What's always bugged me about Titanic is the way it takes this populist blue collar anti-wealth stance but spends most of its time fawning over the wealthy characters and opulence of the ship. DiCaprio is quick to abandon his poor Italian friends and the life of the lower classes is relegated to one festive dance scene. The true lack of interest in any of the poor characters (save Jack, who always comes off as better than them) makes the film seem disingenuous, and really shows us Cameron's view of the world. He's happy to pander to the poor but isn't really that interested in them as people.

I'm not a fan of 3D either and I have no interest in seeing this magnificent film in that format. In fact, I didn't even see it in the theater! Didn't see Back to the Future or Star Wars in the theater either. Anyway, here's something to think about that nobody seems to mention. Don't you think that this film resembles Citizen Kane in many ways? Here are some parallels:
1. You have a wrap-around story in the present day that talks about the past events.
2. A treasure is being sought by an investigator, but the investigator never finds it.
3. We see where the treasure is after the investigator gives up.
4. The treasure is then destroyed.

Okay, if you all reading this want to get technical, in Citizen Kane it was "Rosebud" and in Titanic it was the pendant Rose got from Cal. Also, in Kane it was a reporter and Titanic and oceanographer. I just simplified it to make it easier and save time. Is that a crime?

Also, Roger, on Letterman in 1998, you and Gene thought Gloria Stuart would win for Titanic and you went into this whole story about her being so old they'd be giving it to her for a career thing. How come you never commented on the fact that you were wrong? In fact, I didn't expect her to win either and I was right. Were you thinking it would be like Lauren Bacall the year before, where she didn't win as well although you thought she would? Interestingly enough, next year James Coburn wins Supporting Actor and I thought that was a career Oscar myself but no word from you (well, Gene had died). And no word on Helen Hunt winning over Judi Dench in Titanic's year, which I think led to her getting her Oscar the next year for Shakespeare in Love to make up for it.
Sorry, just some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head for years.

You the man, Roger. And let us know how the TV show thing is going. Can't wait to see it back.

I love "Titanic" and hate how its reputation has diminished somewhat since its original release.

"Titanic” is proof that there is such a thing as good melodrama and that sentimentality can be deeply affecting when done well. Here is a film filled with tremendous special effects that remains grounded because we believe in its central love story.

Here's my in-depth article about it.

http://bobtaylorrocks.blogspot.com/2011/03/titanic.html

Roger says: "If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness."

I noticed this over the weekend when I went to see "The Phantom Menace". I kept lifting my glasses during the non-action scenes and noticed that much of the time there was no 3D effect at all. Or, at times, someone would be talking in the foreground and the background objects were in 3D. Yet, when I put my glasses back on, I noticed no difference in the depth of field. "The Phantom Menace" is a bright, colorful film and the 3D takes away from that.

As for what the 3D conversion, I noticed only one moment in "The Phantom Menace" that really did pop out. It took place during the pod race scene when Anakin reached out his hand toward the screen to repair a broken cable on the speeder. That one shot out of thousands that went unattended.

I plan to see Titanic, not for the 3D, but just as an excuse to see the film in a theater again. I have attempted to watch the film on television and, like Lawrence of Arabia, you can't really get the effect of being taken into the film even on a large flat screen. It just doesn't work.

The pedant in me needs to point out a small, needed, correction: The word should be "flout" not "flaunt."

Ebert: The two words are often confused.

(*blush*)

Because I don't have any problems with the perfectly good word "flaw," let me add one more:

In the famous final scene, in which Jack freezes to death and sinks to Davy Jones's Locker, why on Earth doesn't the girl give him a break and take turns with him in the water? That way, they might both survive the ordeal. To me, this scene renders the entire story, in which old Rose laments her lost lover, absurd.

(typo corrected) And this is why they killed film (and because Saudi Arabia causing high gas prices...but that's another issue that is the biggest one in the world..which will probably kill the economy again as it did in 2008).

It only cost $10 million to convert 2D to 3D (for people like Cameron willing to spend more, probably not more than $15 million).

So, they are doing it so they can release movies (well, re-release) for a $10 million dollar budget: the smallest budget in the history of the movie business when adjusted for inflation.

I love the movie and find it to be a superbly engineered piece of work despite its flaws. David Warner previously starred in the 1979 TV movie S.O.S TITANIC, and I wonder if Cameron was piqued to remember Warner after watching it. Bernard Hill, the doomed captain, also had a bad time with a sinking boat in Peter Greenaway's aptly titled DROWNING BY NUMBERS. When the Blu-Ray editions come out later this year, I'll be grabbing the 2D version.

Now that Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson has persuaded Cameron to fix the astronomy, my only tiny quibble is with the final scenes in which people in the water have frozen to death-- literally died of the cold, so that the water is thickly strewn with frosty corpses bobbing in their life jackets. What actually happens at those temperatures (and what actually happened) is that people get hypothermic, pass out, and drown. Jack was able to keep his head above water; he should have been able to survive for several hours at least.

And if you ever find yourself in a similar situation, holding on to something that floats, but unable to pull yourself out of the water, use the time you have to secure yourself somehow-- tie your wrist to an oarlock, freeze your sleeves to the ice, whatever. That will give your rescuers the longest possible time to reach you. (File this under "ways to survive movie predicaments", between "biplane attack: run at right angles" and "giant octopus: squeeze its head".)

I liked this tweet from @drunkoffquotes : "If u watch Titanic backwards it is a heart warming tale of a ship which jumps out of water & saves lots of drowning people."

What I'm looking forward to seeing in 3D is the stern smashing into the water after the ship broke in half -- in fact, I'm planning on driving 3 hours to see it in IMAX. Is it as impressive as I imagine?

OK, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but I have a sort of affliction that many people obsessed with the Titanic suffer from, and which renders me incapable of resisting the impulse to correct factual errors. I know it's pedantic; I really can't help it. I will use as my excuse how much this film (almost completely justifiably) prided itself on technical accuracy:

1. A theory of the day was that to speed through iceberg-infested waters was somehow safe (to get out of it). Captain Smith had a long and distinguished career behind him. He wasn't reckless and there was no evidence adduced that would allow one to conclude that he was under pressure to set a record. Indeed, it was Cunard that competed on speed. The White Star Line competed on luxury.

2. There was no evidence that steerage passengers were held below, and certainly not at gunpoint. The response to steerage was simply all over the map, but they were largely simply left to fend for themselves. This was an impossible task in a large and unfamiliar ship in the time available and is reflected in the distribution of fatalities (e.g., more first class men were saved than third class children). That said, the incident with the locked door and the steward refusing to open it did happen.

Thank you for indulging me. I feel better now.

3D films look darker because you view them through dark glasses. I have been told that theaters are "supposed" to use brighter bulbs to show 3D films, but they usually don't. Thus the 20% loss in brightness.

I thought Hugo looked fantastic and the 3D was amazing, but it was made for 3D. I don't like 2D films being manipulated into 3D and I won't spend my money on seeing them.

Never got to see it in theaters. Will be glad to go see it, even in 3D, on a huge screen with amazing audio.

You folks keep crying about 3D but it seems to be sticking around, like diet soda. I don't like diet soda, but I stopped crying about it 20 years ago. Get over your purists selves, get the bluray and quit the complaining about 3D.

3D or no 3D, who cares?

Scorsese, Lucas, Spielberg and Cameron don't seem to mind it.

Yep, TITANIC is certainly a masterpiece, one of the best big-audience movies of my lifetime. And yet because it was indeed so popular, prepare for 1,500 comments below mine calling it "awful" and "the worst movie ever made" and telling you that you must be crazy and you really should consider changing your review. Oh, and change your reviews on those Star Wars movies, too.

Groupthink is the scourge of the culture, when it comes to art. It's so much easier for humans to disingenuously, dimly agree with the crowd than it is for them to think for themselves. I really don't know why. All I can tell you is that my generation (and the one after me) seem to get their most kicks from getting together in big groups and hating things.

Bonus Flaw:
This film won the Best Picture Oscar over a film far worthier and incredibly excellent, L.A. Confidential.

Well said, Jupiter.

>>> If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness.

