Raise the Titanic (1980) User Reviews (113)

Spectacular but unsuccessful film with a great musical score by John Barry

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 10 September 2012]

To obtain a supply of a rare mineral, a ship raising operation is conducted for the only known source, the Titanic . A group of Americans (Jason Robards Jr , David Selby) led by Dirk Pitt (Richard Jordan , Steve McQueen was offered the lead role in the film ; however, he felt the script was flat and turned down the offer) are interested in raising the ill-fated Ocean liner Titanic. As the marine research foundation carries out the preparatives to pick up a precious radioactive metal whose only known world supply reportedly went down as contraband aboard the Titanic , as they have to raise and recover it . One of the team members finds out the Russians also have plans to raise the ship from its watery grave .

This a spectacularly big-budgeted but slow-moving film that failed really at box office . The bulk of this tiring film surrounds schemes to locate and recover a valuable metal called Byzanium . The picture develops a thrilling suspense about a strange mineral along with an international intrigue blending the Titanic , Russians and submarines . Based on best-seller by Clive Cussler who appears as a reporter during a press conference ; however he hated this movie so much that he refused to allow the sale of any film rights for his other Dirk Pitt novels , he finally relented 20 years later, and agreed to sell the rights to 3 novels and the first to be filmed was Sahara, which Cussler also hated . Spectacual FX , as a model of the Titanic was built for $350,000 , when it was finished, it was too big for its tank , a bigger tank had to be built, for $6 million. The Titanic model used for filming was on display at Anchor Bay, Malta, in a building close to the set used for the town of Sweethaven in the film Popeye ; later, it was moved next to the deep water tank at the Rinella studios in Malta. A storm hit the island in 2003, damaging the model beyond repair. Acceptable main actors as Jason Robards as Admiral James Sandecker , early deceased Richard Jordan as Dirk Pitt , David Selby as Dr. Gene Seagram and Anne Archer as Dana Archibald . Supporting cast is frankly excellent as Alec Guinness as John Bigalow , M. Emmet Walsh as Master Chief Vinnie Walker , J.D. Cannon as captain Burke and Michael Pataki as Munk and Michael C. Gwynne as Bohannon .

The flick lavishly produced by Sir Lew Grade , caused the collapse his enterprise , regarding the film's cost, producer Lew Grade famously said that it would've been cheaper to lower the Atlantic . The motion picture was middling directed by James Goldstone , though Stanley Kramer was hired to direct, but quit after two weeks due to "creative differences". Jerry Jameson was an usual filmmaker for television who filmed other catastrophe movies such as Hurricane , Fire and rain , The elevator , Deadly tower , Fire in the sky and his greatest hit was ¨Airport 77¨ with an all-star-cast and one of the best of disaster genre .

The special effects overcome most of the shortcomings.....

[merklekranz · 6/10 · 26 January 2015]

There definitely are some dead spots. Too much time is spent looking for the ship. The three sided romance goes nowhere and could have been deleted. The entire operation of simply pumping foam, attaching gas bags, and exploding the Titanic off the bottom throws credibility out the window. Nevertheless, Richard Jordan and Jason Robards give it their best, despite minimal character development. The real star however is the Titanic model, which of course doesn't appear until past the half way point of the film. If you persevere until then, your imagination will be rewarded. Definitely watchable if you have enough patience. - MERK.

An Enormous Erection

[David_Frames · 5/10 · 8 May 2003]

A folly worthy of its namesake, Lord Grade, its liner sized producer famously remarked that it would have "been cheaper to lower the Atlantic", a feat he could have accomplished simply by jumping into it.

Raise the Titanic(!)is an adaptation of the novel by Clive Cussler. In its transition to the big screen however, most of the intricate cold war plotting didn't make it to the lifeboats. In its stead you have the basic story and of course the bank breaking poster promise of the doomed liner rising from her watery grave. It might have worked too had the source material been handled a little better. The screenplay is pretty talky and never really succeeds in building the necessary tension but what really sinks (sorry) the whole enterprise is direction from Jerry Jameson so moribund and lifeless, you'd think he was helming a movie for cable television. Its a mark of this that although it doesn't take very long to find the ship itself on screen you could be forgiven for thinking that you began watching the movie in 1912. Also RTT! has, for the most part a cut price look that undermines the epic scale of the story and its subject matter. When the ship does eventually see the light of day its via some model work and camera over-cranking that fails in producing that all important wow factor. To be fair though there are some very good shots of the ship entering New York harbour that do pack a punch, aided enormously by one of John Barry's best ever scores - a wonderful bombastic orchestral suite that is as good as hes ever produced. Were this a better film, and had anyone gone to see it Barry may have been in line for an Oscar (which he got when he plagiarised parts of the score for Out of Africa). In fact, its fair to say that Barry is the only person behind the camera who does the story any justice.

