Critic Review - Eclipse Magazine

15 years ago, I didn't let Titanic into my heart, now I get it. Movie is fantastic, but utterly fails as a 3D reissue.

April 8, 2012 Full Review Source: Eclipse Magazine | Comments (20)
Eclipse Magazine

Comments

Steven S.

Steven Smith

It's a little ridiculous to give a rotten review to a movie you found 'fasntastic' even if you didn't like the 3D (which also goes over my head, as this was one of the best conversions I've ever seen).

Apr 8 - 07:48 AM

Tyrone Simmons Jr.

Tyrone Simmons Jr.

While I think the film is on the the best ever produced, I will agree with this critic. I mean I'm sitting in the theater waiting for some really spectacular 3D effects and I never got it. I expected the sinking sequence to blow me away, and I have to say that the 2D version was more exciting.

Apr 9 - 08:07 PM

Cadet Fowler

Cadet Fowler

Then watch it in 2D. That's what I automatically did when it was re-released, since I never cared for 3D anyway.

More to the point, a movie is better rated in it's original format.

Jul 11 - 09:02 PM

Rami Nawfal

Rami Nawfal

Why would you give the movie rotten if you found it fantastic? That makes no sense at all.

Apr 8 - 08:11 AM

Chris Hardewig

Chris Hardewig

Because the huge draw for this movie is the 3D element. This was the first time for myself seeing this movie and I enjoyed the story, but the 3D was just disappointing. The most 3D I saw was very slight when the characters were conversing with each other.

Apr 10 - 10:09 PM

John Doyle

John Doyle

Wait 15 more years and you'll get it.

Apr 8 - 03:09 PM

Chris Black

Chris Black

a 15 year old film critic lol thats what you are lol

Apr 9 - 07:04 AM

D.

Delon Lier

People he is writing a critique for the rerelease of this film in 3D he has perfect ground to give this a rotten rating for it's failure as a 3D reissue.

Apr 9 - 04:55 PM

Deanne Whitehead

Deanne Whitehead

Are you Kidding me?? It was Awesome in 3D. Highly recommended!!

Apr 11 - 03:54 PM

Libby Armon

Libby Armon

They should have just brought back the 2d version. Or they might as well have said that they made a 3d version but just showed us the original 2d movie. The 3d job was just pitiful.

Apr 11 - 08:21 PM

Nita Curtin

Nita Curtin

This so called 3D film is exactly the same as the 2D version except they charge you more to go see it cos they give you glasses that are supposed to have things jumping off the screen at you, like most 3D films do. Only in this case, nothing happens when you put on the glasses.

Apr 14 - 01:28 PM

Bryan Steedman

Bryan Steedman

Huh?

3D isn't about 'things jumping off the screen at you,' not even close. That's a cheap tactic used by lazy producers who take the easy route to make their movies in '3D'

The main use of 3D is to add layers to the film and create a sense of depth and make a few elements stand out so that you feel like you're in the film. The actual purpose of 3D isn't to make things jump out at you. If you honestly expected that, how many scenes in Titanic did you even think would have that possibility? (hint: maybe the funnel scene and that's about it).

I don't care for 3D but this seems like a silly complaint because you were upset they didn't attempt to add in a bunch of gimmicks that wouldn't even be workable if they tried.

Apr 16 - 03:24 PM

Nguyen Minh

Nguyen Minh

If you want things jumping at you, theme parks around the world are full of them.

Apr 17 - 07:56 AM

Kevin L.

Kevin Leon

i agree. I hate it when they do this crap

Apr 15 - 05:53 PM

allister w.

allister w

I don't know. watching people drown in 3d does not qualify as entertainment and seems really wrong.

Despite some laughably bad dialogue( i.e: ' A woman's heart is an ocean of secrets" or something like that), and a schmaltzy Celene Dion song, Titanic is great pop art, although I don't think it was deserving of an Academy Award and billions of $ at the box office. But then, how can you put any stock in an awards institution which never gave an award to Chaplin, Monty Clift, Peter O' Toole and preferred "Sgt. York" to "Citizen Kane"?

I prefer "A Night to Remember" to "Titanic"
"Night" did not get sidetracked with a fictional romance.

On the other hand, Cameron's romance does make us care for the characters (bad dialogue and all) and, really that's it in a nutshell.

Apr 17 - 07:13 PM

Jaime Muņiz

Jaime Muņiz

She gives it a rotten because this is 'Titanic 3D' , the main attraction of it it's the 3D part, get it?

Apr 21 - 10:48 AM

James S.

James Sig

No. The main attraction is the fact that it's Titanic, a great movie that should not have a rotten review just because of the 3D.

Apr 21 - 01:18 PM

Janice Guerrero

Janice Guerrero

I rather liked the 3D version, but it did get a bit tiring for my eyes. My favorite was when they were about to hit the iceburg, but the rest did get a bit much for me. I really don't see why you would give this film a rotten rating if you liked the featue itself, though. 3D or not, a great film is a great film. I'm kind of sad this one brought down the rating despite the fact it was a good movie. Ah well, c'est la vie.

Sep 14 - 12:21 AM

David Curra

David Curra

the 3D version sucked balls it was the same exact shit as 2d....fuck u michelle

Sep 15 - 04:45 PM

Manik Hindwan

Manik Hindwan

L.A confidential > Good will hunting >> Full monty > Boogie nights and then comes 'Titanic',
surprisingly, it won the oscar !!

Oct 7 - 09:09 AM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile