Titanic

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.

I had very mixed feelings about this movie. Although there were quite a few flaws, it was certainly not without its charm. The first thing that must be taken into consideration when commenting on this movie is that it was a low-budget, made-for-tv movie, so the effects and other technical aspects were less than spectacular. However, to me the story is what makes a movie good or bad. Since there were a few stories sprinkled throughout the film, it was at times good, but usually not so good. First the bad things. I think the worst thing about this movie is that there was alot of pointless and boring filler that made the movie seem to drag on, especially around the time of the sinking. The second time I watched the movie, I noticed that I fast fowarded through almost half of it. I also did not care much for the story of the Allison family and their paranoid nanny. I found their part when the ship is sailing extremely tedious and boring and the part when they're searching for their baby too obnoxious to be sad. I also almost couldn't bear the performance of the actress portraying Mrs. Allison. And the whole part about the nanny just became annoying. The Allison family actually existed, and the young Allison girl was the only first-class child to die on the Titanic. This could have been a very sad and touching part, but I just saw it as a complete flop.

Now for the ok things. I really loved Catherine Zeta-Jones and Peter Gallagher in this. Although the love affair between the two was just a little more than okay, they threw in great performances and I found their characters interesting. I enjoyed much of the happenings in first class and especially found the old superficial socialite (that woman with the dog, her name slips my mind as of now) very entertaining and humorous. As for those down in steerage, I found Jamie and Olsa to be quite charming characters and took interest in their affairs. However, my favorite part of the movie was most likely Tim Cury. If there is one thing I love in a film it is a good villian, and he is definately one. His performance was, in my opinion, the best part of the movie. Overall, I'd say that it was not great, but there were some factors that saved it and actually made it an enjoyable made-for-tv movie(how often can you say that?)

In all fairness, I can't see the pitch for this mini series as being another other than "Hollywood is producing a big-budget Titanic story - let's get there first." Fortunately, this isn't too bad, in fact, compared to a lot of the guff on television, it's actually quite good. There are as many historical innaccuracies as in Titanic '97 - but this mini-series has one redeeming feature - it is not a gob of sentimental pap. There is a fairly interesting narrative, sturdy direction, and a very good cast. It's a good effort, but everyone knows that every film about the sinking will be compared to the benchmark of "A Night to Remember". and so far, not one has come close.

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.

A lot of other comments stated that the acting was great, especially George C. Scott. Sorry, but that's just not so. His lines are delivered dripping with melodrama, so much so that I thought I was watching an amature production. His explanation of the ship and what would happen as soon as he stepped in the wheelhouse (after the collision) was laughable. How he knew the ship was doomed before anyone sounded the hull was amazing. Further technical gaffs was the sound of creaking wood and running water, even in the first class section, within minutes of the collision. The rape scene was apparently some scriptwriter's idea of connecting with contemporary stories, but it was ugly and just not true. In fact, this film is filled with more false info than any other (except the film by the same name with Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyk (sp?)). If you want to see the most accurate tale of what occurred during that April night, see the superb "A Night to Remember". I rate this one star out of 10.