At least, "Titanic" will never sink ... into oblivion ...

Rating: 9/10 (23 October 2011)

"Titanic" was the cinematic phenomenon of the 90's and the worldwide highest grossing film of all time before being dethroned by "Avatar", from James Cameron (the only director who could ever beat James Cameron in the box-office). Now, "Titanic" has become the quintessential cool-to-hate film, hence one of the most controversial Best Picture winners, which is surprising because if anything, the movie screams 'Best Picture'.
There's something quite unique in the way the huge success of "Titanic" became a defining key of detestation, challenging any attempt for a rational appreciation. Well, we're in 2011 now : the hype has passed, CGI became a tiresome trend providing a series of unoriginal special-effects-driven films, Kate won an Oscar and Scorsese injected some cinematic botox on Leo's ex-pretty-boy face. In these circumstances, I believe we have enough distance to judge "Titanic" again, regardless of all the peripheral elements that contributed to its success, back then, in 1997
When "Titanic" was released, I was the kind of teenager who avoided any mainstream phenomenon, needless to say that I categorically refused to be brainwashed by the "Titanic" wave. The film was the absolute must-see and the girls were all drooling over Di Caprio, and you couldn't listen to the radio or watch TV musical programs without having the annoying flute of Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On". I was far from imagining that this music would define my personal nostalgia of the late 90's. Then the movie grabbed 11 Oscars, it was the most watched and re-watched film ever and I even had to make an essay about "Titanic" at school, where I eagerly expressed that the 'Iceberg story left me cold'
But suddenly something strange happened. The bubble of popularity popped, some little fellows displayed a childish pride of having disliked the film. And I can't count how many girls were so pleased to say that Leo was too girlish, when one year before, he had an 'angel face'. Then I reversed my position, and from the enthusiasm of having avoided the film, I wanted to understand why people were being so hypocritical with their own appreciation, and feel guilty as if they admired a naked Emperor, with all flash and no substance. This is how "Titanic" gradually became the 'cool-to-hate' film, because it's always cool to hate popular stuff, but it's so uncool to try to be cool so this was my personal encouragement to give it a chance in 1999, and to know where I stood for. I came, I saw and I liked it.
I'm not even afraid to admit that I loved it, it had everything I was expecting, it was spectacular, thrilling, romantic, and didn't rely too much on special effects except for the terrific sinking part. Yes, the film flirts with cinematic clichés sometimes, the whole 'follow your heart' message is almost Disney-like, but this is the point of the film, it's the romance with the Titanic as a setting, not the Titanic's story featuring a romance. When we think of "Titanic", we have less the image of the ship breaking in half in our minds, than Kate and Leo flying over the sunset, this is the defining image of the film and one of the most iconic of American Cinema. And this is the strength of the film.
A few recent movies have managed to achieve a classic status so quickly, and so impacting the way "Titanic" did and this is certainly due to the constant symbiosis between the story and the special effects that provided the 'classic' vibe, and whether it was intentional or not, it sure succeeded. "Titanic" has the thrills, the romance, and an inspirational message, simple enough to appeal to all the sensitive hearts all over the world. And seriously, let's not get too cynical about the marketing campaign, and deny the artistic value of some of the most financially successful films. There's a time for Independent films and another one for spectacular blockbusters  as long as there is a good story, justifying the use of special effects, and the exhilarating sinking sequence.
"Titanic" had the intelligence to have a sort of classic story that could appeal on a universal level. A love story undermined by a tragedy, it's sad and inspiring, a love story between a rich aristocratic woman and a third-class youthful and optimistic boy, it's universal, the whole tragedy of the "Titanic" has been touched by a cinematic grace that made it one of the greatest American classics, and I mean 'great' in the classic meaning of the world. And I better take an innocent story, even naive, rather than a spectacular but dull one, like "Independence Day" one year before or a thought-provoking but manipulative one, like "Saving Private Ryan" the year after.
So, I loved "Titanic", I felt for the characters, the part where one mother reads a story for her children while the ship sinks will haunt me forever, the music beautifully conveys the innate sadness of a rather passionate romance. The film revives the greatest tradition of the disaster genre with a perfectionism that finally paid-off, and I applaud James Cameron for that. And now, I wonder what the haters hate in the film, what makes "Lord of the Rings" so deeper than "Titanic", love story, good vs. evil? Don't they miss the young Leo who could smile and shout even the cringe-worthy "king of the world" line? Regarding the actual cinematic trends, "Titanic" is a classic among the classics and the deserving Best Picture of 1997.
So, I don't find any particular reason to hate this film, and if I ever found one, let's say  uh, the part with the necklace which I didn't really care for, well, for one reason to dislike the film, I can find ten to love it. Disliking "Titanic" just because it was once so popular is simply a titanic mistake