Titanic(1997)- User Reviews

No, you didn't see this a long time ago. The 3D version was just released in April2012. Second, if you can't appreciate the difference of watching this spectacle in IMAX 3D compared to a $5 walmart dvd (or vhs tape?) on your television then you shouldn't be reviewing the new 3D version at all.

That's a very good arguement actually. I never imagined they'd ever be able to pull off anything entertaining about it besides a love story.

I'm confused. I read someone saying that Cameron "nailed it" with flawless 3D, then someone else coming along saying, "Don't waste your money". Which is it? Is it good 3D, great 3D or crappy 3D? It it sharp and crisp or is it fuzzy? What makes it good or what makes it bad? You can't compare it to Avatar because they weren't filmed the same way.

i love this movie cause it's so romantic

I went to see this movie because first of all, I had seen the original, loved it and wanted to see it in 3D which made it look more realistic, and second of all, because this is the 100 year anniversary of the tragedy. I believe they decided to re-release it not only because of the anniversary, but because sadly,Titanic is slowly disappearing and there are many people trying to save it for as long as possible so this movie helps to bring the tragedy back to the forefront of our minds and hearts. With all the other programs that have been on tv recently about saving it, I hope it helps. I also hope that some of the profit from the re-release will go towards that purpose. May they rest in peace.

Does it sink in the end again? Every time I hope it makes it.

*waaah*waaah*.
I hear babies crying in this post.

It's a MOVIE, not a documentary about the sinking of the ship. Get over it idiots who didn't like the movie.

Jacqueline: The film was very spectacular in 1997 but was not in 3D. This new release was more geared to the 100th anniversary of the tragedy. Have lost count of the number of times I've seen it but broke down and went, to see it once more on the big theater screen, nothing else can compare. 3D was subtle (in my opinion). This is not the only movie ever made on this subject.

this movie is good

this movie is so good .plz watch now

Billy Zane rocks (though Cal doesn't).

In the Easter long holiday, there were not many movies that I would
like to watch in the theatre. It boiled down to Titanic 3D and Wrath
of the Titans 3D. I did some research of the two movies include their
review. More effort was done on the first one because of its length
and its expensive admission ticket price. Finally, I watched it
yesterday. I do not think I will watch the second one in the theatre
at all. In the comment by Director James Cameron, he critized some
recent 3D movies are actually 2.4D. I tend to agree with his view.
In the last few years, I have watched some so and so 3D movies, and a
poor one. It is not good as far as the 3D effect is concerned.
Perhaps it is because of the projector lamp brightness level and other
factors. But this latest released Titanic 3D is a good movie. On the
whole, it is even better than the original one released in 1997. The
3D effect does enhance the quality of the movie signicficantly. Of
movies that are prime candidates to be released in 3D, the 1997
Titanic is high up in the list. Visually on screen, the movie a bit
dimmer with the 3D glasses on, but it is still good to watch. The 3D
effect is not much noticeable in some scenes, but quite apparent in
other scenes like the second half of the movie. I also noticed there
are some differences in editing between the two editions by viewing
and by the play length. The play length of the one I watched in 1997 was about 150 minutes. This 3D edition was exactly 195 minutes in length as advertised. Between these two
viewings, I have only watched the original one partially in TV
broadcast. 15 years have passed by, plus the length of the movie, so
my memory of the movie details has faded considerably. At the end of
the day, it is definitely a worthy trip to the theatre to watch this 3D
edition of the movie. James Cameron has done a good job again with
great timing. It is the commemoration 100 year anniversary of the Titanic
sinking after all.

Have lost count of the number of times I've seen Titanic....Phenomenal Movie. In spite of this, seeing it in the theater again would draw me in. However, undecided if I would be willing to pay $12. Very interested in the history. Follow media, publications, exhibits etc. Another reviewer mentioned presenting a more factual version of the event. "A Night to Remember" released in 1958 accomplishes that. Good point Texas Traveler. Have you seen the advertisement for a sequel? Jack is resurrected....he was frozen.

I love this movie of Titanic and it is my fav movie for real and it is very romantic movie and also I like this movie

@ Shalla V: Titanic is being re-released after John Cameron converted it to 3D and added additional scenes. Cameron is the man behind "Avatar 3D". I think a big-screen epic like Titanic, released in 3D, is worth seeing on the big screen again even if you already saw it!

I went to see this with my girlfriend, even though we both saw this movie a billion times, and it was a lot more than we expected it to be. The graphics and screen play was beyond perfect, which made the movie seem more real, and exciting. This is one of those movies you and your partner should go and see, -even if you already have- because this is one of the most perfectly played sad/heartwarming/romantic movies out there. (:

hi

They re released this movie to commemorate the sinking of the ship at it's 100 year anniversary and because it would look awesome in 3D. They already made billions off of it and I don't think making all this money is their main objective. I think it is ignorant to assume that that is why it is being rereleased.

I saw my mom cried

its the 100th year anversary of the sinking of the titanic