Titanic

Who doesn't know about (up until Cameron's long gestating follow-up flick, Avatar, anyway) the biggest film of all time? It launched Leonardo DiCaprio into a level of superstardom that hasn't dipped since, and won eleven Oscars.

Why then is it gracing our cinema screens again, when even the most casual movie fan probably has it on DVD? Well, firstly James Cameron has a stiffy for 3D - that we all know - and secondly it's a century since the "unsinkable ship" had a run in with an overgrown ice cube in the North Atlantic. Good a time as any then really.

Centring on the relationship between DiCaprio's peppy lower class passenger, Jack, and Winslet's well-to-do upper class totty Rose, their illicit romance grows on the maiden voyage of the most magnificent ship ever built. Apart from the impending rendezvous with an iceberg they have Billy Zane to deal with whilst eyehumping the hell out of each other. You decide which is worse.

Listen, let's be honest here; Tweneth Century Fox would re-release a George Lucas bowel movement in 3D (and they kinda did... *coughs*Phantom Menace) if they could make some extra clams off of it. But here we have one of the most beloved movies in decades finding its way, once again, to a big screen. It still works extremely well; the effects hold strong for the most part and Winslet and DiCaprio have the kind of chemistry that studio executives still reference as a template to this day. It's still a spectacle and still an impressive one.

All of that said, it's not worth the money to see again (unless you REALLY want to see it in 3D) when you can slap it into a state of the art digital home entertainment system and piss off the neighbours with Leo and Kate's panting. It also clocks in at an arse-numbing 194 minutes; when you've seen a film before, that is a long time to spend in a cinema seat.

Titanic is a hugely popular movie to this day for a reason. But paying top dollar to see it in a cinema again, be it because of the 3D or not, isn't really worth it in my opinion.