Britannic

Another reviewer compared this to Young Indiana Jones and it's a fair comparison. The presence of John Rhys-Davies reinforces the comparison. Amanda Ryan is a lovely looking actress. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of her before. I didn't think Britannic would be particularly good as it is a made for TV movie and they tend not to be too memorable but I was pleasantly surprised. Naturally the effects are not as good as those in James Cameron's film. Some shots, though, do remind you of shots in Titanic but mostly they're the kind of graphics you see in historical TV documentaries. There is quite a bit of suspense in it and the presence of the two kids makes it a good family film. Miss Ryan goes undercover as a governess and this is a departure from the way they are usually portrayed, as sadistic tyrants who abuse the children in their care. It is definitely better than SOS Titanic and the Catherine Zeta-Jones mini-series Titanic. Jacques Cousteau's discovery of the wreck is referred to at the end of the film and if anyone's interest in the Britannic has been kindled by this film I'd recommend that you try and get hold of the National Geographic video of Jacques Cousteau's 1976 expedition. It is very interesting. In 1976 some of the survivors were still alive and they give first hand testimonies in this documentary. One survivor, an elderly lady from Edinburgh, Mrs Sheila Macbeth-Mitchell went down in one of Cousteau's submarines to the wreck. She must have been 86 at the time but still brimming with enthusiasm and fun. She definitely would have been interested in this film.

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.

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.

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.

30 or so people died when the H.M.H.S Britannic sank, 55 minutes after striking a mine, and this is how we respect them?

I am shocked at the fact that the film makers had the nerve to use the name Britannic in this steaming pile of a movie.

Don't even bother seeing this movie for yourself, the real story is far more dramatic. For instance, Violet Jessop, who was a nurse on the Britannic, was also on the Titanic 4 years earlier, and she was onboard the Titanic's other sister ship, the R.M.S. Olympic, when she collided with the British cruiser, the H.M.S. Hawke, in 1911. This poor women was on all three Olympic-Class liners (as they were called) when they experienced tragedies, and she isn't even mentioned. However, I believe that the main character in the movie is loosely based on her.