Is that an iceberg or a ReOscar in the distance?
It's like the premise to a cool metaphysical Charlie Kaufman movie: If you could go back 10 years and correct some horrible mistake, what would it be? You might whisper in Bill Clinton's ear, "Just say yes, you did have sex with that woman Miss Lewinsky, and avoid impeachment." You might warn the editors of The New Republic to run a fact-check on that story by Stephen Glass. Or tell your broker, "Pull all my money out of Netscape and invest in this new iMac thing."
What we're offering is a second chance at the Academy Awards handed out on March 23, 1998. To a lot of people, the record 11 Oscars that James Cameron's Titanic lapped up that night were suitable acknowledgment of a much-loved movie that quickly became the top box-office attraction in film history. We're asking how Titanic, which was named the Best Picture of 1997, and the performances that won in the four actor categories have stood the test of time. And we're answering: Eh, not so well.
The thing to remember is that most Oscar films, whether they're dramas, romances or comedies, are basically part of one big genre: a movie that shows people trying to reach the emotional heights, or at least drag themselves up from the depths, even as they drown in it. Inspiration is the key. (Which is what makes the current slate of Oscar candidates, some of which don't fit this cozy definition, so interesting; but we'll get back to them in 10 years.) We invite you to play along with the TIME movie critic's own ReOscar awards.
If you don't agree, let us know. Readers, this is your game too.