I noticed this with Star Wars Episode 1 - The Phantom Menance in 3D, too. Some scenes were in 2D and I removed my glasses and enjoyed the clear, bright image, or the warm glow of the Tatooine sun. The darkening of the screen image is perhaps the worst drawback of 3D films (besides the pointlessness of it--how many dimensions do we need? 3D added nothing to The Phantom Menace). One exception I can think of is Despicable Me 3D, but that animated film was brightly lit (if an animated film can be "lit") to begin with--perhaps intentionally, to offset the dimming effect.

With some trepidation I plan to see the 3D version of Titanic because I enjoyed that film and would like to see it again on the big screen. However, I will use my Cineplex "Scene" points (as I did with The Phantom Menance) so I don't have to pay extra (it's the same 1,000 points for 2D or 3D).

I am one of the few people on Earth, seemingly, who has not yet seen Titanic. So the question is: do I take advantage to see it on the big screen (albeit in 3-D), or do I watch in 2-D on the small screen? Certainly I should go with the first option, no?

Ebert: Yes. Sigh.

@Charlie--IMO, your best bet is to avoid it and find a theater showing "A Separation". I respect Roger a lot, but I cannot agree with him on this film. It is poorly told, Cameron has immense gaps in his film vocabulary, and the only character who one can remotely get emotionally invested in is Molly Brown, and I daresay that she is only in the film because you *cannot* make a movie about the Titanic without including her.

For those of you (like me) who hate the 2D to 3D conversion process and the horrible results it yields-- and who, in general, don't feel 3D adds all that much even when made for the film and done correctly (Hugo, Tin Tin)-- it is good to know that at the end of the trailer for the Titanic re-issue it states that it will also be released in 2D on selected screens. Which means you won't have to wait for the blu-ray relaease later this year to see an impressive 2D presentation and you'll still be able to see it on the big screen (sans 3D conversion). Only catch is that it won't be showing up in the IMAX format in 2D. Still, better to see this awesome, commercial blockbuster in its' original brightness and proper size and scope than to see a dimmed Viewmaster take on it. I have to say that knowing Cameron supervised every bit of this conversion and that it is, no doubt, the best conversion to date-- and Ebert tells us it STILL doesn't add much to the film experience AND that the picture is noticably dimmer-- it all goes to show this for the depressing cash grab it is. It would have been better to simply re-release the film to the big screen in its original format. The home video version has been on moritorium for a few years now and there still would have been demand for it even in 2D only.

Really? I hated this film in 2D. I can't imagine one additional D of horrible.

I never understood the appeal of Titanic. I found all of the characters to be caricatures. Both the "poor" and the "rich" were completely stereotyped. I didn't find one single character that was unique or well written. In fact, I would've preferred to see some of the situations reversed, with maybe the "rich" not portrayed as total assholes and the "poor" not shown as heroes and angels. Not one of the poor poeple had a gun or knife? ALL of the poor people were friendly, could dance well, and everyone got along? This is not real life. It was not the worst movie ever made, but because of all the hype it became really annoying. Another problem was the music - that damn Celine Dion song was great the first twenty times they played it in the movie, but after that I was over it. To this day, whenever I hear that song I run out of the room.
To answer all of the 3D questions, here's the answer: 3D SUCKS. I cannot stand how dark it makes the film look. I also cannot stand the additional $5 we are charged to see it. For movies that are re-released, and not shot in 3D to begin with, the customer should be charged regular price, not the 3D price. What a rip-off. I do not go to 3D movies. I will not see Star Wars, but it has nothing to do with it being in 3D. That movie completely sucked. All the shots in the trailer are from the last 40 minutes of the film. Even the editors knew better than to remind the audience of the first 90 minutes.

I'm aware you are bound to get countless comments with the same correction (just like I did with my "Kill Bill" Barbara vs. Beatrice goof) but I'm pretty sure the rich guy who asks for a brandy while the ship is sinking is not Astor, but Gugenheim instead.
I consider myself knowledgeable on the subject of Titanic but, had somebody mentioned this morning that “whatever Spicer is being paid is not enough”, I doubt I would have know what the heck they were talking about.
I'm a big admirer of Cameron's work. I have my doubts he is the nicest person to hang around, but his drive and intellect seem off-the charts. That said, I can’t understand why he never hires a real screen-writer to polish his dialogue which is always acceptable but never on the level of the rest of his productions (think: “I’ll just wait here”).

I continue to believe I am the only person on this planet who doesn't like this movie.

I recently saw the Phantom Menace 3D. I had heard the retrofit was excellent and hoped for the best. No such luck. It was murky, blurry. Virtually the only thing I remember about the movie from the 1999 run was its vivid, colorful special effects. Why on Earth would you do anything to compromise that?

I have had reservations about the film's greatness for the past fifteen years. Three "flaws" I can't get over: (1) The officer who goes ballistic and shoots his firearm was given the name of the real-life officer, Lightoller, who was one of the actual heroes of that fateful night. I truly hope that Lightoller's descendants sued Mr. James Cameron for defamation of character. (2) One of the cardinal sins of screenwriting was committed: having intelligent characters do stupid things simply to advance the plot. The ship is sinking, yet Kate and Leo run DOWNSTAIRS to get away from her fiance simply to allow for the suspenseful scenes that follow. (3) Another example of that sin: Kate and Leo apparently never heard of the concept of ballast and do not position their bodies on opposite sides of the floating door to achieve balance so that Leo can die as scripted.

Oh, I see what they're doing.

They're catching people who go to the movie theater still undecided about what they want to see, especially since they don't want to suffer through another comic book movie. So, these people pick Titanic because at least they know it's a very good movie..but they get stuck paying extra for the horrendous 3-D.

Nice move Hollywood. Remember you're going for the easy buck now - but people have long, long memories when they've being robbed.

I confess, I've never seen Titanic (1997). But that's because I saw "A Night to Remember" (1958) on television when I was about 8 years old and I'm still shaking off the ghoulish distastefulness of it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly squeamish - I love a good English murder. Ask Roger; smile.

However that's not the same thing as watching hundreds of innocent people die, including children.

What would the dead think of Cameron's Titanic? Of a film entertaining people a century later, with the thrill of watching their melodramatic deaths from the safety of their warm and comfortable seats? If you'd died that night along with your kids and sunk to the bottom of the sea, imagine looking back up to the surface and through time to find Cameron's face peering down at you - rubbing his hands together with glee - and for regarding HOW you'd die, oh so terribly interesting and exciting.

Fiction is one thing. Historical fact another. At least for me.

I enjoyed Gandhi and Lawrence of Arabia (movies about real people and historical events) and where deaths do occur, but the tone is totally different and you don't feel like a ghoulish voyeur.

True; I say this despite never having seen Titanic (1997) but then, you don't have to. You just have to look at over 500 screen-caps, read Roger's review and watch 3 trailers and listen to the theme song by Celine Dion; there you go.

My heart does not go on, Celine. It stops dead in the water and backs away swiftly. It runs in the opposite direction towards far, far better films.

Just a side note story. I was recently in Denver, where I toured the home of the Unsinkable Molly Brown, which is located just around the corner from the Colorado State Capitol.

The tour guide said that occasionally, visitors to the house still ask her if Molly Brown and Rose Dawson kept in touch after the Titanic disaster. They don't realize Rose was a fictional character. It says something about the power of Cameron's movie.

Molly Brown's Denver mansion is very interesting. You can tell she was a frequent world traveler by the tchotckes she brought back. The front porch has stone statues, including Chinese lions with long tongues, and bare-breasted sphinxes with Egyptian women's faces. The living room has a giant, eight-armed Hindu statue and a polar bear skin rug on the floor.

(By the way, nobody called her "Molly Brown" during her life. She was called "Maggie Brown" or "Mrs. Brown." Composer Meredith Willson chose "Molly Brown" for the Broadway musical, "The Unsinkable Molly Brown," because "Molly" sounded better than "Maggie.")

Apart from cinematic considerations (I saw it maybe three times at that time when I had seen but around fifty movies in my life, now like a thousand) the latter part of the film is interesting as a record of a situation of people's reactions in the face of death, the litmus test of human character, which sifts chaff and grain.

See, for me, it's more about seeing it in a theater. I was disappointed at how incredibly dim Star Wars Episode I looked in 3D, but it gave me the thrill of getting to experience one of my favorite childhood films on the big screen again (I'm a youngster). I never had the pleasure of seeing Titanic on the big screen at all, and...I don't know, there's something really special about seeing a movie like this in a nice, big theater with a group of movie-loving friends. I hate the dimness of 3D. But I love the idea of getting to see one of the better films of my generation on the big screen.

