI, and even Pearl Harbor.

i.e a BILLION dollars, came from prepubescent pre teen girls, is given as a reason for its success, then these arguments get tired and old.

Not only that but you would flunk out of math class on that one since the theory fails so miserably (or lose your executive producer job at a studio). Every year there are at least 10-20 films aimed at the exact same demographic and NONE of those films is even getting to $100m, let alone $600m. Many die at $20m-$30m or worse. The theory has been disproven hundreds of times over.

Clearly Titanic had to do something significantly different than A Walk to Remember, Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or any Ashton Kutcher film.

In fact, even if we look at the Freaky Friday remake, a film that was received pretty well with critics, a film which scores the best with girls under 18 at IMDb (an 8.4 average), it topped out at $108m. Come on girls, we know you have another $500m in repeat business in you somewhere.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

The rest aren't even in the bottom 50% unless you have only seen about 12 films or are 17 years old and jaded against the world.

I disagree about Batman and Robin. That film was awful on every level. Bad lighting, bad costumes, bad art design, bad editing, bad acting, bad sfx and above all a bad script.

 

[Jay E]

Those are the worst films ever. I'll tell you what, my solution is always this one. Force people to choose between seeing Titanic once or Bride of the Monster, Bloodsucking Freaks, or even Driven and it's no choice at all.

I for one would rather watch Bride of the Monster 10 times in a row before I have to endure watching Titanic again. I'd rather watch Manos: the Hands of Fate 20 times before I endure watching Pearl Harbor again.

Although I'm also tired of seeing recent blockbuster films make these lists, (obviously due to B/O backlash ), I also feel that the huge budgets and resources the film-makers had to create these put them at a distinct advantage over someone like Ed Wood, who had very little time & budget to make his films (as well as little talent). Thus I'm not as upset to see vastly over-rated films like Titanic & over-bloated films like Pearl Harbor on the list. To me all the time, money, resources & talent that were available for these films make them a prime target for criticism.

 

[Jim Ogilvie]

It amazes me that people still continue to conduct polls looking for the 'best' something.

Its absolutely impossible to come up with a result that means ANYTHING based on subjective things like movies. The same applies to food, music, art, and almost anything else that provokes emotion and senses.

The only poll that will EVER be even close to accurate with regard to movies is the most 'popular' film. You can always use box office receipts, video rentals and sales to measure this (from the time that video became widely available of course). Even when you come up with a winner - what does 'popular' mean?

The other problem with polls like these, is a movie has to be reasonably well known for it to be considered 'bad' by enough people to make it rank. But if a film is really really bad, it usually doesn't say in a theatre more than a week or two, and most people don't even know it ever existed - if it made it into a theatre at all. So even the concept of considering a wide-release movie to go onto a list like this is flawed. How long did 'Pluto Nash' stay in theatres? All I know is when it was released here, I couldn't have seen it even if I wanted to. I think two theatres carried it for a week or so, and I was out of the country.

As for Titanic - no one can question it was hugely successful on many fronts. To argue its the 'worst' (which I dont think anyone here is doing?) is an excellent way to get labelled as an elitest snob. When a film does as well as Titanic did, to diss it with intent is to dismiss out of hand its popularity with million of people around the world.

There are several movies that I know lots of people liked, and I didn't. That doesn't make them OR me wrong, but I always respect others opinions to like what they like, or dislike what I like. Problem with polls like these, is they fail to meet their purpose when many of the participants treat them like a soapbox to bash whats popular. This very reality invalidates the entire poll, even though some real stinkers show up in the results just the same.

Of course, the other factor is that you will always notice a lot of recent films make the list. Why? Because it is in recent memory. Are we really to believe that all of the worst movies ever made were made in the last ten or so years?

(sorry, just got my soapbox cleaned and wanted to take it for a test drive)

 

[Angelo.M]

AI, like Eyes Wide Shut, are deeply flawed and strikingly brave and original films. They should at least be given credit for the latter...