Richard Jordan gives a good performance as Cussler's hero Dirk Pitt and there's a nice Cornish Cameo for Alec Guinness but everyone else is really just waiting to die here. The twist is a good one but is handled poorly and you're left wondering what a director like John McTernian who did such good work with Clancy's Hunt for Red October may have made of the same material. Sadly the discovery of the real ship in two pieces has scuppered any remake possibilities so this is it. Raise the Bismarck anyone?

Cussler was Clancy before Clancy was cool

[Onslow1965 · 29 April 2000]

Ok, so Raise the Titanic isn't the greatest film ever made, but it's not the worst. Cussler was having Dirk Pitt raise the Titanic and save the world when Tom Clancy was still selling insurance. I wish the film makers had stuck closer to the book, which is part Titanic, part James Bond. It's as if they decided to take the (very) basic plot of the novel and spend about $50 million on a film that looked like about $1.99. The acting is fair considering the script Robards and Jordan had to work with. From an appearance stand point Richard Jordan is Dirk Pitt for me. I can see him in the part. It was just that the part wasn't written for one of Jordan's talent. Read the novel, rent the movie and compare the hatchet job Hollywood did on it. At least they would do better on the next major Titanic movie. Not much consolation to Clive Cussler I'm afraid, but hey that's show biz!

It Should Have Been Good....

[timdalton007 · 5/10 · 17 February 2005]

When I first came across this movie, I thought it was interesting and recored late night off TV. I enjoyed the film, at least until I read the novel by Clive Cussler several times.

The cast is pretty good. Jason Robards is great as Sandecker and David Shelby is perfect as Seagram, fitting Cussler's description perfectly. Anne Archer is good in the role of Dana and it's a shame we don't see more of her and her lines are terrible ("Wormy on the hooky." for example). Alec Guinness does so well in the role of Bigalow that the film is worth watching just for his small role. Richard Jordan is the only bad cast member. He doesn't fit in to the character of Dirk Pitt at all and seems to be overwhelmed in his scenes.

The music is the best thing going for this movie. The great composer John Barry gives one of his best scores ever for this film, giving the film a much needed boost in atmosphere. Everything else behind the camera though, doesn't live up to expectations. The film's editing, direction, production design all give this film a B- Movie feel.

The special effects are decent at least, with some good underwater work. The models of the subs look realistic. And the model of the Titanic is excellent and is, for the most part, accurate.

The writing is the worst thing about the film. This is were thee film dies with terrible dialog (back to Anne Archer's lines). The worst thing is that the plot of the novel is all but scrapped and the screenwriters had the nerve to change the ending! The original ending had Pitt finding the ore in the Southby graveyard, bringing back to the U.S. and testing the Sicilan Project successfully. But the film instead has Pitt and Seagram (who wasn't even in the novel's ending, having went insane after the ore isn't on the titanic, though it was a good change for the film) going to Southby and deciding that since the ore could be used for a bomb, decide not to bring it up. This has got to be one of the worst adaptations of a novel in film history.

A film that should have been good and started the film series of Cussler's Pitt novels instead turned into a $40 million B- Movie that was destroyed behind the camera. It Should Have Been Good....

"The movie equivalent of the Millennium Dome!"

[jamesraeburn2003 · 1/10 · 28 April 2004]

US Naval Intelligence attempts to raise the Titanic, the ocean-liner that sank on her maiden voyage in 1912. It is believed that her cargo contains rare minerals that will enable the Americans to perfect a defense system completely resistant to enemy missiles.

A film which cost $40,000,000 to make, was hyped as a blockbuster and then tripped the flop fantastic when it took a lousy $7,000,000 at the box-office. Hardly surprising because it is very thinly plotted (there's barely enough plot to make a b-movie), the acting is indifferent and above all it's just an unbearably tedious way of passing the time. It really does make one wonder why they spent so much time and money making so very little. I would place this on my list of movies that I love to hate when I call it the movie equivalent of the Millennium Dome, and just to add to the insult, they should have put sprocket holes on all the hype and thrown the picture away.

An unspeakable mess

[magic-89 · 1/10 · 6 December 2006]

There are films that you can say, they're so bad, they're good, like some of those silly locust/piranha/snake/shark/pick a creature of your choice infestation movies.

"Raise The Titanic" is merely bad. It is well chronicled that Clive Cussler, author of the book upon which this garbage is allegedly based, was so horrified with the end result that he refused to allow another of his books to be filmed. He eventually relented more than 20 years later, when "Sahara" arrived. By the sounds of things it may be a freezing day in hell before Cussler gives his blessing for a third time.