Technical question. Why is it necessary that 3D images be dark? I don't understand this. Why not just brighten the image so the 3D image won't be so dark? What am I missing here?

I'm not sure I'd say that the faith in technology is misplaced. It's the nature of technology to improve from its failings. How many ships have been sunk by icebergs since Titanic? Hint: it's a round number.

Roger,

This is why you get paid the big bucks and I don't. There's no way I could sit through Titanic twice in the same life.

I do want to see Titanic 3D, just because I do feel the experience of 3D can add a different dynamic or feel. I know 2D is the filming of 3D object/people and maybe the 3D conversion is mimicking life. It's almost like colorization in that regard.

Having said that, I figure that the original will always be the original and it will always be great. 3D is simply a different way to experience the film. I saw Star Wars: Episode I in 3D recently, and I must say, I actually found myself very much admiring the look of the film even more than I did before. It was truly a visual experience.

For better or worse, 3D has made a huge comeback these days. I certainly think of it as "optional" but it's kind of a fun option when applied to the right film.

As with a lot of 3D conversions, they are doing a very limited 2D release as well. Looking at local times for Beauty and the Beast, they relegated them to times that I would never show up for like 9 AM and 11 PM. So you may have to wake up early and/or drive a distance, but there's still a chance to see Titanic the way it should be seen!

"This... brings into bold relief human frailty when faced with the final hurdle of death, a frailty which is part of our (destiny). Reading the article, I realized afresh how wonderful it is to be able to live aware of the philosophy of eternal life.... Learning, genius, power, wealth, reputation, science, technology --- all become nothing when one is confronted by death. Faced with his end, man finds himself hopelessly overpowered, and there is nothing able to salve his conscience. That article and numerous other similar stories make us realize all the more clearly the significance of the phrase, "My sole wish has therefore been to solve this eternal mystery. All else has been secondary." Buddhism holds the answers to the questions man has struggled with since his beginning, the questions of death and the last moment of life. It is the philosophy of how to live, and every one of us, being human and existing as "beings-unto-death," should study it with equal zeal."..Daisaku Ikeda

iNDEED,THE CHARACTERS ARE CARDBOARD AND PLENTY OF THE DIALOGUE IS AS DUMB AS THEY COME.THE REAL ISSUE, AGAIN IS 3D.HONESTLY,WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK ABOUT IT?DO YOU THINK IT WILL LAST ANY MORE THAN,SAY A COUPLE YEARS?WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT 3DS FUTURE?

I do not particularly care for 3D, and find it very frustrating that the screening times for 3D and 2D of the same movie are not the same, as well as when something is offered in digital and 35mm at different times, so depending on when you get off work or finish eating supper, you don't have a choice of which version you get to see.

From the comments trail I think I must still be the only viewer who noticed then or now that the sequence of Rose going into the depths of the ship to rescue Jack was essentially the same sequence as Ripley going into the depths of the mine to save Newt in "Aliens". The "Aliens" sequence was necessary and exciting; the same thing in "Titanic" was bathetic and ridiculous.

As well, the entire film is a graft of the Ballard expedition onto the story of the sinking, with a heavy coating of schmaltz. The various Ballard documentaries were more compelling and factual. The sinking itself was covered with a great deal more subtlety by the 1957 "A Night To Remember"--thanks in equal part to the adaptation by Eric Ambler and the willingness of the cast and crew to allow the events to sell themselves.

Critics who mocked "Pearl Harbor" for its lack of invention and cynical, banal by-the-numbers simulation of "Titanic" failed to see that it was as much homage as imitation. Since they continue in that vein--failing to call out Cameron for mashing together "The New World" and "Dances With Wolves" (or was it "A Man Called Horse"?) to make "Avatar"--I can look forward to seeing what's going to fed into Cameron's blender next.

My biggest problem with Titanic is the way the necklace, the narrative device propelling the story, sort of drops out of the film in the middle. The original ending works a little better for me because it's more about the necklace as it relates to Bill Paxton's character. I feel like this thread of "where's the jewel" is never resolved for him in the final cut.

Much as I like to rag on Titanic, it's in the grand tradition of Hollywood disaster films of the 1930s and '40s. Compare it to something like "San Francisco" with Clark Gable, or "In Old Chicago" and the "flaws" come off more as homages to a lost style of movie. This doesn't make it any better or worse a movie, but it gives a sort of context.

Mr. Ebert, this reads a lot like one of your Great Movies essays. Is this perhaps going to be added to your collection?

And for the record, I agree that this movie is really terrific, old fashioned Hollywood epic filmmaking that is rarely seen anymore. As you mention here, the film definitely has flaws and some lines are real corny (especially Leo's), but I remember seeing this movie in the theater when I was 7 years old and it left a great impression on me.

Isn't retrofitting 3D onto 2D films the same as colorizing black and white movies?

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER also has the captain saying to Andrews "This ship can't sink!" Andrews' response in that film is far more elegant than in Cameron's film: Staring at the ship plans, he simply says, "She can't float."

I was about eleven or twelve years old when I first saw Titanic. Like most males under the age of 18 who saw the film, I absolutely loathed it, and loathed how much my female classmates loved it.

My opinion towards it has mellowed somewhat since then. Its flaws are obvious, and many of them have already been enumerated both by Roger and the above commenters. I will add, however, that I still don't understand what narrative purpose the framing device serves apart from giving Cameron an excuse to show footage of the wreck - we don't really learn anything about Rose that we wouldn't already know.

Still, I've learned to appreciate the film for what it basically is - a well-produced 90s update of the old Irwin Allen disaster movies, with a climax engineered by a director who has mastered the art of crafting spectacular setpieces.

How come more people aren't realizing that these re-releases also include 2D screenings? If you don't like 3D then see it in 2D. I also think that a lot of people secretly like 3D since there's so many complaints, yet they still go back for more.

Perhaps another reason "Titanic" is in vogue now is resurging interest in opulent, class-conscious "soap operas". Actually, I believe that any movie with epic scope and themes is essentially a "soap opera" because the emotions must essentially be writ bold and large. There is nothing wrong with "soap operas" if they tell a great story effectively and compellingly. Like "Gone with the Wind", Cameron's "Titanic" does just that.

On another subject, I discovered that "Titantic" had an unexpected influence upon another classic movie. Below appears an excerpt from my Amazon.com review:

"The more I ponder Peter Jackson's re-interpretation of the classic 1933 movie "King Kong", the more convinced I become that he was at least subconsciously paralleling James Cameron's blockbuster "Titanic". Like Cameron, Jackson wanted to transcend the basic, naturalistic action and horror aspects of the tale and meticulously explore a relationship that will outlive death and fate. Consider the climax; the airplanes finally succeed in knocking Kong off his Empire State Building pedestal and almost over the edge. He is still clinging by his fingers. He exchanges one last lingering, emotional look with Ann Darrow, then finally lets go. He slowly plummets to the ground. It reminded me of Jack clinging to the driftwood in "Titanic", exchanging one last sorrowful look with Rose before letting go and plunging to the bottom of the Atlantic. Sorta gets you right here."

...Now for some random (and fanciful) observations:

1. If Jackson really wanted to do a homage of "Titanic", he should have begun his picture in the present day. For example, he could have had a road crew discover a mysterious, giant skeleton while digging up a street. Archeologists and scientists are baffled, until an aged Ann Darrow arrives and identifies the skeleton as Kong. Then, with tears in her eyes, she begins her sad tale."

Dave Van Dyke you are not alone. I can't stand this movie and I avoid it like the plague. Yet when my son, who loves the movie because he likes the character Jack, watches it the only part I can watch is the end and that's only for the decent FX of the boat breaking in half and sinking. Could be because at the time it was released everybody raved about it and I find when everybody is raving about a movie I'm usually very disappointed by it.

