This made-for-TV version of the famous disaster actually stands up fairly well against its $200 million James Cameron counterpart. The effects are good - and in a few cases even on par with Cameron's version. Indeed, watching the two films back to back, you might be surprised at the similarities between the two versions, at least during some key moments. Both have steerage party scenes, for instance. The cast is generally strong too, particularly Catherine Zeta Jones in one of her first lead performances, and George C. Scott as Capt. Smith. But where Titanic (1996) hits all the wrong notes is in a poorly conceived subplot involving a crooked crewmember (Tim Curry). His character doesn't really belong here, and his villainous actions get to be quite shocking near the end ... it takes away from the human drama of the doomed people on the ship and actually comes close to ruining the movie (though no fault of actor Tim Curry, who turns in a great performance). If you only have time to see one super-long movie based on the disaster, see the Cameron film - if you've got time to see two, this one is worth the rental.
Add a Review
-
23skidoo-46 December 1999
-
TheLittleSongbird8 February 2009It isn't great, but I was impressed by the overall project. It is overlong, with a somewhat corny script and some of the actors don't convince. The rape scene halfway through was very brutal, and perhaps inappropriate. Some people say this is historically inaccurate, but I need to check my history. The performances are good generally with some exceptions (Catherine Zeta Jones is lovely here), the costumes are nice and the special effects for a TV mini series were close to superb. George C.Scott is a brilliant actor, and he was quite good here. Tim Curry, as a villain likewise. Though both men have been better. I wasn't entirely convinced by Ase and Jamie's romance, as it was basically a retread of the James Cameron blockbuster, which also suffers from its length. The music is also good( my music teacher hates the 1997 film's music) and this is the first adaptation when the ship breaks into two, which was nicely done. Not a bad attempt! 7/10 Bethany Cox
-
This looks like a made for TV rush job; perhaps they heard a blockbuster version was in the works (Cameron's mega-hit the next year), and hurried to finish this before the release of it. These coat tail copies have been done before. In any event, this effort at relating the infamous maritime disaster of 1912 is big on ambition, but crippled by low budget.
There are distinct parallels to its more famous 1997 cousin. You get a Jack & Rose type romance, which is written very awkwardly. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Peter Gallagher did their best with it, but it really doesn't evoke the passionate emotion intended. Overall, the idea of the soap-opera entanglements of several characters is a good plan, and the actors mostly do well. However, the constant heavy-handed bashing of rich people is about as subtle as a repeated blows to the head with a tire iron; it really gets old. In particular, the slant on Molly Brown was so far afield it was just dumb. I thought George C. Scott was pretty good as the ill fated Capt. Smith, who inherits the lines of the Titanic's designer, a character that is in other versions, but deleted from existence here.
The film makes an earnest effort to portray the horror and sorrow of the tragedy, but one blunder really hurt the effectiveness: to show the gradually increasing listing of the ship, the director simply has the camera turned at a slight angle, but fails to have the actors lean in the direction. The painfully comic result is characters standing perfectly upright at odd angles where their center of gravity would force them to lean. Also a problem was the unnecessary house-thief crewman (Tim Curry) still wandering around burglarizing state rooms as the water gushes in all around him. Even worse, the character is played as a constantly giggling idiot.
The montage sequence was a good answer for the limited resources available, and the protracted epilogue aboard the Carpathia might have worked better had it been dedicated to giving fates of real survivors; instead, we get the schmaltzy and unrealistic fates of fictional people.
Just fair entertainment, and hardly a good source for the history of the event. If you want the best historical approach at the Titanic's story, see "A Night to Remember," and if you prefer a highly dramatic and fictionalized version, the 1997 Titanic is better than this one. -
megawhoosits18 July 2003The thing with this film is it had good points and it had bad points. Some of the good points are that there were aspects to this film that were far more realistic than James Cameron's. For instance, the young rogue that sneaks onto the ship does so not by winning a suspensful hand of poker, but by stealing the tickets when his drinking buddy has passed out for the evening. This is also the same young rogue who steals a jacket to get into the first-class dining room and then procedes to pick-pocket some of the passengers, starting with John Jacob Astor. The crooked crew member (played by Tim Curry) was a nice touch. And the rape scene was a gritty touch of realism, though painful to watch. And yes folks, stuff like that does, and did happen in real life. This film DID focus on real people that were on the ship, though not neccessarily the same ones as James Cameron. That is neither a good or bad thing, that is what you call a creative decision. For instance, we get a casual glimpse into JJ Astor's Young wife's life through Catherine Zeta-Jones' character, who is in a similar situation. They are friends and have a conversation about it. This makes it feel much more natural than Rose's hurried pointing around the room under the thin guise of gossip.
