It's better. More actual facts rather than James Cameron version (which was also good) but this one is better
share
I seriously agree. This would be a much better choice.
No doubt, TCM will probably air it on the anniversary though.
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!
How can it be better than "Titanic" - especially now that's in 3-D?
Seriously though... yeah you're right. I never even thought of that. The good news is that Criterion are (re-)releasing a new, improved DVD and now, a Blu-ray. Something similar is happening here in the UK too, I think (though not from Criterion of course).
But yes, if Cameron and Fox (and Criterion) can cash in on the centenary then this far more dignified film should be on the silvery screen for the discerning.
But I'm not here to bash Cameron. Let's not forget he did, of course, direct the sci-fi classic "Terminator" and the brilliant "Aliens" (which easily managed, in its own way, the seemingly impossible feat of matching the standard set by Ridley Scott's nail-biting original). And of course his name isn't David.
"Oh look - a lovely spider! And it's eating a butterfly!"
'' ,,
But I'm not here to bash Cameron. Let's not forget he did, of course, direct the sci-fi classic "Terminator" and the brilliant "Aliens" (which easily managed the seemingly impossible feat of bettering Ridley Scott's nail-biting original)"
Camerson's Aliens was a worthy sequel (together with Godfather 2 perhaps the only sequels to do the original justice), but Aliens did not easily better Ridley Scott's original. Alien and Aliens are two completely different films, Alien was more suspenseful (as you stated nail biting), more claustrophobic, better acted overall, while the sequel Aliens was more action packed, better special effects and more entertaining from a thrill ride perspective. Both are great films regardless of which you prefer.
Thank you, you're quite right. I've amended.
"Oh look - a lovely spider! And it's eating a butterfly!"
'' ,,