I watched the 3D version of The Phantom Menace, and while I enjoyed seeing a Star Wars movie on the big screen again, I was disappointed in the picture quality. The image was blurry and the colors were ruined by the 3D glasses. I was constantly lowering the glasses to see how bright the colors really were without them. Sadly, I thought there were only a handful of shots in the film that warranted a conversion to 3D. As the film was not originally made to be 3D, when those shots did happen they were far too short. The Phantom Menace has flaws but its greatest strength is its visuals. Overall those visuals were not enhanced by the 3D, but merely altered. I have the film on Blu-Ray and I went home afterward and compared the image I had just seen to the HD version. The HD version has a far superior image quality. On the way out of the theater I passed the stand up for Titanic in 3D and thought that this is really getting out of hand. What's next, Taxi Driver in 3D?

I've always felt Rose's story would have been more interesting if Billy Zane's character hadn't been so completely unsympathetic.

Some random thoughts on "Titanic"

(1) Every weekend, the local multiplex opens two movies aimed specifically at teenage boys. The heroes have guns and crash cars. Boo-yah! Every movie doesn't have to be aimed at teenage boys. But teenage boys will mock and slandeer any movie that isn't.

(2) Music is a huge part of the in-theater experience, and you can't compare a 1958 movie with the score of "Titanic." In the past, Cameron felt that the compower had let him down, but the studio wanted him to write the score for "Titanic." When Cameron heared the music, he was happy. The music added another dimension to his story.

(3) For the story to work, you need to believe that Jack, a passenger in steerage, and Rose, engaged and traveling with her mother as well as her fiance, could meet and fall in love. Cameron did that. You have to believe that Rose would decide that Jack, a boy her own age, was the Love of Her Life.

(4) The reason Titanic deserves your attention is... since it was released, no one has done it better. No studio, no director, no writer has made a movie that is better, or even as good. Not even Avatar.

The audience KNOWS the ship is going to sink... Everything else in the movie builds the romance between Rose and Jack, because we all know what's coming.

I've always understood it as a love story first, mention of historical event second -- something like Romeo and Juliet on a boat.

I'm sorry Mr. Ebert, but it seems to me you keep going to a theater that has management that would rather save a few pennies rather than properly exhibit a 3D film. For a 3D presentation the theater is supposed to burn the light bulb three times higher than normal, to adjust for the inevitably darkness putting on the glasses brings. If done right, the movie should appear *too bright* and the colors *washed out* when you take off the glasses, and just right with them on. Some theaters don't do this to save money, as burning the bulbs brighter will make them last less.

I see you keep complaining about brightness loss in 3D movies, but it's really the theater or theaters you've been going to. I watched Hugo yesterday at one of Cinemark's "XD" screens and the image looked absolutely fantastic and appropriately bright.

I remember seeing Titanic with my wife. We'd been married 2 years. I saw it as a typical Hollywood romance movie...

...with a subversive element.

A French team had already announced their intention to send a submersible to the wreck and recover part of it. They were going to have a world-wide television special showing when they revealed the stuff they'd recovered.

This television special aired some 6-8 months after the movie premiered. I watched that too, and found it ghoulish.

And that's why I think that "Titanic" was really Cameron's plea to let the wreck rest in peace.

And maybe that's the real magic of Titanic, both the movie and the real ship. Looking at the comment thread thus far, the story of the unsinkable ship, the rich and famous who lost their lives, and the masses of steerage passengers who were in some cases hopelessly trapped below decks, is a universal story in which people can find something that is personally important to them.

So let me get this correct. People should see "Titanic" in 3D, why? Because it enhances the death of more than a thousand people for entertainment purposes? Crass commercialism by any other name is still crass commercialism. In addition, I'll stand by my original thoughts on the movie from 1997. Although it is lush and coloful, it pokes along creating a doomed relationship in a manner that is obvious and calculated and as cheesy as anything you might find in a romance novel.

Additionally, there is not much that is original in the picture once the berg hits. Credits should have been shared with the men and women behind "Titanic" with Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck from 1953, "A Night To Remember" from 1958, based on Walter Lord's landmark book of the same name, and even the few minutes of Titanic mayhem near the end of the musical "The Unsinkable Molly Brown" starring Debbie Reynolds. Think I'm stretching the point? Not all all. Start with the little girl in awe of the warning flares in the Webb/Stanwyck and in James Cameron's plodding epic and work from there. There are also other movies about Titanic for both theaters and television that existed prior to Cameron's mining the tale he made that only seems unique because of technological advances in filmmaking.

In creating his movie, Cameron found himself trapped. He had to do something different from the many other efforts at telling the Titanic story before the berg hits, so he helped create a turgid melodrama. That's why his movie is losing favor. It has limited substance for too large a part of its running time. To many, a corny romance often seems pleasant the first time they see it. But the memory of the experience fades, even for the weeping teenage girls around the world who helped make it a box office hit.

It's an epic film. Unlike many, I actually prefer the first half of the film. I love it when Cameron is establishing the grandeur of the ship...every shot feels like it has real purpose and is artfully constructed. The music is excellent, and Cameron's attention to detail is second to none. In fact, this film's excellence is why I was so disappointed with Avatar, which, quite honetly, bored me after the first 90 minutes.

I will be seeing the film in 2D-- I am sure there will be plenty of showtimes for it here in Chicago.

Roger, Rose gets brave and goes to get Jack, deep inside Titanic, out of her ~love~ for him. Then, Rose lets Jack pull her around because she ~loves~ him. She wasn't interested in feminism with Jack, because he was giving her what she wanted. It's called ~romance~. There are no serious flaws in this film. It is a ~masterpiece~, as you say, and the only movie I have ever seen eight times in the theater. Yes, I will see it in the theater in 3D, though I am no fan of 3D, either. God bless you.

To me, changing a 2D film into a 3D one seems a lot like colorizing a black and white movie.

Well, the unfortunate frozen victims remained floating (and didn't drown) because they had life preservers.
Cameron did show one victim [beautifully] under the water after death, presumably by drowning.

I don't understand why people in general think retrofitting a movie with 3-D is somehow an improvement. I wonder if people would buy into the same gimmick if Citizen Kane or Casablanca were rereleased in color?

It's time to get down to brass tacks. Many have praised the scene where the treasure hunters explain to Rose how the Titanic sank with a little animation. I agree that this scene shows Cameron's respect for the audience. Cameron's saying he's going to play fair, and after the scene everyone has the same information. That in itself is good writing.

But... does anyone realize that Rose was on the Titanic? The treasure hunters sought her out to elaborate on the voyage. She was on the deck when the iceberg hit. Furthermore, the film's storyline is her remembering the voyage in vivid detail, so she didn't need a memory refresher. The scene has no logical motivation within the plot.

I do respect Titanic for its effectiveness, it pulls all the emotional strings, and it really is great spectacle. It combines romance, history, drama, action, humor, tragedy, and great special effects, and manages to combine them all well.

Anyway. Glad people can see it on the Big Screen again, but please, everyone, don't be so quick to praise that one scene. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Did anyone else feel that old Rose was a cow for throwing away that diamond necklace at the end of the film? It's one of those actions that strives to be dramatic and symbolic for the audience, but it strikes me as incredibly dickish. If she didn't want the damn thing, couldn't she have sold it and given the money to her loyal granddaughter?? Or donated it to charity??

Personally, James Cameron gets a lifetime pass from me for "Aliens" and the first "Terminator" movie, but ever since "The Abyss," his films have been blighted by mawkish cornball melodrama, and "Titanic" is the worst offender. I'm convinced that "Aliens" is Cameron's best, and least-cloying, film because Cameron stuck to the parameters of a pre-existing property that he didn't create. For me, "Avatar" failed because it was a struggle between the Cameron who made "Aliens" and the Cameron who made "Titanic," and the latter won.

There's no doubt in my mind that James Cameron owes Walter Lord and his book "A Night To Remember" a huge debt, and possibly, if he were a true gentleman, a credit on his movie. Also, the melodramatic romance parts of Cameron's "Titanic" are as wobbly and corny as in the Barbara Stanwyck version. In that one, Robert Wagner was the callow youth. Yes, Cameron made a special effects winner. But he lost his way with the rich versus poor thematic elements. He ultimately chooses the rich for glamorization and ignores the poor, in effect, dare I say it, tossing their stories overboard.

But what I really want to write about is the ending. I have seen the movie a number of times, often in bits and pieces. I think the special effects at the end are stunning. However, no matter how many times I see it, I still don't know what it is that old Rose says before she absurdly tosses the necklace into the ocean. A sort of gurgle comes out of her mouth. You would think that after all the buildup, Cameron would have demanded a better line of dialogue. I have to tell you that the first time I saw the film, in a theater with a huge screen and great sound, I thought she had accidentally dropped the necklace into the drink.

