Celine Dion Blaming Jack For The Titanic 'Door' Drama Is A Mood

"He doesn't need an invitation"

This week in things I thoroughly enjoy, Celine Dion has managed to take the Titanic ‘door’ conundrum and completely turn it on its head.

During an interview on The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon, the Canadian singer tackled a question that has been on the minds of Titanic fans for 20 years – could Jack have fit on the damn door? – and somehow gave us a totally new perspective on it.

Fallon started the conversation:

“They’re [fans] are saying at the end of the movie, if Rose just scooted over a little bit, just a little bit over here, she could have saved Jack’s life.

“Do you agree with this?”

The ‘My Heart Will Go On’ songstress quickly replied in faux horror:

“Don’t put me in trouble. What if they want to do a Titanic number two?”

Before laying down the law.

Dion pointed out that Rose is having a pretty rough time herself, and she can’t really be blamed for not being super active in that moment.

“First of all, if you look closely at the picture, Rose is maybe dead or totally frozen,” she said.

“She’s not quite all there, okay?”

Then she hit us with a serious truth bomb:

“Second of all, he doesn’t need an invitation,” she said, before serving the camera some side-eye.

Move your ass, Jack!
Credit: 20th Century

And honestly, she is not wrong.

Jack, dude. You froze to death because you wanted to be a gentleman? Once Rose was up on the door you really could have tried to climb on at least one more time.

“Come on baby! Make yourself comfortable,” Dion continued.

It was at this point that my brain exploded, and I realised we all have been looking at this situation the wrong way, completely.

Check out the video for yourself and join me in finally forgiving Rose two decades after the fact.

Is Blake Lively Going To Delete Her Instagram For Every Movie Now?

Seems like a lot of effort.

If you’ve had access to an Internet connection this week, chances are that you’re aware that one Blake Lively has gone and wiped her Instagram account.

But it was so beautiful!
Credit: 20th Century

The actress has deleted all that prime content picturing hottie hubby Ryan Reynolds. She’s done away with every photo of her fabulous fashion moments. She’s robbed us of her witty captions and hilarious digs at those close to her (usually/always Reynolds).

All we’ve been left with is one measly post. A promo video for her upcoming film, The Rhythm Section.

As her caption, she’s simply tagged @therhythmsec. Funny story, though, that’s not the actual profile for the film – that would be @therhythmsectionmovie. It’s probably a little error, but interestingly, @therhythmsec is a profile that belongs to someone named Emilie.

Why is it interesting? Well, the coincidence here is that this isn’t the first time Lively has deleted her entire account. While promoting her last film A Simple Favor, she wiped her profile and only followed people named Emily – which was her character’s name in the film.

This time around, her character’s name is Stephanie Patrick – a woman on a revenge hunt after her family is killed – so, I’m no sure the Emilie link really means anything. It’s still kinda strange, though.

Anyway. We obviously know the ‘delete your entire account’ shtick works to get the attention of the public. Hello, I’m writing an article on it right now.

But being the second time she’s used this move, it does make me wonder: is she going to kill her Instagram account every single time she promotes a film?

After A Simple Favor, Lively went through and re-uploaded all of her posts (it could have been an employee, but it seemed to be her) to the platform.

Did she screenshot every caption? Did she keep a record of the order they were in? How long does something like that even take?

I assume she’ll do the same this time around, and honestly, it just seems like too much effort to me. I feel tired just thinking about it.

I guess I admire her dedication, though?

The Rhythm Section is set to hit cinemas in Australia on February 20, 2020, and stars Jude Law and Sterling K. Brown alongside Lively.

'Charlie’s Angels' Is Bombing But It’ll Change Your Mind About Kristen Stewart

She's funny?

I have to be honest, here. I had no interest in seeing the new Charlie’s Angels film.

Firstly because it was the latest in a long list of reboots and new instalments that I wasn’t sure we needed. But probably the biggest reason was that I didn’t really want to watch a Kristen Stewart film.

Terrible, I know. But I’m not alone. After her Twilight days, there was a large group who seemed to take the opinion that Stewart was kinda, well… boring.

The top Urban Dictionary definition of Stewart literally reads: “A ridiculously overrated young actress, who seems to get away with playing all of her characters the exact same way: dull, boring and lifeless.”


Judging by the film’s opening weekend performance, it appears there were a fair few other people who weren’t sold on the production, either. As The Hollywood Reporter shares, the film brought in $27.9M globally, which compared to Ford v Ferrari‘s $52.4M is pretty disappointing.

Having said that, however, there seems to be one pretty positive impact made by the film: it’s showing a different side to Kristen Stewart, and shifting opinions of her in the process.

The actress has been credited with giving a pretty damn hilarious performance that’s far from dull.

Yep, you.
Credit: Sony Pictures

As Tom Russo of the Boston Globe writes:

“What’s most entertaining here, ultimately, is the performance that Stewart turns in as outspoken, play-it-loose Sabina, a completely unexpected, who-knew mash-up of sexy and offbeat.”

Rob Thomas of Capital Times shares a similar view:

“When it’s kicking into gear – more often due to the comedy, especially Kristen Stewart’s ferociously funny performance – it can be a really fun time.”

And one more from Sara Michelle Fetters of

“[As] good as both Scott and Balinska are, and they are terrific, it is Stewart who runs away with the movie.”

It seems we’ve all done the film, and Stewart, a huge disservice with our initial assumptions (I know I certainly have) and owe them both a little more credit.

Pop-up Channel

Follow Us