Titanic (the movie) question..

Little slow on the uptake?

---

it's all because of that spitting scene.

---

Updated On: 7/5/06 at 11:45 PM

He got mixed responses from critics. Plus, look who this young kid was up against:

As Good as It Gets (1997) - Jack Nicholson (winner)
Apostle, The (1997) - Robert Duvall
Good Will Hunting (1997) - Matt Damon
Ulee's Gold (1997) - Peter Fonda
Wag the Dog (1997) - Dustin Hoffman

Looks like he got beat by the other young kid...Matt Damon...

Makes sense, though. GOOD WILL HUNTING was VERY well received. Titanic was generally positive but had its share of criticism. DiCaprio's performance, I thought, suited the film well but was too about his looks and not enough letting himself go.

---

He was nominated for a Golden Globe. I remember, in my DiCaprio induced fan-girlness, boycotting the Oscars that year because he wasn't nominated. Heh.

---

wasn't he also snubbed for gilbert grape? IMO that is his only oscar worthy performace.

---

he WAS nominated for GILBERT GRAPE in 93.

---

I remember a "Siskel & Ebert" show, in which Siskel ranted on about Leo's nomination snub. That said, I read somewhere that Kate Winslet attributed the snub to a story she gave Rolling Stone about Leo farting freely on the set of TITANIC, but that was said tongue-in-cheek.

---

"Titanic" got VERY mixed reviews. You'd be hard-pressed to find ANY film critic who gave it a rave. I have several friends out here who are film critics and they had all attended advance screenings of this (highly anticipated) film. Not ONE of them liked it. They all told me it was going to BOMB. That it wouldn't get any Oscar nominations, except for maybe the effects and "the old lady." That was it.

I walked into the theatre on opening day with the LOWEST of low expectations. I thought I was going to watch a train wreck of a film. And I was swept away, and completely overwhelmed with its power.

I never understood (and sometimes STILL don't understand) the growing separation between elitist film critics and the film-going audiences. Modern film critics increasingly seem to be reviewing movies in a vacuum... or some alternate universe of cinema that doesn't speak to, or for, their intended audiences.

That said... it wasn't surprising to me that Leo was snubbed. Rather, it was surprising to me that among these MANY sour reviews of the film, it managed to pull in a recording-tying 14 nominations, and ultimately a record-tying 11 wins. But the Academy is not comprised of any film critics. It is a "peer" award given by select industry members, and that's why it is regarded as THE award to be won for film.

---

I think he is - along with the screenplay - the weakest element in the movie. On top of that, who would you have taken out of that lineup?

He should have been nominated, but water under the bridge now.