A better ending was available to Cameron. After the flashback, when we return to modern times, Rose should have pulled the necklace out of her pocket and said: "Is this what you were looking for, Mr. Lovett?"

And no, I won't be paying $15 or $20 or whatever's going to be charged to see "Titanic" in 3D. Greed is not good.

A friend saw the 3D version of the movie and said the main thing he noticed was that Rose was wearing heels throughout the movie.

"Ismay: "But this ship can't sink!"

Andrews: "She's made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. And she will. It is a mathematical certainty."

That still gives me chills to this day. I was only 9 when this movie came out and did not appreciate what a great film it was and didn't even see it in the theatre. There are some obvious flaws in the film which you are spot on about, but the good clearly outweighs the bad here. Cameron is simply fantastic here and I can't wait to see this in the theatre finally.

Bill Smith - I agree - loved the first hour! My main annoyance at the film was the way they had Rose running around in freezing cold water for such a long time. Anyone ever heard of hypothermia??
No way could someone do all that she did for such a long time in such cold water. Sorry - but you lost me there....

It is, as all 3D re-releases, being exhibited in its original 2D splendor as well. You do not HAVE to see it 3D to see it in the theater. You have an option. Use it.

I can never forget Roger's famous review of Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, which begins: ""Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle." That's exactly how I feel about Titanic. It's slightly better made than Bay's film, but suffers from the same chronic problems: both directors apparently felt a major historical disaster wasn't tragic enough by itself, and needed to have a love story inserted so the audience would care. And both movies try to compensate for poor writing and unsympathetic characters with sheer length and volume of special effects.

That said, I didn't see Titanic in the cinema, and have only seen it on the small screen, so I can accept that I've never really experienced it properly. But even if I did, I don't think I'd feel any less insulted about the way Cameron took this great tragedy and turned it into a love story for teenage girls.

I wish they were simply re-releasing this for the 100 year anniversary, rather than trying to cash in on barely-there 3D rendering like Star Wars (which I recently saw in 3D and was very unimpressed).

I will admit, although I used to be against 3D entirely, I've begun to come around on it recently if the movie was actually shot in 3D.

Nevertheless I will still be seeing Titanic in 3D because, being only 20, I was too young to see it in theaters the first time round and I grew up loving this movie. To this day I still adore it and I'm prepared for Phantom Menace levels of 3D but I don't care. Just hearing that music through a proper sound system and seeing the beautiful shots on a big screen will be enough for me I'm sure.

A piddling observation: When I viewed the original release in the theater, Jack's eyes turned white from the freezing cold water, before he slipped beneath the surface. In all subsequent VHS, DVD and televised versions, he simply dies with his eyes open; no color change.

I'm certain I'm not misremembering, so why the change?

@Bill Hays

No movie has done better? I can give you a better film from the same year - LA Confidential...

Other than that, I don't understand the vicious negativity against the film. It's not the greatest film ever, and I wouldn't pay to see it again (in 2D, let along in 3D), but it is a spectacular film.

Regarding the 3D conversion, I'm not quite sure if it was solely Cameron's idea. I suspect the studios wanted it very much.

I don't think The Titanic was a master piece, even if this person does.

I enjoyed Titanic immensely. It reminded me of the old block busters I saw when I was a kid. I believe I went three or four weeks after it was open and people were still packing into the theatre. How often does that happen? Not very! I saw it as an event as well as a very good movie.

The story was excellent and portrayed beautifully by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. What a powerful pairing. Leonardo today reminds me of the ol' Hollywood glamour but back in 97' he had a different aura of boyish charm. How could Rose resist this guy?!

Was it primarily a love story? Yes of course, but that's not specific enough. It was a story of redemption and awakening through the power of love against the backdrop of disaster. In a way the tragedy of Titanic was a fitting menace to the story of Rose, for what would her life have been if she followed the course laid out for her but an awful prolonged death of spirit? What was she heading for if not a drowning as the cold waves of societies expectations washed over her again and again. She flailed about in her misery until her hand happened upon a life raft known as Jack. Well that she did, because she was doomed otherwise.

People are shackled by the expectations of society. A society that can and does provide us with everything we need yet with a price. Rose certainly had everything she needed to live a lifetime in total comfort and ease within a cage of golden bars. Yet something gnawed at her spirit because she knew it was a cage, understood it was a prison.

Few people would exchange security for uncertainty. Better the devil you know and all that. People will stay in painful situations up to the exact moment when the pain of staying matches the perceived pain of going. Once the pain reaches equilibrium on both sides it makes no difference which way you go so you may as well take the new road. Standing on a ledge ready to leap across the chasm, you may wait a long time to make the jump, but if the ledge starts to crumble below you...?

Rose was on a ledge, staring into a chasm, literally. The scene at the back of the ship was an exact portrait of her psyche at that moment (this movie is filled with such portraits). Her spirit will not allow her to dismiss the dismal soul crushing life laid out for her and her ledge starts to crumble. There is no longer any safety in staying put, she must leap but has nowhere to jump. But she must leap, she must, even if it IS into an abyss. Then Jack appears.

Is it a perfect movie? No of course not. But the great scenes more then made up for the campiness of others. For example, when was the last time Hollywood manage to give us eroticism without nudity? Most movies make due with a sort of teenage horniness in lieu of any adult form of sexuality. Bravo to Cameron on that score. And Bravo for not descending into his own classism even while he exposed the classism of the early 20th century. Not all the rich were tyrant and not all the poor were saints.

So all in all a damn fine movie. I cheered for Rose in the end. With help, with love, with a little bit of luck, she averted disaster and she lived. A disaster that had nothing at all to do with whether or not the damn boat sank. That was only a metaphor for the very real danger which was at the heart of the story of Titanic.

I worked with Ballard and crew at the time of the expedition, and when each of us saw the movie (which most of us had to be dragged to) our first reaction was "Oh, for the love of God, Jack's dead by the time she gets to him manacled to the pipe! That water is about 25 degrees Fahrenheit!" It pretty much went downhill from there, though there wasn't much uphill ever. It's hard to appreciate melodrama when you know too much about the actual circumstances.

If Rose had stayed in the lifeboat and not jumped back on board the Titanic to be with Jack, then Jack could have had that floating headboard all to himself after the ship sank. Both of them would have lived. There's your happy ending.

Maybe someone knows the answer to this. I've never heard anyone mention it, but one of the first things I thought of when I saw the movie was that along with locking all the laborers in the engine compartment to die, they also blocked off access to all that axel grease. Is there any reason you couldn't cover yourself with that, and have it act as an insulator?

I have not yet watched any 3D-converted version of other films such as “The Lion King” or “Star Wars: Episode 1”. Some of them were also released in South Korea, and my internet acquaintances have kept saying that 3D conversion was unnecessary in all cases - and you confirmed their point again. 3D version of “Titanic” will probably be released in South Korean theaters, too. I will not go there, because I saw it in 2D at some big theater in my hometown and I had a really good time. I do not want to exchange my memory with a dimmer version.

I am missing out entirely on why this is headed "Ship of Fools," which I've always thought to be entirely another book, story and movie, and not one particularly romantic. Would someone be kind enough to explain to this dunderhead?

"James Cameron's film is not perfect. It has some flaws, but I hate the way film critics employ that word "flaw," as if they are jewelers with loupes screwed into their eye sockets, performing a valuation."

OoOoh. Some of your sentences are destined for immortality.

James Cameron didn't feel "trapped" by the need to do something different.

Cameron has a degree in marine biology and he saw the movie as a chance to dive on the wreck in a submersible, to do deep sea exploration in a way very few marine biologists have experienced. For him, getting the footage inside the actual wreck of the ship was the high point... and, since it wasn't very comfortable, possibly the low point as well.

The way you create a Great Love Story, you come up with four or five Iconic Images that remain in the memory after you leave the theater. The first time you see Titanic at the dock. Jack and Rose on the bow at full speed at sunset. The lifeboats in the water.

"LA confidential" has virtually no images worth remembering. Kim Baysinger was supposed to be hot because she looked like a popular actress of the day. Forgettable. Russell Crowe as a Rampart-like LA cop? He's too nice. You never "got" that people were supposed to be afraid of him.

