Not much more I can add . . . overrated but good **spoilers**

Rating: Null/10 (24 August 2002)

Yes, another film joins my 6/10 club. My complaints weren't the romance itself; Winslett and even DiCaprio (who I loathe, BTW) give good performances. There are some scenes, however, that take away from the flick.
When the film came out (didn't see it in theaters), I was a "Titanic" buff. This film caused a lot of disinformatia in the gullible audiences who thought that in seeing a fictionalized romance, there were being present fact. (In the months after the movie, I spent minutes of my life explaining the inaccuracies to [not neccessarily unwilling] people who believed Jack and Rose were real, etc.) Most of the supporting actors are good (Jonathan Hyde is one of my favs), but it's not exceptional.
Problems - there are many unnecessary scenes - the obligatory sex scene was moronic and stupid. The scene where Jack and Rose meet at the stern of the boat - ick. I did like the (for the most part historically accurate) dialogue between the crew and real passengers (esp. Ben Gugenheim). There was historical inaccuracies, obviously; the number of watertight compartments punctured by the iceberg, the number of men Officer Murdoch actually shot (though this can be disputed) - but nothing that can't be overlooked.
What is bad, however, is the screenplay. Regardless of how talented the actors are (including Bill Paxton, Hyde, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher, and David Warner [!]), they can't save the exceptionally soggy screenplay. It was cliche, it was boring, it was . . . blech . . .
It's harder to put this into words than it would seem. "Titanic": overrated but enjoyable.
Six stars.