That is a pity because he writes those wonderfully absurd and over-the-top stories that are just begging to be turned into popcorn blockbusters, but who can blame the man. "Raise The Titanic" may be the worst big screen adaptation of a novel ever, although the "Da Vinci Code" isn't far behind.

We'll forgive some of the technical absurdities in the story line. The film was made some years before the wreck of the Titanic was discovered and nobody could have known that it is so thoroughly mangled, even if the beautifully whole and well preserved specimen the movie offers was always going to be wildly unlikely. We need an intact Titanic for the story to work, so fine, we can live with it.

What we cannot stomach is the incredible hatchet job which the screenwriters did on Cussler's novel, changing place and people names for no reason. Historical research obviously meant squat to these people so in the film we end up with a man who played in the band on the Olympic for three years before joining Titanic. The fact that Olympic went into service only about one year before Titanic is calmly disregarded. It's a minor point to all but real ship buffs, but you won't find it in the book.

The story is set during the Cold War. Apparently some very rare and utterly fictitious metal called Byzanium will for some reason make nuclear war obsolete, or some such crap. Surprise surprise, the entire world's supply of Byzanium is...you guess it, lying on the bottom of the Atlantic, thanks to a dastardly iceberg. The Americans must have it, so Dirk Pitt and company accept the challenge of raising the Titanic from two-and-a-half-miles down as if they were being asked to wash the dishes.

The threatening hurricane which adds excitement to the book is totally missing here as our heroes plod through one of the most tedious and poorly filmed "blockbusters" ever to disgrace the cinema and eventually pop the Titanic to the surface. After endless and quite stunningly boring undersea shots of what a three-year-old child could see is a scale model, the Titanic unglues herself from her watery grave and, hey presto, there she is, ready to complete her interrupted journey to New York. Lovely stuff, but after taking forever to set the scene the raising itself is made to look about as tricky as lifting a toy submarine from the shallow end of a swimming pool.

And, guess what, folks!! The Byzanium ISN'T on the Titanic, after all. It's in an English cemetery, but of course opening graves isn't much of a story line when compared to raising sunken liners, is it? The final plot "twist" in said cemetery is so absurd it defies belief, and again it didn't come from the book.

Acting? Some talented actors do the best they can with a truly atrocious script. Anne Archer is left with the unenviable task of uttering the most stomach-churning line ever committed to celluloid - "I just can't get the wormie on the hookie,". which could have been enough all by itself to destroy her career. In fact her role is removed of all meaning by the screenwriters and Ms Archer seems to have nothing more to do but be the pretty female in the cast.

The late Richard Jordan is a passable Pitt, but Jason Robards is nothing like the feisty Sandecker of the Cussler novels. Even Alec Guiness as a surviving crew member of the Titanic can't do much in his cameo role to stop the pile of rubbish from sinking faster than the object of its storyline.

It is no great surprise that "Raise The Titanic" quickly gained notoriety as one of the, if not THE, biggest bomb in Hollywood history. The special effects are awful even by the standards of the time (1972's "The Poseidon Adventure" is even older but fares much better in this department). The acting is wooden, the film is disjointed, and it just doesn't gel. There are a desperately few moments to savour. The scene where the Titanic surfaces is moving, and the music which accompanies it is evocative, but that's about it.

With a budget of some $30 million - enormous for its time - they could hardly have done a worse job of it. Why on earth they hired a director whose experience was limited to TV serials is one of the greatest mysteries of all time. What is much clearer is what producer Lew (later Lord) Grade meant when he said "Raise The Titanic? It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic."

That is my favourite quote in showbiz,and is ultimately the movie's longest lasting legacy. Famous, for all (and I mean ALL) the wrong reasons.

Guilty Pleasure

[ghall · 7/10 · 9 July 2001]

I saw this movie in the theatre, and I remember enjoying it. I knew it was a financial failure, but over the years since I've been surprise by the hatred it has generated. Long before Robert Ballard, finding the Titanic and possibly raising it was a dream I shared with a lot of Titanic fans. Clive Cussler wrote a pulpy but entertaining book on the subject, and I thought the story was made into a pulpy, but entertaining movie. I liked the cast: Richard Jordan, David Selby (I'm a Dark Shadows fan also...hoots of derision), Jason Robards and Anne Archer. Now, however, I have to watch a fading print under cover of darkness to avoid more hoots of derision! I've read that there is excised footage that might help the storyline. I'd buy a directors cut DVD, and have a "Raise the Titanic" party. It's only an entertainment, not a work of art.

"A best selling novel, but not a great movie"

[simon-trek · 1/10 · 30 April 2004]

I've seen this movie many times when I was young but I haven't read the the book until very recently. I've read just two other novels by Clive Cussler and I will definitely read more because Clive Cussler is one great author!