What I was talking about was a Love Story that teenagers claim is their Favorite Story. Russell Crowe and Kim Baysinger? I don't think so.

cameron found a couple that we could believe fell in love in a short period of time. Not very sophisticated. Not very bright. I think that's the key. Jack and Rose realize they're flawed, they're not brilliant or even... well, not many men in the audience felt threatened by Jack Dawson, the way they would with a young Robert Wagner in the role. Or Armie Hammer (the new Lone Ranger) Pierce Brosnan, Jon Hamm, the brother on Supernatural, the "hunky guys" that Hollywood does so well. Jack is a more spiritual type who was fascinated by "sexy French women with missing limbs"...

The reason no movie has done it as well... is they haven't come up with an Iconic Image that equals the first time Jack ate dinner in the First Class dining room. Or anything else in the movie.

It is my opinion that people who complain about the love story between Jack & Rose are missing the point. The main character in the film is the title character: Titanic. Jack & Rose are used to explore every inch of the ship and, as they do, we get to know it from bow to stern, from on deck to below decks. That's why when some only praise the last half when it strikes the iceberg is wrongheaded. It wouldn't mean as much if we hadn't traveled through the whole ship with these two characters and witnessed it in all its glory.

Your line on retrofitted 3D near the end of your well-written piece struck a chord with me just 24 hours after seeing the re-released Phantom Menace last night. I solely went for the sole purpose of watching the final Jedi-Sith duel at the end as it's the only bit in that shambles of a film that 'belongs' with the good of the Star Wars saga. And to see if Lucas could pull off retrofitted 3D.

Even he cannot. I have been very hesitant towards 3D - despite Avatar's success and Tintin's crispness, it all still comes across as little more than a gimmick.

Lucas's attempt is even more of a shambles. If you're paying all this money for '3D', dim light and fuzzy picture, at least have something popping out of the screen. Easily the most 'flat' 3D effort I've seen yet.

I couldn't care less about the story. The sheer technical achievement is enough to make me a fan. It also generated my interest in the great steamships of the day. I've visited the Queen Mary many times since I've seen the film.

I haven't seen it. I don't intend to start now. Yes, I make the tired old joke as an explanation for why I haven't seen it, but the tired old joke is really just shorthand. Because it isn't just the fate of the ship that I would know going in. It's literally everything which would happen.

And if we'd focused on the fascinating real stories of that night, well, that would be one thing. Mrs. Brown. The crew. (And, yes, I believe the surviving family of the maligned man did sue, but it turns out you cannot defame the dead in the United States.) Yes, I know how those stories end, too, because I've read them before. However, I know how Cameron's story will turn out because he buries himself in cliché. It's all the same story for him. Heck, for Avatar, he didn't even bother changing some of the shots he stole from Dances With Wolves. I guess Cameron isn't much interested in history except as a framework, which is a shame, because there are some great stories out there.

I write reviews every day, mostly of movies I've checked out of our local library system, and every once in a while, I come across yet another under my personal category of "had its Oscar stolen by Titanic." I can't help wondering if the reason Avatar didn't do better at the awards was a feeling of collective shame from the Academy at how it treated all those (better) movies.

I always wonder why Rose didn't give Jack a little room on the headboard.

I prefer the love story between Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in "The Abyss". I love how the husband refuses to let his wife die, pounding her chest so hard, you would think he broke one of her ribs. And what about Harris' extended swim? It's more exciting than the costliest CGI effect.

From Seinfeld, episode: The Burning

George: I saw "Titanic". So that old woman, she's just a liar, right?

Jerry: And a bit of a tramp if you ask me.

I live hours and hours away from any city large (or committed) enough to support a revival theater, so I'm glad that the 3D profit urge results in re-releases. I saw "Phantom Menace" in 3D and was just happy to see the final crosscut action sequence again on a big screen. I'll go see the Disney re-releases to be in a theater full of (hopefully) happy kids, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that other eye-candy movies will make the grade.

Of course, this line of reasoning may lead to some bad craziness: Would my desire to see "Citizen Kane" convince me to put up with a 3D Charlie? Man, those low-angle shots would really get him looming down at you! And gawd forbid they 3D "2001." Space already has all the dimensions, and Kubrick threw in a few more. (Then again, Russ Meyer's movies would sure be bouncy fun in 3D. I'm just sayin.)

Re: Roger's comment about the push-me-pull-me Rose. I think the point here is that Rose has learned from her time with Jack that she doesn't have to be a protected Rose, but rather she can be a take charge Rose. This is reinforced by the photographs shown of her post-Titanic life.

Of course James Cameron was trapped. That's why he had to fill time before the ice berg hit. He come up with Jack and Rose's romance. The problem is that the romance is lame. Two giddy young people running around a great ship? That's the best he could do? There really is a difference between drama and melodrama. Look up those two words. Cameron opted for melodrama. He has no sense of what makes truly great literature, or in his case, a truly great story.

After the ice berg hits, Cameron rips off all the other movies about Titanic, especially the Webb/Stanwyck "Titanic" and "A Night To Remember." Cameron's work also recalls the four-hour George C. Scott TV movie and the 1984 German film. I wonder if Cameron thought nobody in the U.S. would ever see, let alone remember, that German picture. Cameron's version of the sinking is unoriginal, which is why he needed that dreary romance. That's why he keeps going back to Jack and Rose splashing around in that freezing water. He was trapped.

Additionally, to their credit, the Academy Award voters knew what they were doing when they didn't even nominate the screenplay for "Titanic." They sent Cameron a message, which was that they appreciated the technology and energy of the final half, but the way in which it was told was a little too close to all the other movies about the Titanic. Plus, the romance sucks, James. The screenplay winners that year were "Good Will Hunting" for original writing and "L. A. Confidential" for adapted work.

No, Edith will not be printing a retraction, because Edith is on a fixed income and isn't going to waste money on 3D retrofitting. Yes, some theatres may spare a screen for a 2D release, but mine won't. If I'd wanted to see it by now, I would have, and I'm not spending the money to see it in the theatre when I've consistently refused to accept the loans of copies. Besides, if I never hear that damn song again, it will be too soon.

A practical suggestion would be to come back to "Titanic 3D" after it opens and (some of us, cough) have had a chance to experience "Titanic" for the first time. I will NOT suggest renting it on DVD. See it in a theater, hopefully in the middle of a harsh Canadian winter, when you can feel the cold seeping into your bones and grab the hand of a loved one.

Instead, I wanted to talk about "Red Tails." Since there were few African-Americans nominated for Academy Awards, I think George Lucas did the right thing. Spent $58 million of his own money to make a movie with an all-African American cast, even more to distribute it, and hopefully made it all back by the time DVD sales are counted.

Did "Red Tails" work? It was based on a true story, it took place during World War II. But it lacked romance. It lacked... the necessary connection. The audience didn't identity with the main characters.

For "Titanic," the audience identified with Rose. Because they met her first as an elderly survivor who still had enough passion to talk about losing her virginity on the ship of fools.

My thought is, we live in a new age and there are changes that should be documented on film. Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School. He met his wife there, who was also a student at Harvard Law School. I would like a film where a female African American college student figures out how to get into Harvard Law School, and while there, works on the first Obama campaign.

A heroine needs an intense desire line. The more she wants it, the more we identify with her. Rose was facing a lifetime married to a buffoon who wasted money, didn't understand art, and smoked cigars after dinner every night.

What I'm thinking is, she falls in love with a convict she meets through a "Project Innocence", who claims he was wrongly imprisoned. But, is this something that's been done too many times before? Is it a story we can identify with?

WE have "LA Confidential" "Midnight in Paris" and "The Artist" as examples to go by. If you think "Titanic" copied too much from earlier movies on the same subject, what do you want to see instead? If you want to show more of the people in steerage, the lower class, to drive home the struggle between classes, Harvard Law School is a place to start. They have all kinds of outreach projectes. After graduation, Michelle Obama worked for a hospital or health care system in Chicago as an attorney. What I'm asking is, if "Titanic" wasn't the movie you wanted to see, what is?

