clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Readers sink columnist for `Titanic' review

If you read last week's column, this will probably not surprise you: I've been taken to task and Titanic'd over the past few days. Via e-mail, that is.

And since the real - not reel - Titanic is our lead story on this page today, it only seems fair to acknowledge that hell hath no fury like a "Titanic" fan scorned.Anyway, I am devoting this column to excerpts from three reader responses - if only to prove wrong the writer who accused me of stacking the deck by running my column on the same day that Andrea Rouda attacked "Titanic" on another page. (I had nothing to do with the other page, and the fact that both columns ran on the same day was purely a coincidence . . . honest!)

From Greg Anderson:

One of the worst things a film critic can be is out of touch with the tastes of his readers. I fear that your endless need to debate the artistry of "Titanic," as well as the way you've featured similar opinions from other writers, puts you in danger of displaying that your features section is out of touch.

"Titanic" is not the greatest thing ever put on film. There are certainly things which I wish had been different. . . . Nevertheless, this film represents years of dedication by Mr. Cameron, a financial sacrifice by Mr. Cameron, an extraordinary investment by two major studios, a level of attention to detail which we never see anymore, and, overall, a wonderful achievement. The movie is twice as long as an average film with three times the budget of the average "big" movie. Yet I can still go see it for just $3.50 at a matinee. That's great! And I'm glad to count myself as a satisfied viewer who believes the film's blockbuster status is well deserved.

From Kevin Carter:

OK, that does it! I have had enough. I just can't stay quiet any longer. I read your article today about "Titanic," and if it wasn't bad enough that you cast a dark shadow over that great movie, you had to bring up your feelings on another great movie, "Far and Away."




I've had it with your (expletive). While I will be the first to grant anyone their "opinion," I'm getting sick of hearing yours. I can't even get away from it after moving out of state. I bring up the Deseret News Web Page and there you are! Argggh!

Since I won't be reading any more of your "highbrow" opinions, I was wondering if you could point me to some lowbrow movie review site somewhere. . . . I don't go to the mvoies to find out if a film "forsakes intimacy, character and story for spectacle." I go to be "entertained." I don't care how much the movie costs or how many Oscar nominations it gets or who directed or even who stars in it. I go to be ENTERTAINED. I am not a "Ti-ta-nic zealot" or even a "Trekkie," as you say with disdain. I simply love to go to the movies. Stop being a wet blanket on my joy, will ya? Actually, I know what your answer will be and you needn't bother because I'VE HAD IT with you.

P.S. Who gives a (expletive) about your (expletive) doorbell???

From Phil Lowry:

You wonder why "Titanic" is so compelling to the masses. Take Bill Gates, Andy Grove, Rupert Murdoch and George Stephanopolous, put them on the new space station and then blow it up. That's "Titanic."

When she went down, it was bigger than "Challenger" to the folks of 1912. Cameron has reproduced her in epic proportions and detail, enough for us to step into the people of that time and understand a little bit what a disaster it was to them. The craftsmanship of the movie grips you, and then the emotions of Jack and Rose sets the hook. . . .

I despise Hollywood . . . but it just gets under your skin in an ineffable way. To me, that's the definition of a superb movie.

Sorry to bust your bubble. I can't even believe I'm sending a movie critic e-mail (I dislike critics even more than movies), but, well, this movie has just got it. Big time.

T'kor te-musma (that's Vulcan for "Live long and prosper"), and K'plagh! (Klingon for "Glory to you!")