I'll admit to most people the film would be rather boring, simply because the movie has no action and no suspense. Not much except discussion about finding the mineral called "byzanium" and then trying to raise the Titanic from the ocean floor. There wasn't a very good cast of actors either.

'Raise The Titanic' was Cussler's first best selling novel published just a few years before the movie was released. Since then Cussler has written far better novels with even more action and adventure. In most of Cussler's novels he uses a character called "Dirk Pitt". Pitt is basically Cussler's fictional counterpart., his adventurous career parallels to that of Cussler. Like Cussler, Pitt works for a company called N.U.M.A. National Underwater Marine Agency, and travels around searching for lost shipwrecks and airplanes.

In the film of 'Raise The Titanic' Pitt (Richard Jordon) didn't look much like the way Pitt has been described in the novels. In the novels Pitt does have short dark hair but he doesn't have a beard. So the film didn't really present Pitt as much of character.

So I don't recommend this film to anyone. It is so dreary.

Rise like a Phoenix, R.M.S Titanic! Rise, we say!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 24 November 2021]

This is actually one of those rare occasions where I can proudly claim I've seen the film and read the book on which it is based! And it will probably be considered blasphemy, but I honestly don't think the film is a lot worse than the book. I know the critics bashed it down, that it was a tremendous commercial flop, and that novelist Clive Cussler hated the film-version big time. I certainly won't say "Raise the Titanic" is a masterpiece - far from it - but Cussler's novel isn't flawless, neither.

The plot he developed is brilliant, but Cussler goes way too much into detail, and that makes his book difficult to read. He even explores the identities and backgrounds of the twelve miners that were secretly sent to Russia in the 1910s to dig up the Byzanium, which goes way too far. You're already well passed the 100th page before the Titanic even gets mentioned in the book, and they weren't exactly the most exhilarating hundred pages.

Say what you want about "Raise the Titanic", but the essence of the film - the titular raising of the legendary ship more than 12,000ft up from the Atlantic Ocean's floor - looks magnificent, impressive, and spectacular. It cost a lot of money to accomplish, and it was money that producer Lew Grade didn't earn back, but the ship's model and the massive water tanks undeniably are masterful pieces of work!

In fact, the entire last half hour of "Raise the Titanic" is very enjoyable and competent cinema! True, the first hour is slow and rather dull, with unelaborated espionage and triangular relationship sub plots, but the movie is never horrible. For sure, it didn't deserve all the hatred from the critics or those dumb Razzies' nominations. The special effects are stupendous, as mentioned already, there's John Barry's soundtrack to enjoy, and there are some fine & respectable actors in the cast (Jason Robards, Sir Alec Guiness, M. Emmet Walsh, ...)

Admittedly, and as you can probably tell from the above review, yours truly is a Titanic-fanatic! I love reading and watching everything that involves this phenomenal ship and its doomed maiden voyage. I regularly watch the famous and widely acclaimed 1997-version by James Cameron as well, but usually just from the moment when the R. M. S. Titanic hits the iceberg. I will probably do the same with "Raise the Titanic" from now on, and tune in from the moment they start lifting. That footage is amazing; - can't repeat it enough!

THIS is why we can't have Dirk Pitt Movies

[psxtreme · 4/10 · 27 July 2020]

Translated from Clive Cussler's book of the same name, this version loses everything that work put together. The good half of the book is left on the cutting room floor and the rest is nothing more than a overpriced mess of cinematic garbage. The drama and the thrill of the hurricane sequence, where the Russians commandeer the Titanic and Pitt, with the help of the Navy seals, retakes the ship is completely cut. All of the real drama of "Silver and Gold" never even enters the conversation, Dana and Seagram's relationship has been reduced from rocky marriage to boyfriend status, Gene's journey of madness down the rabbit hole as he mirror's Brewster's quest for the Byzanium and even the nationality of the assassins who chased the miners across the United Kingdom is wrong, mutated or just left out of the discussion completely. Pitt's long-time cohorts of Rudi Gunn and Al Giodino are nowhere to be found, their generic replacements offer nothing for the script and somehow the movie finds a way to not have Dana on the ship, in fact she hardly plays any role in the movie whatsoever, and so we never get to see her much lauded striptease in the grand ballroom of the Titanic. They even found a way to misconstrue known facts at that time by not including the breaking away of the ships boilers and had the wrong smokestack snapping off from the ship before she left the surface of the Atlantic. Nothing about this movie works, even the more-than-capable cast offers no salvation to keep it afloat. For a book-to-movie translation this film gets a 2 out of 10. For general purposes, I'll be generous and give it a 4.