I'm glad to see you still feel the same way about the film after all these years. It's so often used as the poster boy of bad Best Picture winners, which I find absurd. James Cameron's films may not be for the cynical, true, but how can anyone who claims to love grand, old-fashioned Hollywood romances not be a fan of his, and of Titanic's? It's a great film. Not a perfect one, but great nonetheless. I love that Cameron's every film is a swing for the fences, and whether you're a fan of his or not, his sincerity and passion are undeniable. The only other director I can think of today besides Cameron going for that same sort of epic sweep in his films is Edward Zwick, who made the beautiful "The Last Samurai" and the classic "Glory." No one else I can think of has their vision or ambition, not in those regards. I hope they keep it up (although Zwick's last film, "Love and Other Drugs," was a bit of a departure, I found it to be intelligent and absorbing).

On a semi-related note, how do you feel about the "Crash" backlash that's occurred since it took home Best Picture in 2005? When it's spoken of now, it's as if of a particularly acid joke. In certain spheres it's not only become synonymous with poor quality Best Picture winners, but terrible prestige films in general. I feel like there's a memo I never got. When I watched the film, I found it intelligent, compelling, and very well-crafted. Now it's more commonly viewed as pandering, manipulative bullshit (the manipulative you might have a case for, although I'd argue that's missing the point). I know you were a big proponent of "Crash" when it came out; have you encountered the subsequent rancor it's elicited, or ever had to defend it? Or perhaps changed your mind altogether?

Reply to: I found it a magnificent motion picture. The hour or more after the ship hits the iceberg remains spellbinding. - Roger Ebert

I don't know how long ago Roger saw the 3D version, but the effect of the movie stays with you for a while. A few days, typically.

Ever hear the phrase "set up and pay-off"?

To achieve a more powerful emotional pay-off, the early part of the movie may seem a bit off, because it is setting us up for an emotional "jerk."

Example: When Rose comes out of her bedroom to pose for Jack, we've been primed. We know Jack is an artist who sought out live models in Paris. Without that set-up, the scene between Rose and Jack would play entirely differently.

She wants Jack to produce a record of their love, and that's the drawing that was discovered in the safe. Preserved, against all odds, for a robotic submersible to recover it. An early work by a great artist.

The script for "Titanic" works on so many levels. If the dialogue didn't create strong personalities for Jack and Rose, we wouldn't identify with them. I would submit that clever, witty dialogue would have worked against the characters. It would have made Jack look too smart. We want him to be a blind fool, because he's falling in love with a woman in a situation that could get him killed, and he doesn't care. His hormones have taken over. I don't know if you remember a time when you were so crazy in love, you would have taken off your clothes and jumped into freezing water to PROVE your love... but Cameron created that.

I am, quite frankly, baffled by some of the comments I've read here. The major emotional component is the music, and nothing in 1953 carried the Originality of that wonderful soundtrack. Didn't hold a candle to it.

Cameron took us on board the Titanic, his version of Titanic, where the people were doomed and compelled by lust they didn't understand. He gave us emotions instead of logic or rational thought, and believe me, that's a far better "movie experience" than the other way.

I have to believe that your lives will be better if you see "Titanic" in the theater. Or I wouldn't bother to suggest it. Ditto for "Apocalypse Now" and "Gone With The Wind."

Cameron was recognized with the Oscars for Best Director AND Best Picture. I'm surprised that studios haven't tried to surpass it. Sony has "Cleopatra" with Angeline Jolie, and guess what? They tried to hire James Cameron to direct it. We know why.

I thought the love story elements were hackneyed and cliche and the dialog was horrible. The relationship in Terminator felt more realistic.

25/5 stars and that's mostly for the visuals.

Lovejoy is named in the film as a valet, so it's really just another layer of the investment that the "downstairs" types had in the success of their "upstairs" lords and ladies. Not to be confused with the commoners in stowage. He wasn't officially a bodyguard although they do note that he probably came from a law enforcement background. Oddly enough I don't see his character as a flaw at all. He's a bulldog and if you view him as such, vicious and loyal, his actions make perfect sense.

This article may shed some light on why the Oscars may be more of a popularity contest and why some films seemingly undeserving of the Best Picture Oscar are rewarded with one.

http://www.latimes.com/la-et-movie-academy-surprises-academy-project-html,0,7124411.htmlstory

First, the 1953 version of "Titanic" had a completely unrealistic and unbelievable ending. "A Night to Remember" remedied that situation, as well as other contrivances, and was a much better film.

While James Cameron did lift ideas from the 1953 version (one that sticks in the memory is Rose confronting Mr. Andrews with the same question Clifton Webb asked him), I think he found "A Night to Remember," a better guide, for he composed numerous shots that were absolutely identical to it, right down to the camera angles.

Yet, Cameron deviated from "A Night to Remember" in some ways I wish he hadn't. His defaming of Lt. Lightroller has already been mentioned. But he also altered the story of Molly Brown. In the earlier film, she commandeers the lifeboat she's in to look for survivors and threatens to throw the crewman overboard if he interferes. In Cameron's version, the crewman shuts down her heroism by threatening to throw her overboard. I'm guessing Cameron made that change, not from any new information about what took place in the lifeboat, but from the plot necessitating that a different boat, containing crewmen who don't know her, be the one to find Rose.

Also, a long as Cameron's film is, there's an obvious omission. The Titanic is firing its distress rockets (the reaction shot of a child on deck being one of the moments identical to that in "A Night to Remember"), even though we're told that the nearest rescue ship is hours away. Why is the Titanic firing its rockets? Because they can see a light from the ship ahead of them, the Californian, that has shut down for the night and isn't paying attention. But Cameron's version doesn't reveal that.

While Cameron's film contains its own contrivances, they're not as obvious or offensive as those in the 1953 "Titanic." And I differ with those criticizing the sequence in Cameron's version where Rose rescues Jack from the handcuffs. The issue of hypothermia aside, which I think Cameron implicitly addresses by having Rose start to look pale and apparently relying on an adrenaline rush to keep going, it was the most thrilling section of the film for me.

Don't care about the 3D conversion, don't care about Jack and Rose, but I'm dying to revisit TITANIC if only to verify if the burned WW1 soldier convalescing at Downton really was Patrick Crawley after all.

Thank you for writing this post: I began writing a comment but it turned into a post of my own, for The Spectator's arts blog.

I hope it's okay to post a link here.

"Film's Past May Be in Three Dimensions but Its Past Should Stay in Two":

http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts-and-culture/night-and-day/7670613/films-future-may-be-in-three-dimensions-but-its-past-should-stay-in-two.thtml

Ebert: Tweeting!

Here's one for you - "Veronika Voss." Fassbinder's twisted homage to the tragic star of Dr. Gobbles' "Titanic", Sybille Schmitz.

As long we're mentioning "flaws"...I watched this movie shortly after doing fire-fighting and damage control training in the Navy, practicing patching holes in ship hulls while having ocean water pumped all around me. This was Pacific coastal water in the summer and was shockingly cold. So, it has always bothered me just how casually Kate and Leo walk (and swim!) though all that North Atlantic water. That's REALLY cold water, pretty much instant hypothermia. I feel that's a nitpick until the movie itself demonstrates that fact with the scenes of everyone quickly freezing to death once they fall in the ocean. Well, that was the same water that was in the ship, it would not have warmed up that much!

Count as one of the few people who did not like Titanic (1997) as much as A Night to Remember (1958) because in James Cameron's movie; the Real lookouts (Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee) do not see the iceberg in time because they are too busy staring at Jack and Rose kissing on deck. (I think most historians would say the lookouts did not see the iceberg because they were not given the binoculars that they should have been issued). Also, in Mr. Cameron's movie: First Officer William Murdock takes a bribe from Cal, gives it back and then shoots himself. There is no evidence that Officer Murdock took a bribe and/or killed himself. I would have liked Titanic (1997) a lot better if it had not slurred the facts regarding three real people. In A Night to Remember (1958) the ship is launched with a christening, something that never really happened, but, that is small compared to the inaccuracies that the 1997 movie has.

Here's my story of how and when I knew that "Titanic" would be a huge hit.

I saw the movie on the first weekend late that Saturday night. It was around midnight when the show started. This quite large theater was packed, with the audience spilling over to the floor between the aisles.

Just after the ship hit the iceberg, the theater went dark and a young woman from the theater announced in a shaky voice that the projector had broken and it would take an hour or more to fix. Silence. She offered free tickets to anyone who wanted to leave and come back another day. It was then about 2:30 am. No one moved or said a word. She repeated this again, now pointing out the exit where the free tickets were given out. And even once more. But still, just silence.

