- Studio: Paramount Pictures
- Release Date: Dec 19, 1997
User Score
7.8
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 391 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 324 out of 391
-
Mixed: 15 out of 391
-
Negative: 52 out of 391
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
Dec 29, 20113
-
Sep 2, 20113Oh do I hate this movie!!! Why did it have to center on a sappy love story? And why so formulaic? And why such a terrible script? And why such over the top and upfront heartbreak? AND WHY BEST PICTURE???
-
Jun 6, 20123
-
Feb 10, 20134
-
May 13, 20133
-
Aug 30, 20110James, James, James. Why did you have to be the one to direct this **** on the face of America. Titanic is a romanticisation of the Titanic tragedy. Kate and Leo do a relatively good job acting, but that's because they're the only thing saving the movie from sinking on the review charts like the Titanic. I mean, I respect James and all, but this movie was the god-damn black sheep of them.
-
stephens.Jul 3, 20051Actually the rating should be a 2 or 3, but considering this won Oscars, a 1 or zero is appropriate. The absolute worst "best film" On a par with such other successful stinkers such as Forrest Gump and Deer Hunter.
-
-
KellyE.Jun 1, 20054I found it too unbeliveable.
-
-
ChrisB.Jul 5, 20070
-
-
JamsB.Jun 24, 20080I would have given it about a 5 as it is an average try-hard hollywood blockbuster but the fact that you see Kate Winslet's horrible naked body makes it a zero.
-
-
JaeqJul 26, 20084
-
-
TSJul 26, 20090Along with Braveheart and Forrest Gump, one of the worst Oscar winners of all time. Pure turgid drivel. A chick flick for the mentally defective.
-
-
SteveT.Jun 27, 20013
-
-
ChrisR.Jul 7, 20011Cameron takes one of the most dramatic stories in history and turns it into an hackneyed third-rate fictional soap opera. Poorly written, acted and directed it represents the worst of major Hollywood film making.
-
-
AndraB.Jun 8, 20022
-
-
IsabelJul 1, 20023This was one of the few movies I ever walked out on. I never fail to be stupified by those who like this silly thing. With a horrendous script and lame acting, this movie commits the egregious sin of taking an actual heartwrenching event and turning it into sentimental Hollywood mush.
-
-
GaborA.Feb 17, 20040Remains at the top of my refuse to see list.
-
-
BrunoM.May 19, 20052I don't like romance.
-
-
StephenB.Dec 26, 20081
-
-
RobertDec 26, 20020Quite possibly one of the most boring, overblown, overlong movies I have ever seen in my life. The movie simply was not interesting at all, and it ran far too long. 3 hour running times are fine if there is actually an interesting plot, but this was just horribly boring.
-
-
JimG.Nov 28, 20052Muzak for the eyes. Tedious, vacuous, schmaltz.
-
-
LawrenceY.Dec 29, 20081If you like disaster films, this is the film for you. But if you dont like to see love in a disaster film, just leave this one alone.
-
-
100You don't just watch Titanic, you experience it.
-
38No amount of excellent period costuming and brilliant set decoration can substitute for a good story and decent acting.
-
75The first half drags a bit, but the adventure scenes are exciting and the visual effects are as dazzling as Hollywood's most advanced technology can make them. Focusing as much on time and memory as on danger and disaster, it's an epic with a heart.