In my opinion, a brilliant film, but I am so glad it didn't make it into the top 250.

Rating: 9/10 (11 October 1999)

The day James Cameron makes "the best film on earth" is the day I hold a gun at a copy of "Star Wars".
I think Cameron has made some pretty good films. None of them are on my favourites list, not even this one, but there was a definite style or quality that I just can't put my finger on. It;'s like my fascination with director Jan De Bont(Twister). He doesn't make the best films on Earth, but he could do if he opens up a little more, or if he stops trying to be cool. I believe this is also where Cameron faulters.
He said his goal with this film was "to show the world the Titanic's brief and glorious life as well as the tragic irony". In my opinion, his goal was to convince people that what he had created was "the best movie ever made" and he succeeded. I thought this was a "good" film but not "the best" film. People have just become zombies when they were led to believe this.
I will say this loud and clear: I do not like Leo. I also believe that he, like Cameron, is a fad that people have fallen for and not seen through. No wonder they worked together on this film. Leo too could be a great actor, if he would just let go of his egotistical nature and "cool boy" attitude.
Yes, all I'm really complaining about in this film are: the director, and the lead actor. The rest, I thought, was phenomenal. The visual effects(I couldn't compare them to anything else that year), the impressive acting, the sets, the costumes, the inspired plot(telling an untold and deliberately fictitious story about the Titanic and what could have happened had it not been for the iceberg), and many more technical and psychological aspects. Cameron obviously wanted several life issues featured in this film(i.e., class and social standing, hope, placing too much confidence in one thing and recieving nothing from it). This I believe he achieved. I thought his cover-up goal of telling the story of what happened before the Titanic sank was achieved, but his other goal, creating the best film ever, was not.
This never should have won best picture at the Oscars. It never should have won even half of the awards at the Academy Awards ceremony. I believe it only won those awards because there was nothing better that year(Good Will Hunting, As Good As It Gets, L.A. Confidential, The Full Monty, all were not worthy of the Best Picture role, in my opinion). I just thank the internet movie database for thinking the same, as I discovered on the Top 250 list, when, much to my relief, this film wasn't listed.
*********9
(You know what should have won? "Men In Black")