A good movie a little off from NOVA spilling movie-making secrets

Rating: Null/10 (17 November 2000)

Can I be honest with you?
I didn't cry at all (the only one among my friends and everyone I know who've seen it). I didn't bawl my eyes out or even pound the arm rests in frustration until it tied Ben Hur in its number of Oscars. Maybe it's because the first time I saw it was on a computer.
Overall, it was a good movie, even though the message is corny. For quite awhile, "love" at sweet sixteen has been classified as "infatuation", though Kate Winslet really seemed to "love". She didn't look sixteen either. The "love" shown was part gratefulness and part idealism (ie: living happily ever after with Jack) on her side and affection and anguish on his. Still, there's a lot of "love" ing, isn't there?
I'm ruining the movie message, aren't I?
Kathy Bates gave (I think) a great performance as the unsinkable Molly Brown, and Victor Garber was an equally good Mr. Andrews. The the extras and computer graphics of people drowning and the ghostly floating figures were great.
It's a good movie, if you don't spend all of the three hours dissecting the plot and vivisecting it, or giving everyone a character analysis with Freudian c**p all over. Then again, that applies to most epics, if this qualifies as one.