La légende du Titanic

Let me preface this review by saying: I have no words for this atrocity that some people dare to call a film. I can only use Roger Ebert's words when he reviewed Caligula (another travesty I have neither time nor patience to delve into right now): "(This movie) is sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful."

How in the world could an Italian direction possibly have perceived the completely clichéd love story encompassed by possibly the greatest tragedy of the 20th century and associate it with a rapping dog?! Why was it ever started? Why didn't they just quit halfway and realize that it wasn't worth the trouble?

Unfortunately, they went through with its production, and ended up insulting the memory of all the poor souls who died on the Titanic. NO ONE DIED?! IT WAS ALL A FAKE?! THE TITANIC WAS COMPLETELY FABRICATED BY THAT LITTLE MOUSE FOR THE SAKE OF ENTERTAINING HIS GRANDCHILDREN?!?!

I would not recommend this movie to anyone, even my worst enemies. Fabricated as this story purportedly may have been, a disaster did occur in the end - this piece of unapologetic garbage.

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated it." - Roger Ebert

Why was this film made? You basically take the tragic fate of Titanic and turn it into some environmental film?! I'm sorry, but what was wrong with the makers of this film. If you want to do a save the whales movie, then just make another sequel to Free Willy instead! The fact that this film insults the tragedy of Titanic and its victims just sickens me. I would rather watch James Cameron's Titanic movie instead of this one. Nuff said!

The Legend of Titanic is not as abysmal as its sequel In Search of Titanic or the 2001 monstrosity Titanic:The Animated Movie(or The Legend Goes on). However, that is very faint praise, it is still terrible. The animation is alright, I wasn't impressed at all with the character designs but at least the colours were okay and the editing wasn't as all over the place as it was in the sequel or Titanic:The Animated Movie.

However, the music is poor. It is forgettable, and doesn't fit with the period at all. The dialogue is not even worth noting, other than to say it is forced and awful, while the story is rushed(the film is too short as well) and predictable with some unbelievable elements that insulted my intelligence to be honest. Not just the swing dancing, but also the mouse not dying from the electricity which had me shouting at my computer screen in disgust. And please do not get me started on the whole giant octopus idea. The characters are bland and unlikeable, and the voice acting is wooden.

All in all, an awful film, insulting and doesn't make sense. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Just WTF. The film is basically feels like the net result of if you showed the James Cameron film to a three year old, and a week later gave them a bunch of crayons and asked them to draw what they thought the film was about, and presented the pictures to animators as a legitimate storyboard.

Currently, this Italian animated film is #28 on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. In some ways, I am very surprised since it's not a particularly famous bad film and there were a lot of animated films in the 1970s which had just as terrible animation! Still, I do concede that it's a bad film...and not one I'd let kids watch unless I hated them.

The film begins with a grandpa mouse telling his grandkids his story about the Titanic. Oddly, then the film switches to the perspective of all the humans! What follows is a bizarro story of evil sharks and a scheme to destroy the whales?! Huh...somehow I missed this when I've watched documentaries about this 1912 disaster!

Let's talk about what I really liked about the film... Okay, finished.

Okay, now let's talk about what I didn't like. The animation was very poor, with a very low cel count (making the characters move in a choppy fashion) and often only animated small portions of the characters in an effort to make the film less expensive. So, often the characters expressions were flat and a bit zombie-like. Also, to save money, bad CGI was sometimes used that looked so stunningly different from the other animation that I was a bit surprised. This sure ain't a Disney product! In many ways, it's akin to the cheaper Hanna-Barbera films of decades ago. The story was just bizarre and stupid...'nuff said about that. The voices used were occasionally not terrible. As for the music, it was odd to hear so much cheap electronic music (made using a keyboard) for a film set in 1912.

So my final verdict is that I did hate the film. But I still wonder how it made it to the Bottom 100 list. After all, there have been a lot of crappy cartoons (such as "Pinocchio in Outer Space")....so why did this one manage to achieve the notoriety of the Bottom 100 list? I'd like to understand this...as well as a studio's decision to make such a misguided cartoon!