A stunning example of the idiocy of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.

Rating: 1/10 (7 August 1999)

When I saw "Titanic," I thought it was vaguely entertaining, and the costumes and special effects were beautiful. However, I didn't leave the theatre discussing it with my friends, and I didn't feel or think any differently than three and a half hours earlier. Then I heard it had been nominated for numerous Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and I was outraged.
Not surprisingly, this big-budget piece of recycled Hollywood trash won, even against three of its wonderful competitors, "L.A. Confidential," "As Good as it Gets," and "Good Will Hunting." The first has plenty of interesting plot twists and amazing performances, the second gives a fresh and cynically humorous look at romance, and the third helped ME realize some things about myself, at least. "Titanic" did nothing like that.
The screenplay was something that had been done dozens and dozens of times before, and as far back as the Elizabethan era, as the ludicrous, 'Romeo & Juliet'-esque romance will prove. The performances, even by such normally-wonderful actors as Kathy Bates, Billy Zane, and Kate Winslet were either dry, or over-done. I imagine that if one had to 'listen' to this movie rather than have the dialogue and music (which is pretty at parts, but just a repeat of many of Horner's other scores) accompany the pretty images, it would be completely unbearable.