worst film in history

Rating: 1/10 (23 June 2001)

the most overblown, pathetically schmaltzy waste of money to come out of hollywood. kate winslet was tolerable but she has done better so many times. billy zane was unconvincing as the baddie (it takes more than a raised eyebrow to convey malice, bill). speaking of bills, bill paxton....i just can't think of any suitable adjectives for his role. but all the ones i can't think of are not compliments, ok? kathy bates is likeable but overacted as molly brown and not as much fun as debbie reynold's 1964 version. de caprio should have been de-capitated. i loved him in basketball diaries and baz luhrmann's romeo+juliet, but i could not take him seriously as an impoverished artist and it was all i could do not to stand up and scream "push that damned fringe out of your eyes!"
too much money, an egomaniac directing and a story-by-numbers (poor boy meets rich girl about to marry rich thug followed by disaster that tests everyone's humanity - followed by audience throwing up) shows just how awful hollywood can be when it tries. i wanted them all to drown. sorry if i sound like sourpuss but i hated this film like i have never hated another.
the only thing worse was james cameron getting an oscar for this drivel, having the audacity to call for a minutes silence for those who drowned (after he made millions out of them) and then hooting "king of the world!"