The thing with the Allisons' maid was interesting- the maid did, in fact, take the baby and get in a life boat, without the mother's consent, causing the parents and their little girl to roam the ship looking for them until it went down. Whether the maid was actually crazy was anybody's guess, but it was an interesting choice of plot in this film. Though just a touch too ridiculous. Captin Smith, though he had a famous actor behind him, was a little off character I thought. He had too much initiative. I'm not using James Cameron's portrayal as a basis for comparison, but Captain Smith, though he had years of sea-faring behind him, had had very little experience with intense situations of that sort and was actually very unprepared for the disaster. He didn't think anything could possibly happen on that voyage. I like Molly Brown better, I don't know why. And I really like the last shot of the first part (cause this was a TV flick)- when the people are kicking the ice around on deck, the camera focuses to the forground where someone has placed a champagne glass on the railing. It slowly slides down the now slight incline and smashes to pieces on the deck. When I saw that, I felt it was worth watching. Overall, this film, was, well, a TV film. Meaning it wasn't that great. But it wasn't that bad either. -
Bronze31 August 1998I have seen just about all off the Titanic movies there are. This definately isn't the best but it is worth seeing. Most Titanic movies portray the Astor's, the Straus's, Molly Brown, the wireless operators, and the captain. But this film also shows the story of the Allison's which is never told and they portrayed the story remarkably well. It also showed the third class story as well and did a good job with that one as well. It is a good movie to watch even though it is slow at times.
My Score 7.1/10 -
Evan-O-Rama19 March 2009There is a very good reason why the list of factual goofs for this TV movie is so long (and despite it's length it is quite incomplete).
This was an extremely rushed production to capitalize on the public's Titanic fever while James Cameron's movie was being made. The sets were slapped together in a great hurry and in the final days of shooting extras would be placed to hide spots where the sets had been damaged. As one of the worst examples, on the very last day of shooting on the hydraulically-tilted ship deck two extras were assigned to support one of the ships exhaust vents to keep it from toppling over.
Much of the later shooting was done in an aluminum quonset building and adding the mid-summer heat pounding down to that of of the set lights makes for an uncomfortably hot environment.
Combining the rush and the heat was the perfect setting for an extremely tense and stressed working environment, to put it politely.
I'm just surprised the production turned out as good as it did, all things considered. It's worth a watch and pretty decent as a made-for-TV production, but best treated as a work of fiction to enjoy the story it tells. -
GeorgeSickler21 February 2009I'm kidding, but the network executive who OK's this turkey should have gone down with the ship.
I was born on an April 15 (but not 1912, the date the RMS Titanic sank), so this has been a favorite subject of mine -- beginning when I read Walter Lord's "A Night to Remember" as a kid not too long after it was published in 1955. And then there's that tremendously emotionally charged movie of the same title and based on the book that came out in 1958. I felt like I was there, and experiencing it from the perspective of passengers in steerage, second & first class, as well as the crew.
Many others have commented on the factual inaccuracies, wooden acting, and contrived plot developments that supposedly were added to "spice it up," as if this human tragedy of titanic proportions needs "spicing." What bothered me the most were a number of scenes which made me just cringe, fold my arms and slowly shake my head, thinking, "Oh, Come on! Nobody could/would do that and expect to get away with it. Do they really think viewers are so dense to buy this"
As just a few examples, and these may or may not be spoilers:
Do you really think Capt. Smith would let a passenger (female or male) take steerage control of the ship on a visit to the bridge, just for fun? If he actually did, and it got to the White Star Line in New York, I suspect he would have started his retirement before his last return trip home. Test this on your next cruise: try to go to the bridge and ask to steer the ship for awhile.
Do you really think J. Bruce Ismay, the chairman of the White Star Line, would climb down to the boiler room and order more boilers to be fired up for more speed? He would do this to defy the orders of their boss, Capt. Smith? And the crew would go along with it? No crew would go against the orders of their next in command, as ordered by their captain. Get real.
Bruce Ismay is another real person just trashed by this movie. He did save himself by climbing into a lifeboat when there were no other women or children at that station (although there were plenty elsewhere). At the inquiries, he said he did that so that the full story could be told. Nobody believed that. He lost his job at White Star; White Star was absorbed by Cunard, and I understand Ismay died alone and lonely in the U.K. in the 1950s.
The contrived character Simon "Snidley Whiplash" Doonan is so blatantly obnoxious and evil as a member of the ship's passenger crew, that he should have been reported by someone -- but never was. Instead, he strolls into cabins at his leisure and takes his time robbing first cabin passengers. And gets away with it.