A special film with problems but overall a unique experience

[breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com · 8/10 · 6 June 2012]

There are films that are bad, and there ones that look bad, but hold value to them not everyone sees. Raise the Titanic, was loosely based off a novel by Clive Cussler. It is a race between the Americans and Russians trying to obtain a rare mineral that could decide who becomes the top world power. To do this, they must salvage the mineral from the Titanic. The only way to do this is by raising the Titanic; ergo the main titles. This may turn off people because the whole plot line is given away, but that shouldn't be something to squander over. It should be more of what is looked forward to. This film has a lot of good stuff in it.

Starring as the main character of Cussler's stories, is Dirk Pitt, played by Richard Jordan. I can't say Jordan is the best choice but he's definitely not bad either. Jordan at least gives the character of Pitt some attitude that comes with the territory. For the most part, the entire film stays faithful to the paperback material. All the characters are in there, along with the most important scenes. One might say that this movie was thought to perform well because Alec Guinness, best known as Obi-Wan Kenobi, from Star Wars, plays a character as well in the story.

On a side note, a particular element that could have been left out of story was the relationship between Gene and Dana Seagram. The same goes for the book but the way the situation was handled here was half-baked. From beginning to the midway point, there were various scenes that show strains on these two characters' marital status and then out of nowhere,...it stops. They get into an argument and Gene temporarily leaves Dana but the issue is never resolved. So why have it? It doesn't make sense to start something and not finish it. Adam Kennedy and Eric Hughes wrote the screenplay; so my question is, who skimmed over this part? Also some people may think the story drags but it all builds up to good ending.

Besides this, there are multiple things to find enjoyable in this movie. First, the special effects. Of course it's "1980" special effects but none the less they are a sight to look at. From the submarines, to the Titanic itself, the props look really authentic. It's when the Titanic is brought to the surface that the view is beautiful. Although audiences may be annoyed to find out that the Titanic is in one piece. But what do you expect? The novel and this film where produced years before the Titanic was even discovered. It's fiction anyway, so why be so critical on accuracy when practically this whole film is inaccurate in real life?

One of the most wondrous moments that takes place in this film is when Dirk Pitt enters the Titanic when it is above the water. It is truly a sight to behold and all this should do is make each of us just a little hungrier to see the Titanic for ourselves. It's plain epic. Another great aspect to Raise the Titanic is the soundtrack composed and conducted by music veteran John Barry. Barry puts in a lot of good tunes and has a gift for making the Titanic look awesome just for being on screen. His music is that moving and it's almost to the point of being angelic. For those who are skeptical, it's still at least worth a try to view.

Except for a few issues dealing with the script, the film adaptation of Raise the Titanic is respectively a suitable tribute to the White Star Line cruise ship. The effects are dated but they are worthy to be seen as is Barry's score heard.

I actually enjoyed this.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 2 April 2015]

Strictly speaking, I found this to be acceptable entertainment. Its many detractors maintain that it's a poor, poor adaptation of the Clive Cussler novel. In fact, Cussler himself hated it so much that there would be no more adaptations of his work until "Sahara" in 2005. Does the execution of the movie fail to match the awesomeness of the concept? Sure. Could it have used a more accomplished director at the helm? It wouldn't have hurt. But it sustains interest for close to two hours. This viewer was caught up enough in the story that any flaws didn't detract from the experience.

The U.S. government is in an intense search for an obscure mineral (for national defense purposes, of course) and believes that the only place it could be found is on board the wreckage of the Titanic. Since at this point in time, divers couldn't travel that deep into the ocean, people working on the project come up with this offbeat solution of using explosive devices to bring the massive ship to the surface.

Political intrigue adds to the plot, as the Russians believe that by rights they should be allowed to retrieve the mineral. They do everything that they can to undermine the operation.

The actors deliver decent performances, although there are precious few characters that really engage the viewer. One exception is the Titanic survivor John Bigalow, played by Sir Alec Guinness. There's a lot of familiar faces here: Jason Robards, David Selby, Richard Jordan, and Anne Archer as the stars, and a steady array of top notch character actors. The romantic subplot with Selby and Archer never really goes anywhere, but fortunately it doesn't take up TOO much of the running time.

The special effects are adequate, and the actual event of the title is reasonably impressive.

The most worthy component is really the rousing, emotionally rich music score by John Barry.

Seven out of 10.

Read the book instead!!

[killbill_28 · 5/10 · 20 May 2006]

Why did the makers of this film change anything from the book! I recently just finished the book and found out that the movie was missing some amazing elements that the book had. The movie was OK but they could have done more research about the book. (Did they even read the book). Even thought that they missed up the story a lot, the movie still had decent special effects and a very good music score by John Barry.

Spoilers!!

(Here is some of the stuff that was in the book but not in the movie) 1. You don't see the ship sinking at the start of the film, which is in the book. 2. The ship has no funnels, the 4th funnel is laying on the boat deck in the book, in the movie the ship still has all its funnels. 3. The Russian's are trying to find the ship too, to take the mineral before the American's get to it. This isn't in the movie 4. After the ship is raised the Russian's and American's have a big gun fight on the decks on the ship, this not in the movie. 5 Dirk Pitt has sex with a chick in a stateroom, this is not in the movie neither.

That's just some of the stuff that the movie didn't have in it. I wonder why the movie only made 7 million at the box office. Only see this movie if your really into the Titanic, but its hard to look at now since this movie was made 5 years before the real Titanic was discovered. Everybody knows that the Titanic can't be ever raised. I give this movie 5 out of 10, this is for having decent effects and a powerful music score!

Worth seeing if you've read the book

[jdreedatmit · 21 April 2003]

This is the book that got me started on Clive Cussler, and although it is quite dated (published 1976) it is still a great book. After searching for years for a video store that had the movie available for rent, I finally got around to watching it. Let me say that if you have not read the book, this movie will seem like another one of those standard 1970's (yes, I know it was made in 1980, but that doesn't matter). These movies have a decent plot, but it gets ruined by dated references, cheesy soundtracks, bad haircuts, and lackluster endings. (c.f. Taking of Pelham One Two Three, The (1978)) Richard Jordan is an excellent characterization of Dirk Pitt. Jason Robards is a decent Sandecker, although his character bears little resemblance to the one Cussler describes in his novels. Naturally, Alec Guiness is superb as Bigalow (who else could play that role?). Oh, and Cussler has a cameo. See if you can recognize him from the pictures on the inside jacket of his novels. It was fairly easy.

In addition, the special effects sequences involving the ship and its rise to the surface were excellent. They were just as good as any sequences in Titanic (1997) and not nearly as expensive, I'll bet.

If you've read this book, my advice is to shell out a couple of bucks for a rental and see how your visualization of Cussler's story matches up against that of the directors. If you haven't read the book, you may still enjoy the movie, but keep in mind the book was written in 1976, when the Cold War was in full force and the Titanic was still undiscovered and would remain that way for another 10 years.

*SPOILERS BELOW* *SPOILERS BELOW*

I'll now go on to describe the primary differences between the book and the movie, in case that's what you're concerned with (that was my primary reason for renting it):

The opening scene in the book (April 1912, where the "mystery man" demands that Bigalow take him to the cargo hold and then locks himself in the vault) is not in the movie. I presume this is due to the large expense a scene such as that would require. Instead, we are presented with a montage of sepia-toned photographs of the Titantic through its construction and on its maiden voyage. The "Thank god for Southby" quote is instead found in a letter that Hobart sent to the U.S. Army the day before Titanic sailed.

The movie begins with the scene on Novaya Zemlya (except it's called something else in the movie, despite the fact that Novaya Zemlya is a real place), with the mining engineer discovering the abandoned Byzanium mine. The plaque identifying Hobart's grave explicitly says "Jake Hobart, U.S. Army", which clears up that little mystery and eliminates the scenes where they visit the mining machinery company in Colorado and Hobart's widow in CA.

For some reason, Pitt is a Captain in the U.S. Navy, not the Air Force, but whatever. Oh, and Sandecker is in on the project from the start, for some unknown reason. Arthur Brewster is referred to as a "con man" instead of a respected mining engineer. There is no mention of the Little Angel mining disaster.

The original mining crew board a Norwegian whaler to get to Novaya Zemlya, and on the way back it's the Russians (who are portrayed as Communists back then, despite the fact that the Czar was still ruling in 1912, 5 years before Trotsky and the revolution), not the French, who chaise them and the Byzanium from Aberdeen to Southampton.

Mel Donner does not exist in the movie, and Gene and Dana are not married, but appear to be dating. Dana appears to be a newspaper reporter or something in the movie (instead of working for NUMA), and its implied that she and Pitt had a prior relationship.

The Lorlei Current expedition does not exist. First, they're looking in the wrong place for the Titanic. Then they do the experiment with the tank, and discover where they should be looking, and only THEN do they find Graham Farley's cornet. And for some reason, they claim that Farley previously served on the Olympic instead of the Oceanic.

Pitt's meeting with Bigalow is pretty much the same as in the book - Alec Guiness is of course excellent - and he presents Pitt with the pennant.

Prevlov (the Russian officer) actually comes on board the ship to meet with the NUMA folks - there is no spying, no Silver and Gold, no fight scenes, no snapped towing cable, and no harsh North Atlantic Storm. Which is unfortunate. As I mentioned, however, the shots of the Titanic coming up are quite well done.

The ending was rather dismal, but I suppose in 1980, Cussler's 1976 ending wasn't acceptable. The movie ends with the discovery of Hobart's grave in Southby, however Seagram balks at the last minute, and refuses to dig up the Byzanium. Ah well, such is life.

Decent entertainment

[okpilak · 5/10 · 15 January 2024]

The movie is entertaining, but the book is better. Filmed before the actual wreck was found, the assumption is that the depth and cold would preserve the Titanic and there would be little bacterial degradation. Never mind that the approach used to raise the Titanic defies science, the biggest faults I find are the obvious things. Dropping something to sink down more than two miles is not likely to drop next to the target. Things called currents exist. And the time to go down to the wreck and ascend are not measured in just a handful of minutes. But then it is merely a movie, not a scientific documentary. From that standpoint, it is neither a great movie nor a dud. And the movie is quite well done. To describe how they pictured the Titanic after decades on the bottom of the ocean, think muddy with barnacles. Byzanium only less powerful than Unobtainium.

LAUNCH HYDRAZINE TANKS!

[alex-mott · 5/10 · 28 May 2023]

It's not 'the worst movie ever made'. The spectacle of the rusty Titanic breaking through the waves is genuinely impressive (especially in an age before CGI), the performances from the cast are passable and John Barry's score is apt and stirring. The reason Raise The Titanic bombed so spectacularly is that the story is completely implausible. Clive Cussler started with the pivotal raising sequence that everyone wanted to see and then reverse-engineered a plot to fit around it - resulting in a film where logic, commonsense and even physical laws are ignored. Even if the Bzyanium stored in wooden crates had survived the journey down there (and then another 70 years on the sea floor) all that Pitt's team would have done is simply cut in through the hull with a Navy prototype ROV, pulled it out and floated it up to the surface. They would have never raised the wreck. Even if it had sunk in one piece, all of the funnels would have been gone, the hull would have most likely surfaced upside down, we never actually see the iceberg damage being repaired etc.

It's a fun, nostalgic but ultimately daft film.

Raise the expectations

[Chase_Witherspoon · 5/10 · 5 November 2012]

It's epic and it's exploitation, and it's also reasonably engaging almost in spite of itself. Richard Jordan plays a salvage expert attempting to literally raise the Titanic from her watery grave in order to recover a rare mineral, the plot concerned with his herculean effort to beat the Russians to the plate, in a Cold War twist to the sunken saga.

The "special" effects are sometimes regrettable (the parts of the ship being towed back into harbour look more than just a little dubious), but director Jameson has still managed to craft a half-decent drama that contains a surprise or two, not just confined to the plot, but also the casting. Sir Alec Guinness has just a few minutes, but his presence as a survivor re-telling Jordan of his experience is very moving and a moment that almost redeems the entire picture from its plodding excesses.

Aside from the durable Jordan, an unorthodox leading man who died well before his time, David Selby and Anne Archer co-star, while the minor roles go to Jameson's B-movie brigade, Michael Pataki, Stewart Moss, Paul Carr, Michael C.Gwynne, Norman Bartold - the list goes on. Not to be confused with, nor compared to, "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure", while unlikely to appeal to the modern audience whose appetite for the Titanic was whet on James Cameron's 1997 epic, it should still suffice for a late afternoon sojourn into fantasy.

Should have been a hit, but landed with a thud

[jc1305us · 6/10 · 28 January 2022]

"Raise the Titanic" is one of those films that should have been a blockbuster, a great cast, an interesting premise, and a HUGE budget. So what happened? To be honest, I'm not sure. It's an entertaining film, certainly, but it just doesn't seem to be highly regarded by most movie fans. I think part of it is that it's so far fetched that it was too much for audiences to swallow.

The actors are all good, why Richard Jordan didn't have a bigger film career is surprising. He's good in everything he's in. The always reliable Jason Robards is also on board, and is a plus, but the script is the ultimate let down here. It's a bit hokey, and has the feel of the later, sillier James Bond films (Think Moonraker) Its a shame, Raise the Titanic is entertaining, but just not a great movie.

Under the sea,,under the sea,,,

[aesgaard41 · 5/10 · 7 December 2000]

When I first saw this movie years ago, I thought they really had raised the Titanic just to make this movie (Hey, I was a dumb kid!), but now looking at this movie, I can realize just how bad the special effects really were. Knowing what we now know, I wonder what this movie would have been about if they had found the Titanic in half with the crushing depths and Leonardo DiCapro's hands on Billy Zane's neck. The mere concept of raising the ship today of course is sheer lunacy since the decomposition of it would rattle it apart in bits and peices ["Oh,we got it ! Which of it's million peices do you want ?] Jason Robards is a little boring in his role, but I did like seeing David Selby outside of "Dark Shadows." The underwater shots were abysmal; I couldn't make out anything ! The terrorist sub-plot was a bit tagged on, but the overall images of the anti-climactic ending were just short of impressive.

Technically interesting, lacklustre as a film

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 29 March 2018]

I suppose RAISE THE TITANIC is a better sequel than those rubbish 'TITANIC 2' B-movies that have come out over the years. This film is an adaptation of a Clive Cussler novel and follows the efforts of a salvage team to lift the wreck of the infamous cruise liner from the depths. The reason for this plot involves a made-up element and is actually cleverly written, with a great deal of thought having gone into the premise, which I appreciated it. Unfortunately the film forgets to incorporate any kind of suspense or thrills or character depth into the running time, so it's left feeling more like a mock documentary exploring the technicalities of such a huge job. It does boast some excellent special effects work, with some fantastic miniatures that really convince, and from a technical viewpoint I found it quite interesting.

Some nasty superthermonuclear stuff

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 25 June 2018]

I saw that this film got some Razzie nominations in the year it came out. I mean it isn't that bad, but it's strictly for the juvenile trade. If you want to believe that we were engaged in atomic research before World War I. We were still trying to electrify our cities then.

Anyway some research has shown that some really rare radioactive material was shipped on the Titanic and the stuff went down with it. Now the USA wants it and Admiral Jason Robards has engaged David Selby, Richard Jordan and Anne Archer as a girl Friday to find it. Too deep to dive so we have to locate and raise what was once the pride of the White Star line and the most famous disaster at sea ever.

Of course the Russians want it as well, therein lies the plot.

This film kind of reminds me of the old television series My Favorite Martian which lost syndication value when our explorer went to Mars and showed us what the planet was all about. We now have located the ship and know for a fact it broke up and is in a few sections in the briny deep. No getting up the way our cast did it though that's the best part of the film.

The second best part of the film is Alec Guinness who plays an old survivor of the Titanic who reminisces with Jordan about the American who brought the stuff on board. His scenes were quite moving.

Anyway we do find out what happened and the ending is kind of poetic. Still this one's for the juvenile trade.

It like it

[FossGly · 8/10 · 15 September 2004]

I like this film, and I've always liked it. It is far from perfect, but if you can suspend your disbelief for a couple of hours and enjoy it for what it is then it's worth watching. The oft-criticised script isn't the worlds best, but some of the dialogue is quite moving and it's delivered well by the cast. Jason Robards makes an excellent Sandecker, and Richard Jordan captures elements of Dirk Pitt's character very well. The scene in The Sloop Inn in Cornwall with Jordan and Alec Guinness is particularly noteworthy, with Guinness' portrayal of a surviving crew member accentuated by John Barry's first class score ("Memories of the Titanic (All That's Left)") quite moving. Later on, Barry's "Memories of the Titanic" theme is reprised to good effect when Jordan's character explores the wreckage. The scene where the Titanic reaches the surface is quite impressive, and I can't help but smile when we see the ship towed into New York harbour (and it's not the poor visual effects that make me smile). I always enjoy re-watching this, and if no-one else does, that's fine - I'll keep it for myself.

Surprising special effects and very good directing make this a movie to watch if you don't mind the subject

[oragex · 7/10 · 18 March 2017]

A good movie from the 80's, worth watching for the nostalgic. Great directing and good acting, make this flick a worth watch 80's movie. Plus, the picture is beautiful and the photography is a fine 80's one.

Now of course, this movie sank at the box office because of the childish subject. But the technical aspect aside, this is one surprisingly well directed movie, I would even say some aspects are way above the average for a 80's movie. Surprising. Most special effects are clearly thoroughly detailed and impressive. Strangely, the most 'important' scene of the movie clearly didn't got the same budget, but it only lasts 5 minutes.

The 'cold war' story is slim but acceptable, at at James Bond movie level.

So a good movie despite the weird subject. And of course, we are not going to start here on the technical aspect of the matter, you have been already warned about it.

Utter Rubbish

[uniqueabba · 1/10 · 20 January 2007]

I remember this film coming out in 1980, I think I even went to see it at the cinema.

I remember then that I thought it was utter rubbish.

America the good in another excuse for a confrontation of good against evil, in this case Russia. I do seem to recall that at the time of The Titanic going down, there was no cold war. So to make a film where America the good is in a battle against time to beat Russia to the "Byzantium" is a country purely self obsessed and blinkered to think it has any right to go down and get the Titanic up, which I recall was a British ship.

This is a terrible film, made by an arrogant and self obsessed USA, yet again, an example of that country's arrogance and why it is so hated today by many.

I urge, delete this film from your thoughts, it has been proved the ship is in pieces any small amount of research would have come up with a probability of such a big ship hitting the sea bed and remaining in tact is pure darn right stupidity, as is this film.

D