This is spot-on. I didn't particularly care for Eyes Wide Shut but I can't argue with your assessment. I wanted to like AI more than I did, but the 2nd act of the film really blew it for me, not the 3rd act which bothers other critics of the film. Both films are original and daring, even if not everyone's cup of tea.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Titanic:

I am a 31 year old male and I thoroughly enjoyed TITANIC. Why, you may ask? Because it was a perfect throwback to the epic romantic films of Hollywood's Golden Age. Sure, the romance is questionable but young love often is. Plus not every movie needs to have gritty realism to be a successful film. TITANIC is escapism. Tragedy on a grand scale. It's more about raw emotion than it is about being a documentary. The fact that the production design and effects are as spectacular as they are just adds to the overall effect of the film. I'm really sad to see the backlash against the film that has occurred in the last few years. It just sends a message to Hollywood that we'd rather have lifeless, quickly edited, loud, empty special effects films than grand, romantic, classic Hollywood spectacle.

A.I.:

I am also of the school that sees the ending of A.I. as perfect. A.I. is a quest, much like the Odyssey. David must fulfill his programming. If he doesn't, then the story has no point. There would be no reason to tell it. The thing is, although in the end he seems to do so, he doesn't really. That isn't his mother. She's a construct. In reality, David's mother died without ever truly loving him. However, David is a machine. He doesn't realize that this isn't his mother. It's enough to fulfill his programming. At that point he can shut down, which is one way that his stillness in the end can be interpreted. The sadness comes from the fact that humanity has destroyed itself. All that is left on the Earth is machines. Machines that have no concept of love. All they have is whatever description of love the doctor was able to program into David's cpu. We know from watching the rest of the film that David really has no idea about true love. He is programmed to mimic love, but his love manifests itself as creepy obsession. His massively-flawed programming is all that is left of human emotion. It's a tragic ending, not a warm fuzzy one.

 

[Mike Broadman]

also feel that the huge budgets and resources the film-makers had to create these put them at a distinct advantage over someone like Ed Wood, who had very little time & budget to make his films (as well as little talent).

I disagree. If comparisons between two films must be made, it is unreasonable to compare individual aspects (ie, FX were better on this than that) if the films were playing by different rules.

I believe the measure of a piece of art can be determined relatively objectively by answering the following two questions:
1. What was its goal?
2. Did it succeed?

No let's do this for Titanic:
1. Its goal was to present a fictional star-crossed lovers romance set against the backdrop of a true story.
For some people, this premise alone is absurd and distasteful (myself included). But I don't think any story telling goal is worthy of derision (except maybe overt propoganda, but that's a seperate issue).
More importantly, this to me invalidates any criticism that doesn't match the film's goal, ie, those who complain that it wasn't like a documentary (like A Night to Remember). That's just as pointless an argument as complaining that the film had no cyborgs. Neither was the point of the film.

2. I would say Titanic did achieve it's goal. The romance obviously did reach people. The supposed prevalence of women demonstrates this, as women tend to react more positively to romantic plot. The other key element of the film, the historical/tragic backdrop, worked as well. Even most of the film's critics applaud the spectacle (one of the most common descriptions of Titanic was, "Boring for the first half but it was cool when the ship sank.")

Does this mean I like it? No. But I think anyone who claims to be a student of film, a hobbyist, or an enthusiast should be able to seperate objective analysis from personal opinion to some degree. "It sucks because I hate it" doesn't fly with me.


Jim, I totally agree. Not only is ranking film impossible, but I feel the whole enterprise lessens cinema. Films aren't made for the sake of competition with other films, or at least they shouldn't be. Frankly, some major films that dissappointed me seemed to have been made with the goal of winning Academy Awards, which always harms it. A movie should be its own thing.

 

[Kami]

I can see why Titanic is on that list. Not because it is a bad film, but because its hip and cool to dislike popular things sometimes. "Yes I saw it in the theaters 3 times, but it's the WORST MOVIE EVERRRRRRRRR!!!"

But the moment I saw A.I. as number 2, I had to close the page.

 

[Angelo.M]

Machines that have no concept of love.

A thematic link between AI and the Matrix films. Nicely done.

And I agree. I like the 3rd act of AI. (Ducking for cover. )

 

[Ray H]

The poll is just stupid. It's an over-generalization from movie-goers that probably voted for films that they simply thought "blew."

Titanic certainly isn't the best movie of all time as its box office receipts would suggest and wasn't close to being the best film of 1997, but I think its a good, solid movie. It's corny at times and could have benefitted from some trims, but it's definately not the worst movie of all time.

And I also love A.I.