He's so poor and charming that nobody cares though. The plot doesn't do anything to make you care about this romance going on. A little poor guy full of spirit tries to get the rich girl who's stuck in a loveless marriage, under the backdrop of a humongous tragedy where thousands of people die. The movie doesn't do anything to really make you care about that that romance. There's no point where you're really thinking about whether you really like the protagonist or wondering how they became the way they are or any othher thing that is considered character development. that's not a problem since it's just a fun spectacle but it wasn't the best movie that year.
I disagree with this. I felt a strong connection with Jack. He has a lot of the qualities that I like in a protagonist - intelligence, wit, courage, kindness, humility. He has a lot of insights into life that I may not personally agree with, but that I respect all the same. He also represents a rejection of the ideas that the position you are born into is anything more than luck, that personal worth is defined by monetary worth, and that being a "gentleman" is something you have to be born into. His rejection of those ideas is important because, quite frankly, elitism still exists to this day, though it isn't as prevalent as it was a century ago.
Rose is a girl who wants to reject the values and ideals she's grown up with that she believes to be in error, but she isn't quite sure how to do so. While she starts out as a sheltered, spoiled rich girl, she gains a great deal of personal strength, assertiveness and independent thinking by the end of the film, which happens step by step at several points throughout the film. I thought her character was developed quite well.
Since I liked the characters and felt a connection to them, is it surprising that I also enjoyed the story of their (doomed) romance? Some of the lines were a little cheesy, but seriously, find me a romantic film with no cheesy lines. Hell, find me a real-life romance where no cheesy lines were ever said. To me, it doesn't cross far enough into cheesy territory to count as melodrama. That's just my opinion, but to me, "melodrama" is sort of a dirty word. When I think "melodrama," I think of something that is unable to create dramatic or emotional effect on its own and relies on things like musical cues and overwrought dialogue to achieve these effects. Titanic isn't melodrama to me, but then again, I don't apply the word to every emotional film with the occasional cheesy moment. I reserve it for the most egregious offenders, of which Titanic certainly doesn't qualify in my book.
Furthermore, the film is an outstanding commentary on the nature of hubris. Someone called the film "Romeo and Juliet on a boat." To me, the strongest parallel to the film is The Masque of the Red Death by Edgar Allen Poe. Just as the nobles in that story thought they could escape death by walling up in their castle, so the rich characters in this film think they are protected from death by their money and the glory of human creation. In both stories, they are proved wrong. As I mentioned earlier, the shot where the camera pulls away from the sinking ship to show just how tiny it is in comparison with the huge ocean all around it is an absolutely brilliant shot. The moment towards the end when the deckhand rejects Cal's bribe offer and says "Your money will not save you" is the moment when this theme is fully realized. There are many moments in the final hour where this false reality that the rich have built up for themselves is torn down, such as when Rose's mother refers to having tea in her room once she returns from the deck after the alarm has been sounded, and when she asks if the lifeboats will be seated according to class before being confronted with the fact that more than half the people on the boat with them will die.
Overall, there's a lot in the film that appeals to me. If it doesn't appeal to you, fine. That's why we have opinions, after all.
