Does it still hold up?

Rating: Null/10 (9 September 2003)

Six years ago, Titanic-mania swept across the US. It won a boatload of awards and made serious bank, which was more impressive due to rumors of massive budget overruns and long delays in filming.
For the record. I'm not a fan. Put this up against LA Confidential and it's very obvious what the better movie is.
But I did find it interesting to sit down and watch it for the first time since its initial release and see whether or not it held up.
I'll deal with the romance. It works. Yes, it's hokey, but it holds up well enough to sustain people till it's time to sink the damn ship. ANd from a story stucture standpoint, it's necessary to have some people to identify with. Where it loses all credibility is the moment Billy Zane starts shooting Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett while the boat was starting to go down. But, by that time, we're in Posiden Adventure mode and more concerned about the special effects.
My big beef with Titanic is on the acting level. Horrendous miscasting all around, save for Leo and Kate. Fran Fisher couldn't act her way out of a paper bag. Billy Zane phones in his performance. Even Leo and Kate have their bad moments.
Um, the film could lose about thirty minutes and play even better than it does now.
Final Verdict? Titanic is merely average. Not horrible, but not a masterpiece, either.