The audience sat silently, virtually stock still, for over an hour. I saw no one take the offer and leave. When the projector came back on at around 3:45, the auditorium was still packed with people sitting in the aisles. It was around 5am when we got out.

"There's more to it than that."

One might even say there is less to it than that.

I would argue that Rose's actions are not inconsistent. Throughout the movie, whenever Rose took action on her own initiative:
- Jumping from the stern
- Going to the steerage ceilidh
- Spitting in Cal's face and running away
- Taking the elevator down to C Deck
- Running though chest deep water to find the Purser's Office
- Finding the axe to free Jack
- Jumping back aboard from the lifeboat

These were actions that were moving her toward Jack,
and toward death for the most.

Either actual physical death, or the death of her current charade as the future Mrs. Caledon Hockley. I do not believe Rose was expecting or wishing to live through Titanic's demise. She wanted to be with the love of her life when she died. Rose was looking for death through the entire movie.

What Jack taught Rose, as the final act in his life, was to move beyond her fear and beyond him and to fight for herself, for the first time in her life. When Rose let go of Jack and swam for the whistle, it was the first step towards life she had taken of her own volition.

Jack had taught her to want to live.

And she never let go of that desire, from Rose's photos it was clear that she lived every moment of her life.
That was Jack's gift to her, not just life, but a life that was lived.

(spoiler) ........... I always liked how Rose fell asleep at the end and dreamed of being with Jack. Maybe the whole movie should have remained in 2-D and that scene alone could have been the only 3-D moment. That would have made an impact.

Dear Mr. Ebert,
I must say I'm looking forward to revisiting the movie on the big screen. Sadly, IMAX will most likely be in 3D they gotta milk as much green as they can... Do you know whether it'll be available in good ol' fashioned 2D, too?

P.S. I've been an admirer of your reviews and wit for 17 years now, i.e. about half my life. Thank you for the countless extended morning coffees, for writing and for being here. Greetings and good wishes from a Romanian who LOVES black and white (re: The Artist post) and has yet to be proven wrong about the usefulness of 3D (except for Avatar, Hugo, and possibly theme park thrills for kids).

Alex

I just saw the Titanic exhibit at the Luxor in Las Vegas and don't believe without James Cameron's movie the exhibit would have hit me as hard as it did. Images of the movie came into my head as I was touring the exhibit. For anyone that can get to one of the exhibits around the country please go! It's worth every dime. I was given a passenger card before entering of an 18 year old woman who was a 3rd class passenger travelling with her cousin. There is a magnificent poster at the end where you can see if your passenger lived or died. Very very moving. What an incredible tragedy that James Cameron brought to life.

And yes, we are going to see the Titanic 3D movie this weekend. Doubt it will hit me as much as seeing the first one, but if Roger mostly approves, I will go.

Question for experts in arcane Titanic lore:

I have been on many cruises. Within 24 hours of its initial departure from home port, maritime law mandates that all ship passengers undergo a muster station drill, where, upon a whistle signal, they must don a life preserver and go to their designated muster stations where the life boats are suspended. Did the Titanic passengers undergo such a procedure? Did such a procedure exist in 1912? If not, when was it instituted?

Personally, despite the orderly drills, I suspect that in a real emergency, chaos would ensue as passengers scramble to get to their cabins (where the life preservers are located), put them on, and attempt to reach their muster stations. The Costa Concordia passengers experienced such a scenario, exacerbated by apparently incompetent crew members.

Incidentally, many modern cruise ships are twice or thrice the size of the Titanic.

I own a single screen theater in Montana and would like to ask Roger: When you see a 3-D movie, how close do you sit to the screen? How much of the glasses does the movie's image fill? In my theater, I have always preferred the back couple of rows but for some reason, I decided to try sitting about 3 or 4 rows from the front to watch some new 3-D trailers a few nights ago.

The difference was amazing! I have often been upset with the lack of brightness on 3-D movies, but now I feel that watching them from the back of a theater is like watching a movie on an unmasked white screen -- the white "border" around the edges seems to "wash out" the image. I think the same thing happens with 3-D seen from too far away. The rest of the room acts like that white border.

I'm sure Roger sees his movies in a theater with great presentation (at least, I hope so) but I am just curious if viewing 3-D from too far away might be a factor in his hatred of the format.

I was kind of dreading seeing TItanic in 3-D but now I'm looking forward to it.

In EW, Cameron makes thew compelling argument, not so much for 3D as seeing a movie in the theater. And since it's otherwise available on VHS, DVD, iPhone (?), you should really see it in te theater. and the only thing that will drag people to the theater is 3D. I hate it myself, but i understand his point.

Ebert: I can't imagine viewing ANY movie on an iPhone.

Regarding Jack/axe/handcuffs nonsense: Remember, this tale is being spun by a character who is 101 and clearly has a flair for the dramatic. Has it ever occurred to anyone that SHE is the one who makes it up for dramatic effect?

I see by the paper (and the main page) that you haven't corrected flaunt/flout ...
They're two entirely different words, you know.
When some guy wins $10M in the Lotto draw, and starts spending and showing off, he's flaunting his new-found wealth.
When someone performs an act in defiance of the powers-that-be, he's flouting authority.
That "the two words are frequently confused" ...
... hey, which one of us has the university education, the Pulitzer Prize, and the biggest bully pulpit on the Internet?
I'm half-tempted to look up old reviews of yours, to see if you confuse infer and imply.
I mean, that's what led Nero Wolfe to burn Webster III in his fireplace that time ...

About Titanic:
The way Cameron played mix-'n'-match with real-life and fictional characters is nothing new, but for myself, I was disappointed that he didn't find space for one of the more notable Titanic passengers, the newspaperman-novelist Jacques Futrelle.
After all, Futrelle wrote one of the most famous (and in subsequent years most anthologized) detective short stories of all time: "The Problem Of Cell 13", featuring Prof. Augustus S.F.X. Van Dusen, aka The Thinking Machine.
They taught this story in high school English when I was in that venue, and I recall a not-bad television dramatization from about the same time.
Alas, those days are in the distant past; now try getting a 21st century teen to read anything written before 2000 (or to see anything made before then, comes to that).
My friend Max Allan Collins partially remedied this by writing his own novel, The Titanic Murders, in which Jack Futrelle (as his friends and family called him) gets to act as a detective in the days before the disaster. This novel had some success, leading to a brief series in which Max put well-known writers at the scene of various historical disasters (Edgar Rice Burroughs at Pearl Harbor, S.S. Van Dine on the Lusitania, Agatha Christie in the London Blitz, etc.).
*the preceding was an unsolicited plug on behalf of a good friend*

Anyway, I won't be seeing Titanic 3D. My eyesight does not need to deteriorate any faster than necessary.

I will not go see Titanic in 3D ,I saw once Titanic in 2D ,was good but wont pay for 3D. As for 3D ,its a nice technology That not many film are good with it and the 3Ds films are darker l,ess colorfull ,so I like more 2D films thet are nicer movies. 3D tech. is not ready yet

Saw the film last night and absolutely LOVED it again. It holds up so well, and transports me away the same way it did 15 (!) years ago. I truly think that the extended the boat-sinking sequence is among the greatest things ever filmed. Spectacle has rarely been done so well, and with so much detail and gravitas. No idea why this is such a "cool" movie to dismiss or make fun of. It's sincere. Love and death, beautifully filmed - what more can you want? It's a real classic Hollywood epic, of the kind Hollywood doesn't make anymore. Seeing Kate and Leo look so young makes me feel a little old and sad though - and wow, is she beautiful. You make an interesting point regarding hypothermia. Although they really could have survived for up to an hour, as many Titanic passengers are reported by survivors to have done, even after being fully plunged into the water. That's enough for suspension of disbelief - right? :)

Here's an interesting article on the matter: http://www.shipwrite.bc.ca/Chilling_truth.htm

Thought you might want to read this , about The Hobbit 48fps 3d image quality:

The Hobbit ... Didn't Look So Good
Warners screens 10 minutes at their CinemaCon panel.

Sir Ebert, your great new review of Titanic reads precisely like a Great Movies review!! The film, like the event, is a timeless story. Do include it in your Great Movies collection!

And by the way, I also love your original 1997 review of Titanic. The final paragraph is a classic.