@@AP Style for “3-D” is “3-D” but the Titanic movie is called Titanic 3D….so I left them as 3D. Yeah.@@Are her boobs going to be in 3-D?
That’s just one of the questions floating in people’s minds when they heard “Titanic” was being rereleased last weekend in 3-D. (The boobs in question? Kate Winslet’s. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re either not a ’90s child, or you need to sit down and watch “Titanic” pronto. And yes, her boobs were in 3-D). The reason for the rerelease of “Titanic” was the 100th anniversary of the infamous sinking of the titular@@hehehe@@ ship on April 15, 1912@@http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/dayintech_0415@@. It’s also been 15 years since the movie came out, and James Cameron probably decided to bring his two loves together in one theater: his name-making movie and 3-D effects.
In 1997, the year “Titanic” came out, it was the most expensive film to have ever been made. It was also nominated for 14 Academy Awards and won 11 of them@@http://boxofficemojo.com/oscar/movies/?id=titanic.htm@@, including Best Picture and Best Director. And for 12 years “Titanic” was the highest-grossing film ever made, reeling in more than a billion dollars worldwide — only to be surpassed by “Avatar,” go figure.
So why should you cough up the extra cash to go see Kate and Leo get it on (and, you know, 1,500 people die) in 3-D? You could just watch it at home. But seeing the movie on the big screen is an experience.
I don’t know about you, but I was only eight when the movie premiered in theaters last time around. My mom refused to let me see it even when I was 10 (we started watching it on VHS at a slumber party at my house, and my mom interrupted about a third of the way through — probably one of the more embarrassing moments of my grade school life).
So I loved seeing the film in theaters. The large screen lets you pick out details you never notice on your TV or computer: different faces, for instance, or detailed work on the elaborate costumes. And you can really enjoy all the long, sweeping camera shots of the ship, which are truly breathtaking when combined with James Horner’s score.@@http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/titanic.html@@
One of the best things about seeing “Titanic” in the theater is the surround sound. When the ship started slowly sinking, sucking in water and filling rooms with the sea, the sound effects of deep, angry booms and ominous creaks were pretty freaky. It felt at times like the theater itself was inside the ship. I wouldn’t have been surprised if water started seeping from under the exit door or spurting from a speaker.@@not even a little bit?@@ That experience in and of itself was a plus to seeing the film on the big screen.
And then there’s the 3-D. As with any movie, it took a while for my eyes to get used to the effect, but once that was accomplished, I sat back and enjoyed the show. There weren’t many flashy gimmicks, and sometimes during the dialogue-heavy scenes, the 3-D seemed a little unnecessary.
But other moments were intensified by the 3-D effects. Several times, the water splashed out at the audience from the screen and looked real, like when the lovers run from Cal@@http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/@@ and he shoots down the staircase at them with a pistol — a bit of water splashed up at him with the force of the bullet hitting the water.
Another strong image was near the end. As the stern lifts up from the weight of the waterlogged bow, there is a shot of the propellers rising from the sea as a lifeboat rows toward the audience.  The 3-D made the moment intense and chilling as the survivors rowed away from death.
I definitely thought seeing “Titanic” in the theater was worth it. And so did others: My showing Saturday night at Valley River Center was almost full. So grab your significant other, your best friend or whoever has a car and check out “Titanic 3D.” Relive some of the ’90s with pride.
Grade: A