who ever does not like titanic i want you to type in titanic ending and see that great cinemaphtography the film has its breathtaking

@doowoppingchainsawer stfu titanic was a great movie just because it was ver commercilized did not mean it wasnt great. IT was very historical, the lovestory was effective and made you care about the people on the ship

@doowoppingchainsawer the love story was just a way to drive the story i think, if Cameron just focused on the sinking, the movie would not be that long, so while the love story may not be really good, it kept things interesting until the fantastic sinking sequence

@doowoppingchainsawer He named it one of the 10 best films of the year out of the hundreds he saw, he clearly loved it. Siskel loved it as well apparently.

alien 3 is the worst in the franchise resurrection made up for the thirds pointless plot the awful effects resurrection was a great sequel

@Cropsy25

“Alien:Resurrection” was the worst in the “Alien” franchise. I still curse Joss Whedon’s name for writing that crap and ruining everything.

If that’s how Ebert is judging these films, then he’s giving Titanic quite a pass. If the real Titanic had that much room for error, it wouldn’t have sunk!

YT won’t let me reply to your response.
It does. The ‘Titanic’ story is familiar, and there are no surprises except for the faux!love story played out around its sinking.

If you have original characters and premise, like Good Will Hunting, but you take the ‘predictable’ route for your story, than that counts against the story over all.

Acting and filming are only part – taking a story in a new direction is what makes it ‘special’ to these guys.

Thus, proving the point that “predictability” doesn’t necessarily matter when you put interesting characters in compelling situations. Whether you love it or hate it, Titanic is one of the most predictable movies in film history. But who cares, because it’s not trying to be “unpredictable.” Nor are Good Will Hunting and the Full Monty. These aren’t stories about outcome, but of journeys. Ebert knows this. He’s only blowing smoke, trying to rain on Siskel’s Top 10.

Everybody *knows* what happened to the Titanic – you can’t change it up and make it *not* sink. It’s not telling a new story that nobody knows, it’s chronicling history. Might as well say that WW2 is predictable.

Good Will Hunting’s story arc was “utterly predictable,” but Titantic’s wasn’t??? Ebert, you creampuff!! I would take critics more seriously if they did less tearing down and more theorizing about how movies could have been better. Put your money where your mouth is. What exactly about GWH’s story could have been changed to make it “less predictable,” Ebert? Do enlighten us. The only worthy critic is someone who could have done better.

lol i can be serious

lool, u cant be serious

the best movies of 1997 were’ i know what you did last summer’ the lost world’ scream 2′ austin powers’ and alien resurrection.

I thought Leo’s performance in Titanic was so bad it nearly sunk the movie.

lol….in response, ebert is saying “flash in the pan”!

I love how cheesy the old show is. Can you imagine Scott and Phillips doing black tie on the new show? It’s like the new trend to be a hipster.

JACKIE BROWN!!!!!!!!!

Titanic is way overrated

@BuddySweyzer flash in the pan. it means a sort of one hit wonder

Ebert gave a Thumbs Up for Spawn? Wow, sometimes he likes films that a lot of people hated lol.

“Jackie Brown” was a really good movie!