titanic Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Accountability has been the watchword in Hollywood lately, especially after all the mess that followed Slumdog Millionaire. But just sometimes, a nice story comes out of Tinseltown, so why not celebrate it?

The BBC reports that the big names behind Titanic, Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, and James Cameron, have pulled together $30,000 to help Millvina Dean, a 97-year-old woman who just so happens to be the last living survivor of the Titanic disaster. The woman, who has been struggling with steep monthly bills at her nursing home, had begun to auction personal belongings and Titanic memorabilia to make ends meet. Now a fund has been set up for her, and the Titanic trio pitched in. Fund creator Don Mullan said: "I laid down the challenge to the Titanic actors and directors to support the Millvina Fund and I was delighted with the generosity they have shown in meeting that challenge."

Remember that whole "women and children" first thing? When the lifeboats had to be rationed? She was one of those children, saved along with her mother and sibling by her dad, who then perished when the ship sunk.

Now if only those who are accountable for people's hardships could be as generous...

Millions of people will gather together with friends and/or strangers to watch the Academy Awards on Sunday night. It's a way to celebrate the movies we love, mock the movies we hate, argue good-naturedly about our differing opinions, and quiz each other on the artistic contributions of the sound editor vs. the sound mixer.

In a crappy economic climate, though, how should Hollywood show sensitivity? "It's a delicate balance to strike in a town not known for its restraint," notes the Los Angeles Times. "Oscar parties such as the Vanity Fair bash and Madonna's annual soiree are being scaled back considerably, but certainly not canceled. (Expect to munch on mini hamburgers instead of foie gras, and don't be surprised to see recycled decor from parties past.)" Oh, dear!

Sensitive as always to ordinary movie fans, for the first time ever the Academy "is offering a free 'Oscar Party Kit' for movie fans," according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Indeed, the official Oscar Party Kit includes recipes from Wolfgang Puck, cocktail recipes, downloadable "Oscar Bingo" cards, and an "Oscar Party Shopping List," complete with video clips.

If you're rooting for Slumdog Millionaire, why not prepare authentic Indian food? Waverly Kitchens offers the WK Movie Party Pack, including spice mix, shopping list, and instructions. The site also has a playlist of this year's nominated songs.

You can ignore the economic indicators (and good taste) and go big, like the celebration pictured above. The Guardian says that folks were invited to dress up in early 20th Century costume and watch James Cameron's multi-Oscar winner Titanic while floating in rowing boats at a swimming pool in central London, "surrounded by dry ice and fake icebergs."

What are your Oscar-watching party plans? Please share in the comments section!

In a combined effort to boost its box office receipts enough to become the highest-grossing film of all time (which it won't) and boost its awards profile enough to garner some Oscars (which it might), That Juggernaut Which We Call The Dark Knight will be re-released this coming January, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

It's the month when the awards rush is high and the mainstream competition is low, and any chance to see it in the IMAX format (had ye missed it, for shame) should be relished regardless of the DVD's December arrival.

And no, even if it doesn't best Titanic, director Christopher Nolan and the Brothers Warner are still looking at the cusp of a billion bucks worldwide. Yeah, so far as consolation prizes go, I've actually heard of worse. Hell, with numbers like that, maybe they could still sway Phillip Seymour Hoffman to climb aboard -- or at least help Michael Caine get his story straightened out...

Two things I enjoyed about Definitely, Maybe, which came out on DVD today: the cheesy jokes about New York City in the early '90s and the fact that it is a chick flick for guys. What I mean by the latter is that the movie seems targeted to females yet it caters more to the male viewer. It's basically a male fantasy: Ryan Reynolds tells the story of how he dated three beautiful women (played by Isla Fisher, Rachel Weisz and Elizabeth Banks), one of whom he married and later divorced -- meaning he's now single again. And he also got a cute, precocious daughter (Abigail Breslin) out of the deal who becomes beneficial to him in his return to bachelorhood.

But then is it really a chick flick? I guess it is if you count romantic comedies in that grouping, though the genre has never necessarily been aligned with the term, nor vice versa. And in the age of Judd Apatow, it's more likely that any new romantic comedy is actually a guy movie. Do many men realize it's a movie for them, though? Probably not. Though chick flicks are typically movies primarily populated by women characters and/or a female protagonist (think Steel Magnolias), romance films not made by either Apatow or the Farrelly brothers may be thought of as being for the ladies, even if they feature a male lead, like Reynolds in Definitely, Maybe.

I'll admit I've always been confused about chick flicks as a term. I apparently enjoy many so-called chick flicks, including even (especially) Beaches. So, I may not be using the term correctly in this list. However, I am a guy and I know what guys want. So, I'm going to do this my way, and answer the following question: What other films may have been initially perceived by males as being made for chicks but which turned out to be more for them (us)?

There are a few classic films that I simply refused to rent while growing up, specifically for the reason that I knew I should see them for the first time on a big screen. Of these, I managed to see both 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner in a theater, while others, such as Lawrence of Arabia and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, were on television too often to ignore them on the small screen first. One film that I'm still dying to see in a theater is Terrence Malick's Badlands. A few years ago I actually went to a special screening of the film in Connecticut, but it was disappointingly (understatement) projected from a DVD copy. Then two months ago it played one show at NYC's IFC Center, but I had to miss it for another engagement.