The often mentioned rape-in-the-shower scene: What are the odds? The Titanic was the largest ship afloat, with well over 1,500 passengers on board. The vast majority were in steerage, where the rape scene occurred.
"Steerage" on the Titanic was better than 2nd class on other liners: the food was better, the service and cabins were better. . . . most passengers never had electric light or indoor plumbing at home. They had it here for the first time. If there were communal showers -- and I don't think there were -- I suspect they'd be in constant use as a real novelty. And they'd be segregated by sex.
So, here's this gal in a communal shower. But she's ALL BY HERSELF -- in a steerage section filled with several hundred other women who have never had the experience of a hot shower before. And "Snidley" Simon casually strolls in without a care or fear in the world and rapes her --and smirkingly gets away with it.
Oh, come on. What are the odds?
And then there's the business with Frederick Fleet in the lookout tower being ordered to release his binoculars for their return to the bridge, as if that were a mega blunder and contributing factor to the disaster.
Oh, pleeeeeeze! What bridge command on any ship would order the lookout to give up his binoculars? Especially after receiving ice warnings. What does the bridge want to see that's different than what the lookout NEEDS to see? They could call on the phone and ask Fleet to look.
Anyway, on the night of April 14, there was no moon, but a dead-calm sea and a velvet sky blanketed with stars. The two lookouts didn't have, and didn't need, binoculars because it was pitch black. What tipped Fleet off was that, dead ahead, there was a growing blackness due to an absence of stars. It was the iceberg, which led to his clanging the emergency bell in the lookout tower and calling the bridge.
If there were moonlight, they would have seen it sooner. If the sea were a bit rougher, they would have seen the white foam of the churn hitting the outline of the base of the burg.
To claim, as this film does, that the lookout was forced to give up the binoculars is a lie and a gross disservice to the memories of the officers and crew of the RMS Titanic.
Anyone who wants to understand and be profoundly moved by this tragedy as experienced by realistic and representative folks of all classes, crew and officers -- try "A Night to Remember." It doesn't need shower scenes, rapes, "Snidley Whiplash" or other contrived plots to make it "interesting." -
reganjab17 January 2023Not bad. Quite excellent really. Catherine Zeta Jones is brilliant. Probably gives the best performance in the entire show.
The other actors are ok with some cheesy dialogue.
As for the story it's very slow to start and it could have done with some trimming. But the pace picks itself up midway.
Despite some minor inaccuracies. It stays relatively true to survivors accounts during the sinking scenes.
Even though the layout of the Titanic is way off.
The overall production design is visibly cheap with meagre low budget CGI typical of tv shows.
Overall it exceeded my expectations and it's worth a watch. -
carmi47-111 August 2005In 1996 I decided this TV miniseries was a ripoff to grab viewers' attention a year before James Cameron's blockbuster opened. I haven't changed my mind. The plot is mechanical as a watch; within minutes of meeting each new character, or of their shipboard meetings with each other, we know almost exactly what will happen to each one. The writers resort to the tired ploy of having characters introduce each other to viewers--e.g., Eva Marie Saint, a society matron, "explains" others to her granddaughter: Molly Brown, vulgar but too rich to ignore, the disreputable Mr Guggenheim, the "Jewish" Strausses. The acting stinks all round. Worst, from any standpoint, is the hysterical mother who refuses to leave her cabin for the lifeboats without her husband. The whole thread involving this couple and their nanny sets your teeth on edge, though it is based on a real couple who died because they stayed on board too long to find their son, who was safe in a lifeboat w/the nanny. The thread is so badly written, so implausibly dramatized, that were it not that the mother's idiocy dooms her annoyingly precocious daughter, it's almost possible to say she deserves to drown. As usual, Ms Zeta Jones is more impressed with her own beauty than with the need to act. Marilu Henner is worse miscast as Molly Brown in this film than Cloris Leachman in "S.O.S. Titanic" (1979); the real Molly was not as brazen as the vulgarian we see here. Henner seems trapped in some proto-feminist, sexually revolutionized time warp. George C. Scott was in poor health in 1996, and seems propped up for many of his scenes as Capt. Smith; was his melodramatic characterization an effort to compensate for physical immobility? Tim Curry badly overdoes the slime as a lustful, larcenous steward. The only remotely believable figures are a young British criminal, his Danish shipboard sweetheart, and the British working-class family with whom she travels. Avoid this one. It sank before it ever left the dock. The iceberg might as well have been lurking in Southampton harbor.
