Hard to be impartial about it.

Rating: 6/10 (20 June 1999)

I figured that everyone who voted would give it either a 10 or a zero, so I knew that my vote of six would be next to useless. No, it's not worth a ten, but not so bad as to give it a zero. Anyway, after watching it (on cable, not the big screen), I had to think about my feelings about it before commenting. The obvious things have all been said: the bad script, etc. But what I was bothered by was the cinematography. The use of filters and such was too prevalent. I realize this was to diffuse the light and give everything a soft, antique-y look, but it bothered me nonetheless.
I watch movies and ask myself, "What does this scene add to the overall movie?" In many cases with this film, the answer was "Nothing at all." I understand the importance of establishing shots, but I don't see the need for them to be that long. I got up once to go to the bathroom, and when I returned, it was still the long, sweeping, panoramic establishing shot! Ok, by this time I had figured out it was a big ship.
I also didn't think the whole "outside" story set in the present was necessary, but I guess James Cameron wanted something to differentiate this story from all the other 'true love versus class struggle' stories.
I do often get emotional at sad movies (hard for a guy to admit), but I didn't cry for this one, for whatever reason. It seemed too fake, I guess.