Last week Entertainment Weekly presented an article/photo gallery titled "23 Movies You'd Like to See on the Big Screen," which lists these kinds of films (there's actually many more than 23 cited), most of which should ONLY be seen on the big screen, as they were originally meant to be. The list includes obvious epic choices like 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, The Greatest Show on Earth and The Ten Commandments, as well as other classics, like Malick's Days of Heaven, Casablanca, Once Upon a Time in the West, Star Wars, High Society, Halloween, Singin' in the Rain, To Kill a Mockingbird, Psycho, Oklahoma!, The Music Man, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Searchers, Stagecoach and The French Connection.

He's portrayed a few iconic characters, including Shakespeare's Romeo and Howard Hughes, but could Leonardo DiCaprio be taken seriously as an iconic superhero? Specifically the Sentinel of Liberty -- Captain America? According to Latino Review (a site well-known and typically respected for its accuracy with rumors of this sort), Marvel Studios has placed Leo on the top of their list of candidates for the role. Of course, there's been no offer made yet, and this is simply the same sort of wish list we heard about for Thor (Brad Pitt is the top of that list), so there's no need to get crazy over the possibility ... yet.

Speaking of Pitt, Marvel apparently has placed him as second on their list for Cap. They either want him for The First Avenger: Captain America or Thor. Maybe they'll even offer him the roles of Ant-Man and everyone else in The Avengers (it would be like this, but with Pitt playing all the roles instead of Johnny Depp). There's no mention of who is #3. It could be Matthew McConaughey, who was rumored to be considered before. Or, it could be George Washington. Yes, the real G.W., first President of the United States. Not only is he perfectly relevant for the part, but I think Marvel has as good a chance of casting him as they do of casting Leo.

What makes a film romantic? Is it the setting, the dialogue, the actors, the sex? And when your snuggling up next to your significant other this Valentine's Day, which films will you prefer to slide into the DVD player? Moviefone has assembled the definitive list -- the top 25 romance films of all time -- and now it's up to you to decide what they got right, what they got wrong and what they didn't get at all. Of course, Casablanca tops off the list at number one (is there a list in which Casablanca is not featured in the numero uno spot?), but following closely behind are Titanic (#2), Wuthering Heights (#3), An Affair to Remember (#4) and Gone with the Wind (#5). Obviously, when we're talking romance flicks, they don't make them like they used to.

When it comes to films made within the past few years, we don't find one until Brokeback Mountain shows up at number 12, followed by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind at number 15, and last year's Atonement at 18. Personally, I have a few issues with placement -- not so much with the films themselves -- like why Sleepless in Seattle is at 25 when it should've been higher. Films that didn't make the cut? Surprisingly, not many romantic comedies made the list. Even though they rely more on humor, some of us enjoy a little laughter with our cheesy romance. That being said, why not throw When Harry Met Sally a bone? Or even last year's Knocked Up? Either way, let us know what you think about the list below -- which films belong in different spots, which don't belong on the list at all and which are your favorites?

An article over at Cinema Blend reminds me that today marks the tenth anniversary of the opening of the biggest film in history, Titanic. Movie studios are still scratching their heads over that one -- how did a downer, a period piece, a movie with unknowns and a runtime of over three hours smash the box-office records so profoundly that even today's globular, 'one-size fits all so bring the entire family' movies like Shrek and Harry Potter haven't even come close to touching its title? When you look at the all-time list, you see that the number two film, Star Wars, is way, way behind the champ, with only a paltry $460 million domestic compared to Titanic's $600 million. Shrek 2, massive, massive hit that it was, and bringing in every possible demographic no doubt, couldn't come anywhere close to touching Titanic. The best it could do was hit the number three slot. The Spider-Man and Harry Potter films aren't even contenders.

When it comes to international box-office, Titanic also still reigns supreme, although Lord of the Rings: Return of the King gave it a run for its money, raking in $1.1 billion to Titanic's $1.8 billion. Still, the champ remains untouched. Stop and think about that -- even globally, its numbers can't be touched. So, I'm seriously asking -- what was it about that movie that so profoundly moved audiences and demanded multiple viewings on an unprecedented scale. And that's what did it, by the way -- common sense dictates that Titanic's demographic base was statistically narrow, meaning the fans basically went time after time after time. Five times, ten times, or more. Were you one of those people?

According to a story in The New York Times (who, surprisingly enough, have appeared to scoop the scoopers, and their scoopers), The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will announce today that Jon Stewart will be invited back to host the Oscars this year. The event, which is scheduled to air on ABC this coming February 24, will mark Stewart's second time hosting; he last took the reigns reins back in 2006. Although this is The New York Times, I do have to throw out the requisite "rumor" warning since they claim their sources are "two people involved with the plan who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the news media." And I imagine those two people would suffer a major beatdown if someone were to find out who they were. It was you Colbert! Wasn't it! Damn you! Damn you I say!

So now we have to raise the obvious question: Should Stewart be back? Last time out the man was fairly well received, but not according to the numbers. Last year, Ellen DeGeneres helped score the show 39.9 million viewers, whereas Stewart took in only 38.9 million. Compared to Chris Rock's 42.1 million in 2005 and Billy Crystal's whopping 55 million in 1998 (when Titanic was pretty much guaranteed to win everything -- and it did!), Stewart doesn't seem like the obvious choice ... on paper. But he's a likable enough guy, his jokes and mannerisms are usually pretty funny, and he's tame. He'll most likely be asked, once again, to hold back on all the political humor -- everything will be fine and dandy -- and we'll live-blog the whole thing. Sweet. Now all Hollywood needs is a big fall, because nothing looks appetizing from a viewer's standpoint thus far. And Stewart had Brokeback Mountain (as well as all the jokes that went along with it) back in 2006; will anything even come close this year. I doubt it. What do you think?