Titanic (in 3D)

< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
Titanic (in 3D)

69% Liked It
liked it

Titanic (in 3D)

Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher

This spectacular epic re-creates the ill-fated maiden voyage of the White Star Line's $7.5 million R.M.S Titanic and the tragic sea disaster of April 15, 1912. Running over three hours and made with t... read more read more...he combined contributions of two major studios (20th Century-Fox, Paramount) at a cost of more than $200 million, Titanic ranked as the most expensive film in Hollywood history at the time of its release, and became the most successful. Writer-director James Cameron employed state-of-the-art digital special effects for this production, realized on a monumental scale and spanning eight decades. Inspired by the 1985 discovery of the Titanic in the North Atlantic, the contemporary storyline involves American treasure-seeker Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) retrieving artifacts from the submerged ship. Lovett looks for diamonds but finds a drawing of a young woman, nude except for a necklace. When 102-year-old Rose (Gloria Stuart) reveals she's the person in the portrait, she is summoned to the wreckage site to tell her story of the 56-carat diamond necklace and her experiences of 84 years earlier. The scene then shifts to 1912 Southampton where passengers boarding the Titanic include penniless Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and society girl Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet), returning to Philadelphia with her wealthy fiance Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). After the April 10th launch, Rose develops a passionate interest in Jack, and Cal's reaction is vengeful. At midpoint in the film, the Titanic slides against the iceberg and water rushes into the front compartments. Even engulfed, Cal continues to pursue Jack and Rose as the massive liner begins its descent. Cameron launched the project after seeing Robert Ballard's 1987 National Geographic documentary on the wreckage. Blueprints of the real Titanic were followed during construction at Fox's custom-built Rosarito, Mexico studio, where a hydraulics system moved an immense model in a 17-million-gallon water tank. During three weeks aboard the Russian ship Academik Keldysh, underwater sequences were filmed with a 35mm camera in a titanium case mounted on the Russian submersible Mir 1. When the submersible neared the wreck, a video camera inside a remote-operated vehicle was sent into the Titanic's 400-foot bow, bringing back footage of staterooms, furniture and chandeliers. On November 1, 1997, the film had its world premiere at the 10th Tokyo International Film Festival. ~ Bhob Stewart, Rovi

Id: 10895163

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

Titanic (in 3D) Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

Titanic (in 3D) Recent Reviews
  • hobster1
    May 9, 2012
    hobster1
    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 since... read morerely 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.
  • aliceinpunderland
    April 25, 2012
    aliceinpunderland
    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... read more 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.
  • fb1038944442
    April 24, 2012
    fb1038944442
    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... read more 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.
  • thmtsang
    April 22, 2012
    thmtsang
    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 a... read morexe 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.
  • fb701560354
    April 18, 2012
    fb701560354
    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 Pax... read moreton, 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.
  • blacksheepboy
    April 15, 2012
    blacksheepboy
    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.
  • fb100000145236770
    April 14, 2012
    fb100000145236770
    "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 h... read moreighest 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.
  • RossCollinsUK
    April 12, 2012
    RossCollinsUK
    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... read more 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.
  • MrMarakai
    April 9, 2012
    MrMarakai
    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 ... read morecould 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.
  • CreedsDelight
    April 7, 2012
    CreedsDelight
    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... read more 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
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD