gus81

I saw this documentary on the A Night to Remember DVD, and finding it fascinating and informative, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The documentary puts into perspective the effort that went into the making of ANTR, and shows that the film was indeed a landmark movie of British cinema, which went to great lengths to tell the story of the Titanic. It also features extensive interviews with those involved in the production; and as they are now dead, this documentary is an invaluable source of fascinating information.

There is plenty of titillating trivia to keep you amused, and the explanations of how the special effects were achieved in those times provides a wealth of information for fans of a Night to Remember, and of old time film-making in general.

The documentary presents all this information in a very clear and concise way, and as such it will be invaluable for anyone even with the smallest passing interest in the Titanic, film-making, or just history in general.

It is worth buying the ANTR DVD simply for the presence of this documentary alone.

This film wasn't too bad for a TV movie; but nonetheless, it isn't too good either.

The film is too long in the first place. The kind of simple plot lines employed here could have been told in a two hour time-frame, they didn't need to be dragged out over the three hours the film is. These sub-plots indeed are pretty boring and lacklustre - typical TV movie stuff; but this time an earthquake shakes things up some.

Worse still, the main plot is almost inexcusable. The star, Joanna Kerns, is a seismologist and she thinks she has figured out a methodology to predict earthquakes. Using this method, she decides an Earthquake is going to hit LA pretty soon. Of course no one believes, or wants to believe her, because there's too much red tape involved in following up such a warning - like evacuating the city for nothing if it ends up being a false alarm. So she becomes the strong willed and much maligned protagonist, fighting against the system in order to save lives.

This plot line was ripped straight out of 1974's Earthquake (with Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner), so everyone knows how the film is going to end; they've seen it before! And everyone knows that those bureaucratic skeptics in the film are wrong. Heck, the film's title is a dead giveaway that there will be a quake, and that everybody should have listened to the seismologist! This is why the film makers didn't have to drag out the scenes dealing with this for such a long time before wowing us with the actual quake.

Other than that, the quake scenes were surprisingly good for a TV movie. There was enough bang and blast to keep anyone amused, and the special effects carried it off quite well. The problem is that not many people (except extras) die in the end, and this is a bit disappointing, because after such a simplistically boring plot line being dragged out for such a long time, one yearns for a bit of a jolt at the end. This doesn't not come, however.

'The Big One' is not too terrible a movie, but you may need to engage your trusty fast-forward button....

This is a very waterlogged war film, notable today only for its mammoth star line up and for being a rare war film in that it depicts a German victory. The director has attempted to make the film as comprehensive a telling of Operation Market Garden as possible, but has instead (or because of this) left us with an over-crowded and at times heavy-handed mess.

The film starts out well, conveying well the war-office politics which, borne out of an arrogant zeal to end the war swiftly, ended up dooming the entire operation. Pointing out sound reasons to delay the launching of the air drop, which would save thousands of lives, was regarded as 'rocking the boat.' Notable was the character of Fuller, who saw the presence of German tanks as a good reason to call off the mission. When he pushed for this, he was forced to take 'some leave' for exhaustion. The mission went ahead - straight into a few German Panzer divisions. Following Fuller's advice (based on sound intelligence), would have saved a few thousand men, and probably the mission; but Allied command wanted the boys home for Christmas, and Fuller was rocking the boat - touché.

Indeed there are also some fine battle sequences incorporating great special effects. But these are few and far between in this three hour movie. These good points, including the wonderful cast and a brilliant score, are just not enough to make this film worthwhile as anything but a curio. The rest is all downhill.....

The screenplay is simply awful - there is just too much going on in the events which are the subject of the film, and this muddles the movie. Even if you are following the film closely, at times you are left wondering if you've in fact missed something when a quick rewind to recap shows that you haven't. A lot of self indulgent, meandering direction from Attenborough doesn't help the matter either. He also seems to enjoy over-exposing the film in many scenes, so that sunlight glows in a blurry manner, creating a sepia kind of image. This looks terrible, and is reminiscent of some dreadful films by Tony Richardson.

The star line up, though magnificent is ultimately unnecessary. It only ends up distracting the audience from the film's plot. Sundry big names appear in totally unnecessary cameos, most of which simply detract from the main plot; this, I feel, adding to the confusion of an already muddled screenplay. Laurence Olivier and James Caan appear in two completely pointless almost-cameo roles. Both the roles are completely beneath these actors, and the pretentiousness of the director to include these scenes (especially Caan's) is clearly evident in their suplerfity. The dialogue between James Caan's character and the field doctor was simply inane, and should have just been cut.

The scene towards the end, in which the leading officers of the operation stand atop a bell tower and contemplate why the mission failed, is simply a straight rip-off from the ending of The Charge of the Light Brigade in that each tries to blame some other aspect of the planning which led to their own section failing. The actual final ending of the film was bland, and very heavy-handed. Totally unsatisfying - especially after three hours.

And all through the film the national-specific clichés of the characters was abysmal. The two American leads (Ryan O'Neal and Elliot Gould) were just cardboard-cut-out US stooges - cigar chomping, loudmouths always rattling on about 'American ingenuity' and the need 'to try', and wishing to emulate George Washington in battle. The British were no better - if not worse. There was just so much 'Chin up laddy', and 'better luck next time old boy - eh' going on that the film began to play like a parody of a war film; so much so, that by the end of the film you are relieved that the Nazis have won the day - if, of course, you are still awake to care by this stage.

This film requires patience, as most films with such run time do; but most other long films have the virtue of being able to hold your attention by providing a solid evening's entertainment. A Bridge Too Far doesn't have this virtue, because it has attempted to crowd too much into its clumsily handled screenplay. It is a worthwhile film for war buffs, as there are a few rewarding battle scenes; but one has to wade through veritable spools of self-important and confusing - sometimes down-right boring - celluloid to get to them. To the casual viewer this is not an enjoyable prospect, and not even the star power of the film can make such a task worthwhile.

Tony Richards was an ideas man, in some loose sense a lot like his contemporary 60s director Richard Lester. The two of them were mavericks, often eschewing traditional and reliable modes of film making in preference to trying out unchartered techniques - born out of nothing else but their own imaginations. Lester did this to achieve an original knockabout and racy product, and Richardson did it to achieve a more stark and poignant effect for the supposed thinking-man's 'swinging' audience of the time. However, not all these ideas worked well in practice. The Charge of the Light Brigade is an example of one of these misfires.

The film is a classic piece of late sixties film making; both in the bizarre arty techniques used, and in the bold anti-war message. The idea of the film is to shamelessly point out the blind arrogance that lies behind the decisions made by those at the top to go to war. Arrogance, the film conveys very clearly, which is based purely upon blissful ignorance. The audience is invited to feast upon the bumbling Lord Raglan (John Gielgud), who nonchalantly sits at his desk in the war office and calls the shots based only on his devotion to England's great past, rather than on any rational thought. We meet, and are disgusted with, Lord Cardigan (Trevor Howard) whose arrogance is the driving force behind all he does. He believes that he is always right no matter what, simply because as the captain he is in charge. He's more concerned with what his men drink out of in the mess, and punishing them for their wrongdoings, rather than on running a well oiled military machine. To him, he is the most important part of that machine.

In contrast to these men is Nolan (David Hemmings), an idealistic military man with 'principles'. He believes in good sound leadership and decision making, and as such is constantly at odds with the stuffy and arrogant attitudes of his superiors - they are always right and he should speak when he's spoken to, even if he has a valid idea. Note Lord Raglan's line: "It is a sad day for Britain when her officers know too much what they are doing." Nolan is the man trying to fight vainly against the ignorance-entrenched system.

All this happens to the backdrop of Britain choosing to join in on a foreign war - to save Turkey from Russia. It is a war Engalnd should not have been involved in, but the arrogant big wigs made the decision to go. In true 60s anti-war style, the arrogance of those in charge of the war machine brings about its own destruction. Nolan was right, Raglan and Cardigan were wrong and didn't care to accept that, the light brigade was lost, and a blaming game ensues. While riding over the corpse of Nolan, Cardigan threw the blame on Lord Lucan, Lucan in turn threw the hot potato to Raglan, and Raglan laid the blame on the poor innocent man who wrote the order that Raglan himself dictated to him. As such, the pointlessness of war, and the destructive capability of blind ignorance based on an arrogance derived solely from power was brought forth clearly.

However, the directing techniques to bring this powerfully stark message to life were not up to the task. Too many dreamy sequences were used which just distract the audience; the script was at times just downright boring; and too often, in the director's eagerness to achieve an arty effect, the powerful meaning of an entire scene was lost. It is one of those films that you really have to pay attention to and concentrate on the whole way through; and this isn't just because The Charge of the Light Brigade is a thinking-man's film, it is because the meaning of many of the scenes is hidden, shrouded behind quite a bit of self-indulgent (or imaginative) imagery. Too often Tony Richardson's 'ideas' simply confuse the audience.

However, as I have said, the film does have a point to make, and this point is evident to all at the end of the film, no matter how many scenes were a little too cryptic. Therefore the film was successful. In addition, there were many great scenes, such as the one where Lord Raglan rides straight through a peaceful anti-war demonstration on his horse, destroying banners and calling the demonstrators traitors. The scene where the British soldiers were seen dying of heatstroke on the plains before even reaching Sebastopol was done well, especially when the scene cut straight to London, where it was reported in the newspapers, untruthfully, that Sebastopol had already fallen. This scene went straight for the jugular in its anti-propaganda and anti-government stance. And of course there is the brilliant period animation showing England as the saviour of the world, and the encourager of world industry and prosperity. These animations contrasted beautifully with the scenes of petty bickering and war-mongering in Lord Raglan's corridors of power.

A great cast and a stark and powerful idea make The Charge of the Light Brigade an interesting film, and at least a good production. The film still rings through in todays international and political climate, and especially shows how not so far we have come, and how many mistakes we have not learned from since the 1960s, and even since the 1850s. However, a sharper script and clearer direction would have helped immeasurably, and would have probably transformed this film into a classic powerhouse, rather than the languishing near miss it is. 6/10

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*, if there can be in a film as famous as this....

Psycho probably has the most famous (and/or infamous) scene in the history of movies - the shower scene. The shower is in the Bates motel, run by Norman Bates, and his 'mother'. Even today, if someone looks freaky, many still say he looks like Norman Bates. If someone has a clingy or naggy mother, many a Norman Bates allusion is referred to. Psycho has become etched into modern culture and become a household name. Why?...because the film was a milestone, not just of gore, but of cinematic effect and technique. Psycho is, all at the same time, taut, mesmerising and terrifying. It is a textbook example of how to captivate an audience, and then shock them right at the very end.

The film starts by introducing a love-lorn and frustrated heroine, complete with a dead-end job, and a relationship that needs a jump start. The audience is introduced to her and her troubles; we follow her, and feel for her - then she is murdered right in front of us. The array of characters introduced in the first half of the film - the arrogant 'Texan' guy who flashes forty thousand dollars, the bumbling boss, the suspicious highway cop, the dumbfounded used-car salesman - all amount to nothing. This pioneering change in plot has the same effect as a tree which you collide with after pulling up the handbrake on a speeding car.

Then enter Milton Arbogast, the private detective who begins the search for our slain heroin Marion Crane. He investigates the Bates Motel and finds something amiss. He reports the news to the worried boyfriend and sister of Ms Crane - they all develop some trust and repartee. Then he's dead. Then enter the local town cop who doesn't believe the boyfriend's and the sister's suspicions, while all the time the audience knows what really happened and why people are dying at the hands of an 'evil old lady' who the disturbed Norman Bates is desperate to protect.

The whole film was a totally new way of writing a plot, and of manipulating a storyline. The supposed lead character is killed early on, a replacement protagonist suffers the same fate; and all the audience are then left with are the utterly desperate and confused Lila Crane (sister) and Sam Loomis (boyfriend), who have only their suspicions and fear to drive them toward finding the truth. The audience feels for them, because we know that Norman's mother murdered Marion Crane.....or at least we think we do.

Psycho only runs for around an hour and a half. It is the tautest thriller I've ever seen. Not one scene is wasted on being filler. Each scene is purposeful, powerful, and extremely economical. The pace is cracking when it needs to be, and slow and hypnotic when emotion and fear need to be emphasised; note the long scene as Norman Bates cleans up the murder scene - this allows the horror of what just happen sink in.

The script is rattling, with some flourishing dialogue that even overshadows some wooden acting from John Gavin. The cinematography is brilliant, with great use of lighting and shadows. And, of course, the directing is just simply cutting edge, even for today. Anthony Perkins does a perfectly chilling job as the psychotic Norman Bates, and Martin Balsam is a completely natural private eye. And famously, to complement these ground-breaking plot twists, are the chilling and perfectly executed murder scenes.

And finally, the chilling revelation of what really happened at the Bates Motel is kept right until the blood-curdling end, and is realised through a ear-splitting scream, a rotting skull, and a naked swinging lightbulb; a scene which leaves the audience shocked, terrified and thrilled after such a roller-coaster of a movie. For those few people to whom the 'spoliers' warning at the start of this piece applies, go and rent this film. It is simply a must for everyone. It is a defining moment of modern popular culture, and as such if there ever was a convincing candidate for the greatest movie ever made title, well then this is it.

This was a fantastic film, and a great indictment against everything (or most things) wrong with the world at the moment. Now, I personally can't stand South Park, but this film was something utterly different from the former's creators. Amid all the pubescent toilet humour lurks some very sharp and damaging satire in almost every scene. Some of it was painfully apparent, some you had to read between the lines to discover. A truly intelligent and witty movie.

Where do you start? The film has a go at everyone and everything from the Americans as 'World Police', destroying everything and sparing nothing as they travel the world eliminating their enemies; the UN's weakness, when Hans Blix merely threatens Kim Jong Il with an ill-tempered letter in reply to non-compliance; left-wing socialists in the FAG (SAG) and Michael Moore; and even terrorist masterminds as in the scene on Bakkalakkadakka Street, and in Kim Jong Il's palace. These satires are priceless, and very politically savvy. They become hilarious when they are offered to the audience with an accompaniment of puerile slapstick; like when Hans Blix was fed to the sharks by Kim Jong Il...."F---k you Hans Brix!" The slapstick and the satire simply bounce of each other perfectly.

Add to this the whole Thunderbirds spoof with the Team America home base, the blunt and harsh Matt Damon jokes (the actor was only able to say his own name in a dopey voice!), the underlying sarcastic pastiche of the Team members relationships with each other, the "dicks, arseholes and pussies" segment, and of course the puppet sex scene, and you have a brilliantly witty film which pastes together stinging satire with unsubtle puerile humour and laces the entire product with many amusing little vignettes.

And of course the puppets are excellent, especially those which depict real people. They are superbly done, as are the sets. A fantastic film made by people who really have their finger on the pulse of society, as well as on the funny bone. Go see it.

Though a far cry from the David Lean classic, I thought this film offered reasonable entertainment for anyone with a passing interest in war films. Admittedly, there is not a great deal to say critically in the film's favour, but I think the current voter average is a little too harsh.

The film does suffer from a large dollop of poor acting, a sometimes inane and amateurish script, and often allows itself to become bogged down in clichés. The stilted and often unimaginative direction makes the film seem like a television show. However, at times the director allows the film to shine with some snappy and economical moments. The music is by the great Lalo Schifrin, and though not one of his best works (a little too simplistic and drenched in military cliché) it is quite catchy. But the special effects are too lacklustre to make the action sequences truly exciting.

However, Return from the River Kwai does have at least an interesting premise, and a decent screenplay which helps carry the story well. The on location shooting makes the settings look authentic, and the costumes are fairly decent. The film offers more than enough thrills and spills to keep you amused on a rainy afternoon. And of course it is great to see the always dependable George Takei and Edward Fox, as well as the lovable, late-great, Denholm Elliot on screen.

By no stretch a great movie, but one I am content to pass the time with. I do wish that television stations would program a movie like this for a daytime matinée instead of that made-for-television rubbish about some murderer in Mid-West America. Return from the River Kwai is a much better effort than those kind of movies, and it offers good, simple, lunchtime fare. At least a 5/10.

Probably not one of the great epics, but still big and awe-inspiring. The performances are great, the sets are beautiful and the cinematography is sweeping. As epic eye candy Cleopatra is great to watch, but there is definitely something missing in the film.

The film has an enormous Shakespearian lilt to it; lots of over acting and scenery chewing which allows Taylor, Burton and Harrison to really get into their roles. But this element in the film also makes the film fairly sterile and at times downright wooden. The often stagy directing does not help the matter either.

The film also uses very limited settings. The whole four hours, apart from the scenes at Phillippi, Actium, and the senate in Rome, are all shot inside some palace or another - mainly Cleopatra's. This further infects the film with that stagy wooden quality. The audience does not get taken on a fantasy ride into the ancient world, but merely into the melodramatic lives of three 'kings' with whom the audience does not have a lot in common.

The film eschews any opportunity to fully revel in the mood of the times. Unlike Kubrick in Spartacus, who included Roman political intrigue as a subplot which provided a rich contrast to the adventure of the slaves, Manikewicz only provides us with a quick glance at the political scene in Rome - a few seconds of the anti-dictator Cicero bad-mouthing the triumvirate. Neither did the film show the Romans' full and true reaction to Cleopatra's stay in Rome, which was one of distrust and scepticism as well as awe; it was content just to show her spectacular arrival and the mob's awe at it. This reluctance to focus on anything but the monarch's own melodramatic ambitions and arrogance robs Cleopatra of depth, and renders the film very wooden, staid and stagy. This disqualifies it from being one of the great ancient-world epics.

But still, there are many scenes which are absorbing and great fun to watch. The sets are amazing, the costumes brilliant, and it is great to see all the late-great names on screen doing a magnificent job. Cleopatra is not a bad movie, it is a well crafted and sublime extravaganza, but it does not have a universal appeal. You need to have an interest in either ancient history or old film-making otherwise Cleopatra will seem like it has gone over budget and become a flop. A 7/10 for great acting, great visuals, and what is undoubtedly a well crafted film.

Spartacus is probably the best of the sword and sandal movies of this era. The film is taut, thoughtful, well-acted and not overly long. There is equal measure of action, love scenes, and Roman political intrigue; therefore the film doesn't bog itself down in any one area or cliché as some of these epics do. This makes Spartacus a well-balanced movie that is really watchable.

Great sets, great costumes and great actors compliment a brilliant script. The film is very well produced and effectively directed. The fight scenes are extremely absorbing - especially the fight-to-the-death pairings watched by Crassus (Lawrence Olivier), Glaborus (John Dall) and the Roman ladies; the love scenes are touching (first time around anyway); and the scenes of political intrigue in Rome are an excellent off-set to the plight of the gladiators.

By including the political scenes, Kubrick added a tremendous depth to Spartacus. The political play-off between Crassus (an optimate), Caesar (a populare) and Gracchus (head populare) add a great historical flavour to what was going on politically in ancient Rome at the time, and help no end to take the weight off the 'fighting for freedom' motif of the film. These scenes also provide us with a great subplot involving Gracchus (Laughton) and Bataiatus (Ustinov). The research for these scenes was done well, and the script is very intelligent, incisive and sharp.

The film fails in some areas though. The good versus evil motif was clearly intended as American Cold War era propaganda. Note the monologue at the start of the film which states that Spartacus was dreaming of an end to slavery "forty years before the coming of Christ" and "2000 years before slavery would end." The monologue infers that Christianity does not favour slavery, but freedom. This was not the case in the ancient world - bishops kept their own slaves, and Jesus Christ and St. Paul themselves do not denounce slavery, but instead use it as a metaphor for being a 'slave of god.' To the early Christians, and Jesus Christ, the social position you held in life was not important, what was important was if you had been a good person and served your master well, for it was the afterlife which counted.

It was also impossible for someone in the ancient world to envisage a world without slavery. Spartacus would not have had the slavery-free world of our own, in which freedom is a right and not a privilege, to compare his own to. Slavery had always been a normal, intrinsic part of ancient society. Slaves may not have liked to be kept prisoner, but they would not have been able to comprehend a world in which such a condition did not exist. This heavy-handed aspect of the movie is an American manufacture - creating a protagonist and antagonist situation to suit the times in which the film was made.

Nonetheless, this is a minor quibble that can be overcome by the merits of the rest of the movie. Spartacus is a finely crafted outing that takes the audience along in an involving and sweeping story that is well-acted, well-scripted and which takes the trouble to add a good amount of depth to its otherwise engrossing subject matter. A solid 9/10.

Help is one of those fast paced knockabout films of the 60s, when comedies didn't have to make sense; they just had to be whacky, colourful, fast and fun. This film is certainly all of the above.

Dick Lester had a great command of what was going on culturally at the time and his command really shows through in his frenetic directing style. He is definitely a pioneer, and this is a landmark film. You can see the influence of this movie coming out in the colour episodes of I Dream of Jeannie, the Monkees, and 60s cult favourites such as Arabesque.

The film is generally fun and enjoyable, but it is a 60s period piece, so it may not be for all. Film buffs and film school students will definitely get something out of it, but 60s buffs and especially Beatles fans will love it. Not a bad film by any means, but you have to be in the mood.

Well, this certainly put bums on seats. Great special effects, great cinematography, nudity, steamy sex scene, spitting competitions, shoot-outs, and a tragic ending to a beautiful love story - all aboard the S.S Titanic! This makes for, I'd say, the worse of the well-known Titanic movies. It had a much bigger budget and such better special effects, but for extreme lack of sincerity and authenticity it is by far the worse. The producers actually seemed to make an effort - in some parts at least - to include 1990s attitudes into a 1912 setting: note the rude finger Kate Winslet gave to the antagonist while escaping down the lift.

Kudos to James Cameron for putting so much effort into building the actual ship from original blueprints and for focusing so much attention on realistic FX, and making the film, in parts, so profoundly historically accurate. But in those parts in which the film was not profoundly accurate, it was profoundly the opposite and disgustingly so. Shame on Cameron for making the focus of the film a soppy, clichéd love story; the kind of which we have seen dozens of times. And shame for making those scenes which were historically and poignantly accurate mere backdrops to this standard and fictionalised love story.

But in our times, this kind of lowest-common-denominator love story puts bums on seats and millions forked out to see Winslet and DiCaprio fall in love, ride on the bow, and finally say a tearful, inopportune, goodbye.

This is the failure of the movie. It is anachronistic, and the film voids itself off. On one hand, spending millions on accuracy - sets, research, costumes and special effects - will attract many people looking forward to good quality film-making and a solid telling of what happened that night - people who will then be alienated by the no-brainer love story. On the other hand, the assumed target audience of the film who are primarily excited by the love story are those who could not care less about the millions spent on historical accuracy. It is a totally anachronistic situation.

James Cameron totally wasted a fantastic opportunity to make a brilliant film on the subject, a film that could have surpassed all previous efforts. Instead he devised a storyline totally entrenched in Hollywood love-story stereotype, of the type that anyone could see anywhere else, and simply set this aboard a historically accurate rendition of the Titanic. He did not understand that the real events alone of April 14-15 1912 were enough to fuel a heart-breaking story of tragedy and bitter irony, and instead he used well-worn cinematic tools to pitch the film at the lowest-common-denominator who can't be bothered thinking outside their own experience. 'Titanic' is just an example of the cultural sterility of our times. The 1958 film 'A Night to Remember' told a more genuine, authentic, touching and historically accurate version of the disaster with half the budget and half the special effects technology, and I think this is testament to the suburban teenage wasteland which is Cameron's film.

Still, the film offers good old-fashioned movie-going thrills and spills. It has a classic format against-the-odds love story all. It also has great special effects, and employs intelligent cinematography. So as a form of entertainment, it is a jolly good romp to accompany a bag of popcorn. As a film about the Titanic - which it purports to be - well, this kind of story could have been set anywhere and at anytime. The Titanic merely made a good and exciting setting for the fictional characters involved.

This is a bad Titanic film, and as James Cameron was aspiring to make a Titanic film, hence the title, he has failed. As time, the harshest critic of all, marches on the film will be seen more and more as a marketing vehicle of the late 1990s. Other, better, Titanic productions will remain holding their own as honest, accurate and sincere renditions of what really happened that night.

Finally, the above-mentioned remarks about the anachronistic nature of the film make it difficult to rate, and hence the love-it-or-hate-it experience of this film. 'Titanic' straddles the ridge between well researched triumph and Hollywood farce with the dexterity of a three-legged elephant....Which ever direction the elephant falls is up to each individual viewer.

Based on the Walter Lord novel of the same name, A Night to Remember is far and away the most definitive and honest telling of this famous and world-shaking disaster. Flaws it may have, but these largely revolve around a lack of special effects technology available at the time, and a lack of historical evidence due the fact the wreck had not yet been discovered. Despite these minor quibbles, the film is probably the only one to loyally adhere to telling the truth about what happened that night; and it does so in a most compelling way.

Unlike the smartingly awful James Cameron schlock boiler, ANTR doesn't pack a spectacular special effects punch - but nor does it pack a spectacularly corny and improbable love story concocted with teenagers in mind. The producers of ANTR understood that you didn't need a fictitious love story to heighten the tragedy of that night - the bitter irony of the real events sufficed.

And it is this irony and tragedy that the filmmakers brought out absorbingly well. The comprehensive book by Walter Lord was consulted down to the letter; so the story is told as authentically as possible. With a great script involving mainly real historical characters, perfect casting, and performances that show the actors were engrossed in their roles, the film really does shine. The snappy, economical directing is both proof of the lack of pretensiousness of the producers, as well as being extremely effective in bringing out the meaning in each scene. This makes for intelligent and gripping viewing.

Watch out for the poignant scenes in which the crew attempt to contact the nearby Californian to no avail, and Captain Smith walks to the railing and implores God to help them; the scene where the Captain calls "every man for himself", then walks into the wheelhouse just before it dips underwater; and the gripping scene in which Thomas Andrews (the Titanic's designer), a broken man, waits in the smoking room for the end, determined to go down with his creation. All these scenes are powerful, authentic and sincere; scenes in which all the various emotions aroused by such a disaster are brought out very clearly and movingly.

The special effects, although not so brilliant for today, were fantastic for the times; half the ship was actually constructed for life-size shooting, and a large model was also built, complete with miniature little row boats featuring motorised oars, for the long shots. So the maximum effort was made to make as realistic a depiction of the disaster as possible. And, in fact, the interior scenes of the ship are perfectly authentic, and the audience feels that they are actually aboard the Titanic. Only in the long shots, where a model was used, does the film look noticeably dated.

So by sticking as close as possible to the survivor's accounts featured in the Walter Lord novel, and by avoiding modern cinematic clichés, A Night to Remember remains the only Titanic film to provide a genuine account of the sinking of the great ship that is not marred by superficial Hollywood garbage. It tells the story, as it happened, of an event that changed mankind's attitudes toward his own creations; and as such, it brings to the screen the full impact of what this disaster really meant to the world in, as mentioned, a very compelling, poignant and honest way. It is a true testament to British film making.

As a footnote, many actual survivors of the Titanic were on set as the film was being made; and the musical pig in the lifeboat scenes was the actual one from the real disaster. In addition, the Titanic's fourth officer Boxhall was a technical adviser to the production. And the film's producer was there, as a small child, when the actual Titanic was launched in Belfast. This kind of authenticity makes this movie almost a living documentary.

Intelligent, honest and compelling, A Night to Remember is at least one of the best historical films ever made, and is well worth anybody's time. Everyone is bound to get something out of this movie; and indeed it is a powerhouse for anyone with an interest in the Titanic or just history in general. A totally underrated gem.

This film is an extremely atmospheric telling of the sinking of the Titanic. It used mainly real passengers to tell the story through, and as a result isn't too bad a production.

However, the special effects were terrible and inaccurate. Firstly, the film makers used the Queen Mary to film on as the Titanic - this ship looks totally different and is the same ship used for the Poseidon Adventure. In the long shots of the ship sinking, SOS Titanic simply colourised scenes from A Night to Remember. The scenes of the ship sinking were really hopeless - continuity was terrible and the water actually flowed down the deck TOWARD the submerged bow. This is the most important part in a Titanic story, so to handle it so sloppily really is unforgivable.

However, the scenes on board really captured the atmosphere of the times and the atmosphere of impending disaster to which all on board were fatally oblivious. The opening scenes as the Carpathia rescues survivors were really handled well (apart from Cpt. Rostron only organising the ship at the last minute - this wasn't true), and they conveyed a sense of numbed shock and loss. The characters are all real, which is a plus too.

All in all, this film does not impress in realistic special effects, nor in making the disaster look real; but it does well in telling a story and telling it with considerable atmosphere.