[TrashMan]

Again, I don't care.

Titanic earned millions, and pretty much everyone agreees it's overhyped. Practicly everyone I know who seen it was confused at it's sucess.

Sometimes things jusst fall into place. The planets align. For whatever reasons, some things, regardles how moronic, become huge; and also some great, quality things, get barely no attention (for example : Firefly).

Box office success means less than zero to me.
How many people fell victim to the hype machine means even less.

[Mongoose]

Yes...but you're not a member of the Academy, and therefore your opinion means as much as mine (read: nothing) in the grand scheme of things.

[Scotty]

Again, I don't care.

Titanic earned millions, and pretty much everyone agreees it's overhyped.

Source please.

[iamzack]

Titanic wasn't good? I liked it... (was 6 when I saw it though...)

[Colonol Dekker]

I agree with Trashman. Every single male I know with the exception of four or five homosexuals think the film is awful. Plain terrible. No good, useless and a waste of a few hours. Except for the special effects of course. (i also know homosexual males that dislike the film)
 
 
Not every woman I know likes it either
 
 
Best bit is when Dicaprio goes under and doesn't come back up.

[Colonol Dekker]

I agree with Trashman. Every single male I know with the exception of four or five homosexuals think the film is awful. Plain terrible. No good, useless and a waste of a few hours. Except for the special effects of course. (i also know homosexual males that dislike the film)
 
 
Not every woman I know likes it either
 
 
Best bit is when Dicaprio goes under and doesn't come back up.

[Nuclear1]

Trashman's talking out of his ass again.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19971219/REVIEWS/712190303/1023
4/4

James Cameron's 194-minute, $200 million film of the tragic voyage is in the tradition of the great Hollywood epics. It is flawlessly crafted, intelligently constructed, strongly acted and spellbinding. If its story stays well within the traditional formulas for such pictures, well, you don't choose the most expensive film ever made as your opportunity to reinvent the wheel

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/t/titanic.html
4/4
Meticulous in detail, yet vast in scope and intent, Titanic is the kind of epic motion picture event that has become a rarity. You don't just watch Titanic, you experience it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/12/19/titanic_1997_review.shtml
4/5
It's reckoned that the rivets were a key structural element that failed the doomed liner. But you could hardly condemn the whole ship as shoddy, or question its magnificence. The script for the movie is rather like those rivets. It's weak and riddled with poor dialogue. But despite its failings it's hard not to become swept up in the sheer grandeur of "Titanic".
...
 And when you consider that it tops a bum-numbing three-hour running time, then you have a truly impressive feat of entertainment achieved by Cameron.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teachable_moments/deconstructing_titanic_6.cfm

The normal repeat viewing rate for a blockbuster theatrical film is about 5%. The repeat rate for Titanic was over 20%. People were not only telling their friends about the movie, they were returning to see it over and over again.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/titanic/

83 %

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/titanic?q=

74

[Colonol Dekker]

Those reviews won't change our opinions.
And vice versa.
 
 
So. . . . . . How about that 'The Crazies' any good?

[Nuclear1]

For a remake, it was good.

I very much enjoyed it.