In the case of Titanic, the popular subject matter, as well as the buzz generated by the film's jaw-dropping $200 million-plus price tag, piqued the public curiosity before the movie even opened. Once they were seated, audiences were treated to remarkable effects coupled with an old-fashioned, romantic story. The romance in particular is bringing women back again and again. The success of the far more cerebral The English Patient should've been a tip-off that audiences were hungry for sweeping romance; heck, even William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet did respectable box office last year.

The other thing that Titanic and Romeo + Juliet have in common is Leonardo DiCaprio, who is fast reaching the status that Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have occupied: the heartthrob who can do no wrong. I realized this last year, when there was a full house of teenage girls at a screening of the sober drama Marvin's Room, solely because the attractive, sly DiCaprio had a small role in the picture. Right now, the kid's gold. He's also a fine young actor.

The main reason Titanic keeps steaming ahead, though, is because it's a good movie. Cameron's attention to detail in the smaller, human moments makes the eye-popping visual effects work, and the performances of DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are affecting even when the pair is just running though water. The movie's not perfect, certainly. The romance is cornball, the dialogue is silly, and even the thrillingly staged sinking seems to take longer than it should to play out. Nor is Titanic good enough to deserve all the Oscars it's bound to win in a couple of months, though there have been worse juggernauts. Still, the only thing standing in the way of Titanic winning Best Picture is lingering resentment over Cameron's slave-driver methods and the film's frighteningly large budget.

The money means little, though, once people see how impressively it has been deployed. When Waterworld came out two years ago, accompanied by stories of cost overruns and on-set struggles, the film's producers tried to defray the negative press with a time-honored defense: consumer advocacy. "Ticket prices will be the same for our movie and for one that cost $10 million," the studio said. "People should be applauding us for putting up big stakes and giving the public more for their money." What they failed to understand was that people weren't upset that the filmmakers had spent $160 million. People were upset that they spent it on Waterworld.

That said, there are some concerns about the success of Titanic, given its staggering cost. What effect will it have on the Propaganda Films gang--the Michael Bayses and Simon Wests of the world, who are already used to blowing $100 million on star-driven, concept-heavy thrill rides like The Rock and Con Air? Do they now expend their energy trying to convince the studios that their $200 million dream project has the potential to be another Titanic?

Or do they take a different lesson from their spiritual forefather, James Cameron, and learn that movies need more than just delirious action to be truly successful? A decade from now, people will still be watching and talking about Titanic, while Con Air will be just another Saturday-afternoon Movie for Guys Who Like Movies. What's inspiring about Titanic is that it has a heart as big as its budget.