I don't get the joke.

Rating: 3/10 (7 April 1999)

I went in to the film with low expectations. I thought the acting wouldn't be brilliant, nor would the script, but the special effects would make up for it - much like Godzilla.
But I thought, yes - I'll put 4 hours of my life into this effort. 4 hours that I will never get back, no matter what I do.
My summary: 1. Lame script and dialogue 2. Weak acting from all and sundry (except perhaps Billy Zane and definitely his bodyguard - who rocked in Twin Peaks) 3. Romantic moments, cliched and signalled from on far by the use of the theme 4. For the first 3 hours of the film, pretty weak special effects. The ship and the sky were both clearly computer generated for most of the film.
The sky looked incredibly fake: it was more star-studded than Mars Attacks.
Secondly, when people can't act (or rather, don't act: both leads gave superb performances in other movies, eg. DiCaprio in 'Gilbert Grape' and Winslet in 'Heavenly Creatures'), one would expect them to be pleasurable eye-candy. Here, DiCaprio really keeps up his end of the bargain. He's too good looking. Grrr. But Kate Winslet seems peculiarly miscast. Her english accent breaks through, and she is not particularly attractive. Subjective sexism aside, though, I cannot understand how the academy felt her performance was of Nominee standard.
Once the ship starts sinking, the special effects do improve some, but very little else does: the ridiculously cliched script continues unfazed, making the characters implausible. Anyone as evil as Zane's character would wear an eye-patch, and Leonardo DiCaprio would have been shot by someone.
A film, I feel, completely outclassed by all of it's conominees for Best Picture. LA Confidential and As Good As It Gets both shine out as excellent movies, time and time again. The academy needs to get a grip.
Also, what was the Gloria Stuart nomination about?