Titanic (1997) (mini-review++)


(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

The mini-review:

Titanic (1997)

acting 7

directing 6

effects 7

editing 6

writing 6


3 out of 5 🐙


I do not get it. It’s an hour too long. Kate Winslet is great and Leonardo DiCaprio is good. The old lady bits at the end and the beginning were completely superfluous. And I know this has been debated and discussed ad nauseam but why couldn’t they both have fit on that wooden plank. I said it then. I’ll say it now. I don’t get how this was the first movie to make 1 billion dollars. The dialogue is rife with clunky sentimentality. It’s a ludicrous romance. But if you like cheesy, improbably fairy tales set in the early 20th century, go for it.




Review process: (this is always evolving, I’m sad to say. I’m more of a watcher who makes mostly unhelpful observations about things I have absorbed. I am not unlike a pop culture blob.)

Two scores are assigned: (I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me)

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)

Leave a Reply