Britannic

At the end of this Fox Family Channel original movie, you find out that Titanic's sister ship, the Britannic, actually sank in 51 minutes -- twice as fast as Titanic.

Unfortunately, the movie sails for two hours and the plot begins taking on water long before the ship does. It becomes tiresome and plodding at times and, although a few scenes are compelling, the film fails to generate the excitement that one would expect from a "based on fact" sea tale.

The good news is that only 30 people lost their lives when the real Britannic went down. Far more died of boredom while watching this slow-moving flick.

Firstly the facts:R.M.S.Britannic was the third of the "Olympic" class of liners to be launched by White Star from Harland & Woolf's shipyard in Belfast after the original "Olympic" (1910) and "Titanic" (1911).She was launched in 1914 but due to the outbreak of the First World War in Britain in August of that year, was requisitioned by the Admiralty and soon converted into a hospital ship with her distinct white hull and huge red cross on her sides.On her 6th outward voyage to the island of Mudros (Greece) she was either torpedoed or mined in the Kea channel in November 1916.The actual cause is still something of a mystery and I presume this doubt partly inspired the "plot".Lessons had been learnt from the earlier loss of "Titanic" (1912), notably the cellular double bottom, higher watertight bulkheads together with distinctive and exaggerated davits from each of which several lifeboats could quickly be launched. Mercifully there was minimal loss of life since it only had the White Star crew and medical staff onboard who were going to tend the casualites arising from Winston Churchill's ill advised Gallipoli campaign (1915) which he ordered when acting as First Lord of the Admiralty.Had this tragedy occurred after embarkation of the troops, the disaster could have become monumental.As one perceptive critic has observed below, one Violet Jessop had the dubious distinction in serving as steward/nurse on all the three aforementioned sister ships but was not mentioned in the film.

It seems almost "de rigeur" in all these type of marine disaster films to have a fictional slushy love story wrapped up in a few facts.We had Robert Wagner and Audrey Dalton in "Titanic"(1953) Leonardo de Caprio and Kate Winslet in "Titanic" (1997) to name but two.I have read Robert Ballard's account of his expedition to the wreck which is still in remarkable condition lying on her starboard side when compared to what is left of "Titanic".I also have another video which explores the second explosion (the first being caused either from a German mine or torpedo) and whether this was caused by igniting coal dust or cold water causing the exposed boilers to explode.The most fascinatng part of the film was what appeared to be authentic newsreel footage of the launching of "Britannic" as I had never seen this before.As regards the film itself, it can only be judged on entertainment value alone.Present are the usual Hollywood stereotypes of "Irish Freedom Fighters" given free reign in a wildly imaginative plot adequatly dealt with by my fellow reviewers below.

Violet Jessop fractured her scull in the water as the ship ploughed on while her rising propellers still turned and I assume this gave rise to the suicidal scene where the German agent commits virtual suicide while sitting in his life boat as it advances towards them without making an effort to avoid them.This was at odds with his desperate escape earlier.On enertainment value alone I rated it 5/10.

The latter TITANIC was not the epic film about the perilous disaster that the ship beheld when it crashed into an iceberg. No, TITANIC was a mediocre love story written around the ship's disaster. And, this film made the pathetic mistake a few years ago, to try and rip off the success of that first movie with making a TV "special" about the tragic journey of Titanic's sister ship (this TV special also included about a zillion commercials).

The characters are even less interesting than they were in TITANIC, and the special effects and camerawork and not nearly as good. And this is not a good thing, especially since the producers obviously made sure that everyone knew this film was coming, so that they would watch it. And when it finally arrives, it is a complete and total flop. This did not keep me from buying again for my video collection when I saw it at Hollywood for under five dollars. All together, the storyline is slightly more interesting, as there are several gunfights and thrilling moments in which people are chased around. The film is not the thriller that it says it is. It is just another average film based on your true story (with the facts altered of course) and tries to rip off of the success of its predecessor. BRITANNIC gets 2/5.

A cheap cash-in on TITANIC, replacing the heading-for-an-iceberg storyline with one involving a German agent (this is set during the First World War) with plans to sabotage the titular hospital ship. BRITANNIC is sub standard in every respect, with poor casting, a laughable script and all manner of low-rent heroics which never convince. When I tell you that this is a made-for-TV movie, all of the above will make sense.

I watched it for Brian Trenchard-Smith, the maverick B-movie director of TURKEY SHOOT and THE MAN FROM HONG KONG, who can still make a decent Z-grade flick occasionally (I'm thinking AZTEC REX). Sadly, Britannic isn't one of his better films, as it's an entirely forgettable escapade which pales in comparison to just about any other seafaring movie you can mention. The leads are dull, the only cast interest comes from three B-flick veterans (John Rhys-Davies, delightful as the gruff captain; Bruce Payne, not a bad guy for a chance; Wolf Kahler in his usual typecast role) and the most offensive part of the story is that we're supposed to buy a romance between the female agent and the German spy! Even worse, we're supposed to sympathise with the guy's predicament when he's the one responsible for what happens in the first place; I don't know about you, but I was cheering when the propeller appeared.

While this is one of the better sort of 'made for TV movies', it did contain one mistake that made me cringe. During a conversation between the German Spy and an Irish accomplice, the accomplice states that many of the Irish seamen aboard will be glad to take part in the seizure of the ship because ' they've had family killed by the Black and Tans'. This is supposed to be 1916. The Black and Tans weren't founded until 1920. Its just a pity that that small element wasn't properly checked out first.