big, expensive and banal

Rating: 1/10 (18 June 2004)

I saw 'Titanic' twice as it was released in 1997. My first impression was "wow", it felt really stunning and visually impressive, big and simply the "best". However the impression was lost soon. One thing I realized - 'good movie' is not equal to 'expensive movie'. After this I saw hundreds of films and I started to evaluate them from a different point of view and 'Titanic' sank to the ocean of Hollywood production, not leaving a footstep after it.
This was a very expensive film, but as I now remember the whole story, the way it was shown, the grandiose hype of it... it feels completely banal, plain and... cheap. Cheap not in terms of money spent on it but in terms of plot, acting and general style of the movie. Yes I have to pay my respect to the director for such a grandiose work and all those Oscars he received (even though they're not that valuable anywhere but in Hollywood), but to my opinion this film is an expensive and unsuccessful attempt to make a good film. Yes, the views were nice and realistic, but that's all. There's nothing more I could rate positively in this film except the technical special effects. How many more criterion's despite special effects are there while rating a movie?
I congratulate the makers of 'Titanic', they did a good business and after spending $ hundreds of millions they profited even more but that doesn't make 'Titanic' a good film. It's just another 'stunning' piece of Hollyywood production in the bad meaning of it. Sorry if I sound too harsh but I really mean it. For nice effects - 4/10