Titanic

It isn't great, but I was impressed by the overall project. It is overlong, with a somewhat corny script and some of the actors don't convince. The rape scene halfway through was very brutal, and perhaps inappropriate. Some people say this is historically inaccurate, but I need to check my history. The performances are good generally with some exceptions (Catherine Zeta Jones is lovely here), the costumes are nice and the special effects for a TV mini series were close to superb. George C.Scott is a brilliant actor, and he was quite good here. Tim Curry, as a villain likewise. Though both men have been better. I wasn't entirely convinced by Ase and Jamie's romance, as it was basically a retread of the James Cameron blockbuster, which also suffers from its length. The music is also good( my music teacher hates the 1997 film's music) and this is the first adaptation when the ship breaks into two, which was nicely done. Not a bad attempt! 7/10 Bethany Cox

This made-for-TV version of the famous disaster actually stands up fairly well against its $200 million James Cameron counterpart. The effects are good - and in a few cases even on par with Cameron's version. Indeed, watching the two films back to back, you might be surprised at the similarities between the two versions, at least during some key moments. Both have steerage party scenes, for instance. The cast is generally strong too, particularly Catherine Zeta Jones in one of her first lead performances, and George C. Scott as Capt. Smith. But where Titanic (1996) hits all the wrong notes is in a poorly conceived subplot involving a crooked crewmember (Tim Curry). His character doesn't really belong here, and his villainous actions get to be quite shocking near the end ... it takes away from the human drama of the doomed people on the ship and actually comes close to ruining the movie (though no fault of actor Tim Curry, who turns in a great performance). If you only have time to see one super-long movie based on the disaster, see the Cameron film - if you've got time to see two, this one is worth the rental.

This looks like a made for TV rush job; perhaps they heard a blockbuster version was in the works (Cameron's mega-hit the next year), and hurried to finish this before the release of it. These coat tail copies have been done before. In any event, this effort at relating the infamous maritime disaster of 1912 is big on ambition, but crippled by low budget.

There are distinct parallels to its more famous 1997 cousin. You get a Jack & Rose type romance, which is written very awkwardly. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Peter Gallagher did their best with it, but it really doesn't evoke the passionate emotion intended. Overall, the idea of the soap-opera entanglements of several characters is a good plan, and the actors mostly do well. However, the constant heavy-handed bashing of rich people is about as subtle as a repeated blows to the head with a tire iron; it really gets old. In particular, the slant on Molly Brown was so far afield it was just dumb. I thought George C. Scott was pretty good as the ill fated Capt. Smith, who inherits the lines of the Titanic's designer, a character that is in other versions, but deleted from existence here.

The film makes an earnest effort to portray the horror and sorrow of the tragedy, but one blunder really hurt the effectiveness: to show the gradually increasing listing of the ship, the director simply has the camera turned at a slight angle, but fails to have the actors lean in the direction. The painfully comic result is characters standing perfectly upright at odd angles where their center of gravity would force them to lean. Also a problem was the unnecessary house-thief crewman (Tim Curry) still wandering around burglarizing state rooms as the water gushes in all around him. Even worse, the character is played as a constantly giggling idiot.

The montage sequence was a good answer for the limited resources available, and the protracted epilogue aboard the Carpathia might have worked better had it been dedicated to giving fates of real survivors; instead, we get the schmaltzy and unrealistic fates of fictional people.

Just fair entertainment, and hardly a good source for the history of the event. If you want the best historical approach at the Titanic's story, see "A Night to Remember," and if you prefer a highly dramatic and fictionalized version, the 1997 Titanic is better than this one.

Though Titanic purists and some critics did not particularly care for this mini-series, it is rather good.

The cast is strong, including George C. Scott as the captain. The computer FX are well done. The only disappointment for me was the hodge podge way the final sinking was represented -- it was just a confusing series of cross fades that really showed nothing. Nevertheless, the film is worth seeing.

The thing with this film is it had good points and it had bad points. Some of the good points are that there were aspects to this film that were far more realistic than James Cameron's. For instance, the young rogue that sneaks onto the ship does so not by winning a suspensful hand of poker, but by stealing the tickets when his drinking buddy has passed out for the evening. This is also the same young rogue who steals a jacket to get into the first-class dining room and then procedes to pick-pocket some of the passengers, starting with John Jacob Astor. The crooked crew member (played by Tim Curry) was a nice touch. And the rape scene was a gritty touch of realism, though painful to watch. And yes folks, stuff like that does, and did happen in real life. This film DID focus on real people that were on the ship, though not neccessarily the same ones as James Cameron. That is neither a good or bad thing, that is what you call a creative decision. For instance, we get a casual glimpse into JJ Astor's Young wife's life through Catherine Zeta-Jones' character, who is in a similar situation. They are friends and have a conversation about it. This makes it feel much more natural than Rose's hurried pointing around the room under the thin guise of gossip.

The thing with the Allisons' maid was interesting- the maid did, in fact, take the baby and get in a life boat, without the mother's consent, causing the parents and their little girl to roam the ship looking for them until it went down. Whether the maid was actually crazy was anybody's guess, but it was an interesting choice of plot in this film. Though just a touch too ridiculous. Captin Smith, though he had a famous actor behind him, was a little off character I thought. He had too much initiative. I'm not using James Cameron's portrayal as a basis for comparison, but Captain Smith, though he had years of sea-faring behind him, had had very little experience with intense situations of that sort and was actually very unprepared for the disaster. He didn't think anything could possibly happen on that voyage. I like Molly Brown better, I don't know why. And I really like the last shot of the first part (cause this was a TV flick)- when the people are kicking the ice around on deck, the camera focuses to the forground where someone has placed a champagne glass on the railing. It slowly slides down the now slight incline and smashes to pieces on the deck. When I saw that, I felt it was worth watching. Overall, this film, was, well, a TV film. Meaning it wasn't that great. But it wasn't that bad either.