Did I do that?

It's true that Titanic does have some flaws. A few of the lines are downright cringeworthy, and the differences between rich and poor people are exaggerated, with the poor ones seemingly all good natured and fun loving while almost all the rich are the opposite (at least that's what the contrast between their respective party scenes suggests). Also, given that the water was so cold outside the ship, it's questionable whether Jack and Rose could go through pools of water on the ship as easily as they did. But on balance, it's still an excellent movie, IMHO. And I don't just mean the second half, I mean the entire movie. The film pulls you in at the very beginning and holds your interest until the end--one of the key marks of a great movie. All the emotions of a lifetime--adolescent angst, romance and sexual passion, grief over losing a loved one, etc.--are compressed into 3 hours and 15 minutes. And unlike many others, I didn't think the love story was ridiculous. I actually found it very compelling. Titanic is one of my favorite movies.

The part that I found unrealistic is that she would jump out of a lifeboat to save this guy that she met three days ago. The survival instinct is very strong, and that part just didn't compute for me. Of course, it was a LOVE story, so there you go, you have to suspend belief.

I did find the re-creation of the boat and the clothes and all of that to be nothing short of spectacular. And the characters that were based on actual people, such as the Strauses and Bruce Ismay, were quite realistically portrayed.

There have been cases (during the Holocaust, for example) where people risked their lives to save complete strangers.

I hated "Titanic." I applauded when the fucking boat sank .

And Seinfeld and George were right. That old lady was a liar, and a bit of a tramp .

Don't forget "jewel thief".

For all of you who do "get" Forrest Gump, it's on every day this week on AMC. Twice each day. Sure, it's overkill, but that's my thing with movies.

Wow, how/where did Mr. Babe meet her? Was it something official, or he recognized her?

The scenery is wonderful, indeed. And Edelweiss is a beautiful song. I love the looks that are exchanged in the scene where Christopher Plummer sings it and plays guitar!

Alien for me was over-rated. I loved Pulp Fiction the first couple of time i saw it but i went right off it for some reason.(great soundtrack though)

I've no interest in Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Wars, Star Trek, and so on

The English Patient definitely. Overblown tosh!!

1984 springs to mind. Overblown bollocks!!

I agree with you on the first 3 and partly on the last one.

Schindler's List is pretty problematic.

How so?

Long winded response with lots of big words to show how intelligent I am.

[/capo]

Haha, you won't find many "big" words in this post. I think the longest is "sensationalism", and the most obscure may be "kitsch". Whatever, I wrote this in May last year...

Firstly, the Holocaust by its very nature resists and denies sensationalism. It's a unique event because of the historical factors that led up to it, and yet it's not aberrant because the Final Solution might be seen as the attempted conclusion to a long history of global anti-Semitism. Spielberg's film ignores these issues; in it, the reality of the Holocaust is not even a subtext, but a mere backdrop to its individual-character story. If you'll forgive the poetic wording, I'd call it a pornographic film before a period film. There are historically accurate details of course, but these are only to combat easier accusations of exploitation.

Schindler's List is guilty of kitsch. Its sentimentality dwarfs everything else. The aesthetic decisions - the black-and-white cinematography and the four moments of colour - are badly judged: why film it in black-and-white? Is it a question of blurring morality, of making traditional notions of "good" and "evil" problematic? It might seem so, in the fact that Schindler's initial reaction to the genocide is frustration at his factory being empty (and thus losing money) and not at the killing of fellow humans; but we're asked to side with Schindler, ultimately, not because of his "good" but because of the insistent juxaposition against "evil" - Goeth.

Is it, then, a question of distinguishing dramatic moments? It opens with colour flame of the Sabbath, which de-colourises as it burns out - an aesthetic representation of the distinction of the Jews? Maybe, but then why undercut it with text describing the financial measures Schindler took to save the Jews ("his Jews", the film reminds us)? Spielberg shifts the focus from the unspeakable death of millions to the few that survived. Not only this, but we're told (from the start and throughout) that they survived because of Schindler. That's right: all survivors in this film are related in some way to Schindler, and the title alone elevates him beyond banal altruism. He's a hero, despite being roused to heroism in the first place due to monetary concerns. What's Spielberg trying to tell us here?

