input: It's a hideous little production, apt to give one nightmares as well as headaches. It's an unsightly blend of live action and ugly stop-motion animation. It's weird, but it's not the kind of fun, weird trip anyone optimistic might expect. It's the cold, inhuman, unfriendly, sickening, even creepy kind of weird. There is absolutely no reason to watch this movie. After all, Disney did a fantastic job with the same source material. And Cosgrove-Hall did far more attractive things with stop-motion.

Interestingly, this is a French production. As such, it re-enforces the stereotype that the French have no concept of scary.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.

The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Although this film is somewhat sanitized (because it was made at a time when people just didn't talk about sex), it is an extremely helpful short film to show prepubescent girls so they know what to expect during menstruation. Not surprisingly, it was paid for by the Kotex company, though what may surprise many is that Disney made this film--as they made a lot of educational films during the 1940s-60s. However well made the film is, though, I think the film maker's missed a real opportunity. Instead of the nice female narrator's voice and the relatively bland visuals it would have been GREAT if they'd used Minnie Mouse and the rest of the Disney gang!! I know this would have given old Walt a heart attack, but wow that would have been a great film! By the way, although the notion of sex is barely hinted at in the film, it DOES adequately explain menstruation in general. However, it does lack some details (especially about intercourse) that I assume were included in the accompanying booklet.

Now if only I can figure out why I watched a cartoon about menstruation.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: There is a lot of obvious hype associated with this film. Let's just face it, though, the main reasons why anyone would watch it would be for Leo and Cate, who are not necessarily the best actors in this film. I'm not saying they're not good actors, I'm saying they stunk in this film. The special effects were decent (and I will say the film makers did a good job making the ship eye-pleasing), but IT even has several major flaws. For instance, right before the ship goes under, you can see an unfinished blue-screen image behind your main characters.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the story of the REAL Titanic, but I find this movie an insult to that story. Editing was atrocious--there's no reason for any film to be over 2 1/2 hours (with the exception of MAYBE a biographical movie), and the writing and screenplay was horribly stilted.

I will say that the music was perhaps better than I could have predicted (and not just the "My Heart Will Go On" song either). There is one scene that stands out to me when the ship is sinking and pounding bass music is heard. That could very well be the highlight of the film. As for the mood throughout, it was extremely dull. I was more relieved than sad when Jack died, which I know cannot be what the director intended.

In a nut shell, I find it horrible that they turned the beautiful story of the Titanic into an over-hyped chick flick.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative