Hi guys, I read a review from this guy named Brandon Judell and smoke was coming out of my head after I finished. Here's what he said: "...unbelievable, pooly acted and awkwardly structured." Don't you want to kill the guy or what? I know I do! And here's one more: "The Titanic went down because of two distracting smoochers on the proop deck."

-- Rose (rose364@earthlink.net), February 03, 1998

Answers

Don't worry about it! latest tallies are at 600 million worldwide so how are they doing?

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), February 03, 1998.

Rose, How do you assess the worth of a movie? By what critics write or by how many people go see it?

Those critics are just like the other small minority of people who 'knock' everything without being able to offer any logical sound arguments to support their reasoning.

We have voted, and the Titanic is the winner.

-- Peter Edmead (peter.edmead@employment.gov.au), February 03, 1998.

Don't worry! I remember back in my highschool years, a colleague of mine always hated a movie when evrybody else anjoyed it, then he loved any movie that nobody cared about. That's critics...

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@ccs.carleton.ca), February 03, 1998.

I have just simply decided to IGNORE the bad reviews! I haven't read one in a long time. I don't care what they think of Titanic anymore! I LOVED IT, I WILL ALWAYS LOVE IT and that's all that matters to me. I've decided to surround myself with only POSITIVE views (like you fine people) about this WONDERFUL movie. I irritates me to no end to hear the TITANIC bashers. Actually I feel sorry for them, because they cannot enjoy and appreciate this movie for what it is; EXCEPTIONAL!!!!!

Too bad, so sad.

-- Caron (bianchi@iserv.net), February 03, 1998.

Two words: who cares?

If you really feel the need for more, consider the words of a musician, written to a critic who had given him a bad review: "Sir, I am in the smallest room of my house. Your review is in front of me; it will soon be behind me."

-- Thomas Shoebotham (cathytom@ix.netcom.com), February 03, 1998.

i'm my own critic. if i like, i like it. if i don't, i don't. i never really go by critics. besides, i wasn't too keen on watching TITANIC at first, but when i saw it i fell in love with it and no critics, whether for the movie or against it, swayed my decision.

-- M.M. (masima@earthlink.net), February 03, 1998.

Well actually I contacted Mr. Judell by E-Mail telling him that I was disappointed in his review and asked that he re-review it. He sent a very nice reply back and said that so long as I was entertained that should be sufficient. He was concerned about the morality of the money expended for this movie. I suspect this colored his opinion and in retrospect he may have rendered a different judgment. I thought the Corliss review was contemptable.

-- Richard Wendt (rlwpaw4487@aol.com), February 04, 1998.

Speaking of morality, I wonder whether you as taxpayers think $200 million would be better spent on another movie of Titanic's quality and soul, or to build HALF a damn B-2 stealth bomber?

I know there's an obvious need for weapons of mass destruction (sic), but with the money they spend on stupid farces like Speed 2 and Batman and Robin (which I estimate numbers in the billions each year), I'd rather they have made fewer movies with longer staying power and definitely more bang for the buck.

-- Amos (amost@pacific.net.sg), February 05, 1998.

I really don't understand why the expense of the film is such an issue. This, after all, is a business, not a charity or taxpayer funded venture. Businesses are in business to make money and usually in order to make money, one has to spend money. Mr. Cameron and backers spent the money and now are seeing the fruits of their investments. It's called profit and loss.

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), February 05, 1998.

Peter- Great answer!!

-- Laura (lrc@usit.net), February 06, 1998.

I think the cost of the movie is irrelevant. James Cameron once said, "What do you (the audience) care about the cost of a movie? It doesn't cost you any more than the price of a movie ticket."

-- Donna Sadoway (donakyle@oanet.com), February 06, 1998.

There is a critic in my local paper who seems not to like any movie, or only likes the stupidest ones. She rated "Titanic" *1/2 stars and gave "Half Baked" ***stars!!!! So I've chosen never to listen to an opinion of hers again.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), February 07, 1998.

Well who died and made these critics the experts anyway? We have the same type in the Boston area. If it isn't strange, it's no good! My advice to them: Get a real job!

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), February 07, 1998.

Critics--this is my opinion--tend to favor small "independent" movies which, for obvious budgetary reasons, have to derive their major appeal through dialogue and character development rather than large scale spectacle and action. Also, I almost thought the lookouts had been fatally distracted from their duty by the loving couple on deck, but I thought that there was an interval before the lookout actually "saw" the iceberg.

-- Alfred Orvedahl (alfred.orvedahl@lmco.com), February 20, 1998.

I gave up listening to critics long ago. Its been my experience that they hardly ever have the same opinion as I do. I'll read terrible reviews for a movie, go to see it anyway, and absolutely love it! The only thing a critic's review is good for is the plot summarary they give about the movie--that tells me if the movie falls into my interests =)

-- Nonnie (x96smock@wmich.edu), April 26, 1999.