More famously, the girl in the red dress... it's a (dis?)quieting moment in a furiously violent scene that we see this girl, but Spielberg insults his audience by pointing out her visual presence through colour. Not only is this cheap, but when we see her corpse later in the film, the tone and perspective shift once more, after Spielberg has lingered long enough (though not long enough) for us to remind ourselves that people actually died during this horrific event, back to the Schindler Jews.

Also, if we come back to the initial scene of the candles, and how their colour burns out (and with it, the Jewish faith...?), why does Spielberg conclude his film with colour images of the present-day Jews? (We needn't ask why they stage a memorial service to Schindler; the film's named after him, so they must!) There's an implication of happiness there. And happy they may be, of course, but the tone is equally uplifting and relieving for the audience. They've sat through some violent and upsetting scenes, and now here's their reward... the suggestion of hope. This is all fine and swell, of course, but a) it's played out for people's emotional benefit, at the expense of actual intellectual and historical benefit; b) it's a fatally limited and narrowing perspective of the Holocaust. Schindler "saved" 1,100 lives and we celebrate; we've little time to mourn the six million destroyed. That Spielberg ends the film with a dedication to the latter means very little; the preceding narrative has been so focused on (and named after) the individual arc of its Nazi-turned-selfless-Saviour, that we're not compelled to explore the historical reasons behind this mass horror, nor the moral/ethical questions of representing it.

No: Spielberg takes for granted that a fantasy film parading as a historical film can be enjoyed and not questioned. Lamentably, he's right. He takes it upon himself to re-create the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust through a shamelessly fictionalised account that demands that we see events not through the eyes of the victims nor even the survivors, but the man who came to save them. This isn't necessarily objectionable, but for the fact of the fantastical heroism with which Schindler is presented. He's mythical from the outset. The way Spielberg exposits him, visually, from behind (I think) and through cigarette smoke (and the way in which Neeson carries himself as an actor), gives an air of mysticism not dissimilar to Coppola's exposition of Don Corleone. We're drawn in immediately to the character, to the individual, and how he might come eventually to save a very, very small portion of the Jews. At best, the focus is a curious one. Curious because of the inevitable neglect of the wider reality, and because with it, the audience may view these events with neither guilt nor genuine sorrow.

Julie Andrews did win a Best Actress Oscar, but it was for her role in 'Mary Poppins', the year before. She may have been nominated for 'The Sound of Music', but did not win.

Aside from the Best Picture of 1965 (and possibly Best Director - Robert Wise), I do not think TSOM won very many Academy Awards. Definitely not in the 'upteen' category.

However, they do seem to treat it as a 'classic' and give it special showings on ABC Family Channel, etc. usually during the holidays. I don't 'dislike' it but it is a bit schmaltzy and personally, as a Catholic, I can never get past that ridiculous moment where the Mother Superior actually 'blesses' Maria prior to her wedding. Most everybody knows that NUNS cannot bless anything, only PRIESTS have that ability.

Artistic license, I know. Still though, it drives me batty.

I do agree that The Lonely Goatherd is a blast and I also enjoy Do Re Me production number; after those two I'm ready to move on to another program.

Apple

Well, actually SOM won 5 awards and 4 nominations. Not too bad.

Oh, and this doesn't include any Golden Globe or Director's Guild's awards and such.


TIS

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800119695/awards

What do you mean? I can't count the number of times the nuns blessed my knuckles with a ruler.

...I don't get how SOM is NOT included on the list of "stuff white people like." lol ;))

Not too bad at all! And TSOM deserved every one!

However, when considering films like Gone With The Wind, Ben Hur, West Side Story, The Godfather, Titanic etc. each of which won 10 or 11 Oscars alone, the word 'upteen' for 5 Academy and a few other awards doesn't quite fit.

And all along I thought God blessed people, not priests either. After all, priests say, "May God bless you in the name of the...." -- I've never heard a priest say, "I bless you". Anyone can say "God bless you" (especially after a sneeze)

From New Advent:

"Coming, then, to its strictly liturgical and restricted sense, blessing may be described as a rite, consisting of a ceremony and prayers performed in the name and with the authority of the Church by a duly qualified minister, by which persons or things are sanctified as dedicated to Divine service, or by which certain marks of Divine favour are invoked upon them."