-
This version of "Titanic" was released to TV in two-parts in November, 1996, a year before James Cameron's version in late 1997. Of course, Cameron's film is one of the greatest successes in cinematic history, both critically and at the box office, so not many people remember this lower-budgeted version. But don't let that make you think this was a cheap movie because it still cost $13 million to make; it's just that the 1997 film cost $200 million. In any case, they're both long movies (and so you have to be in the mood for a looong movie to appreciate either of them). The original TV version of the 1996 film runs 173 minutes while Cameron's runs 194 minutes. However, the main story that takes place in 1912 is about the same length in both versions because the 1996 one doesn't contain the modern-day subplot of the 1997 film.
The movie of course details the doomed maiden voyage of the magnificent Titanic from April 10-15, 1912. This is one of the greatest tragedies in human history. There were only enough lifeboats for half of the over 2200 men, women and children aboard. Why? Because the Titanic was so great they thought she was unsinkable. When it was all over only a little over 700 people survived and 1500 people went to their grave in the cold North Atlantic.
This is a movie and not a documentary and, as such, includes some fictional drama to hook the viewer. Despite this, it gives more attention to historical detail than Cameron's film. For instance, there really was a woman on board who was suspected of murdering her own child and kidnapping the child of the family for whom she was employed. What she ultimately does negatively impacts the real parents and their daughter, which explains the only first class child who didn't survive.
George C. Scott is effective as Captain Edward Smith who explains that the Titanic foreshadowed its fate with its name. He laments, "There's a line often quoted in the newspapers: 'God Himself Could Not Sink This Ship.' She was appropriately named: The Titan's dared to challenge the God's; and for their arrogance, they were cast down into hell."
Although an iceberg is what caused the Titanic to sink, Bruce Ismay is often blamed for the tragedy because he allegedly pressured Captain Smith and Chief Engineer Joseph Bell to go faster in order to arrive in New York ahead of schedule and generate positive press. He's painted in a slightly better light in this film than the 1997 version since he's shown helping many people into lifeboats before his escape, as well as his sorrow over the disaster.
Unlike Cameron's film, this version details the nearest vessel, the Californian, which has been accused of leaving the people of the Titanic to drown. We don't know for sure why this ship failed to offer succor and probably never will, but we do know that the Californian tried to warn Titanic of the ice in its path and the Titanic's wireless operator responds by saying, "Shut up!" In defense of the Californian, it was trapped in a field of ice and so if it had gone to help the Titanic they would've had to carefully steer around the ice in the dark and, by the time they made it, most of the people on the Titanic would have already frozen to death. In any event, this 1996 version gives an excellent depiction of what likely went down.
In addition, the movie depicts John Aster's request to go with his wife and the crew's refusal, as well as a brief part devoted to survivor R. Norris Williams.
So this version is worth seeing just to grasp the fuller picture of the tragedy since it contains more historical detail than Cameron's rendition.
As for the dramatic subplots, there are about five and they help you view the events on a human level, just as Jack & Rose's escapades do in the 1997 film. The full-length version includes a rape scene, which people criticize, but these types of things happened in the "good ol' days" and, besides, it's there to make a point in that particular story arc. Speaking of which, I was impressed – even inspired – by some of the subtexts, like enlightenment, repentance & forgiveness, the wages of sin, and the question of how a good God allows such suffering and evil, etc.
All the cast members rise to the challenge, which include the likes of Peter Gallagher, George C. Scott, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Eva Marie Saint, Marilu Henner, Tim Curry, Roger Rees, Mike Doyle, Sonsee Neu and more.
BOTTOM LINE: Since this version of "Titanic" cost $187 million LESS than the famous 1997 version, it obviously lacks the aesthetic appeal of the latter. For instance, the special effects are rather lame by comparison but, at the same time, they're certainly serviceable, considering it's a TV movie and the year it was made. So this version is clearly the lesser film, but that doesn't mean it's unworthy. Its strong points are its historical detail, its competent cast and potent subtexts. I suggest watching them both.
GRADE: B+ (keeping in mind it's a TV movie from 1996) -
m0rphy10 October 2003I feel like a defence lawyer who has been hired to defend an impossible case because despite what I wrote below, I bought a copy of this video as part of my extensive film, book and media "Titanic" collection.Where do I begin?Well, let me first list the failings of this TV mini-series:
1.As stated by other reviewers below, this was an ill-judged subject on the tv budget available.It would have required an enormous amount if one wished to do it justice and was obviously outside the scope of the money available.Even so, a lot was spent but the special effects look phoney now and ineffective.
2.Once again the scale of the ship made on set is far too small, see my critique of "SOS Titanic" (1979) another tv disaster of this ilk.Even Cameron made "Titanic" at about 70% of the real size for his cinema version the following year.
3.Must we endure these sloppy unconvincing fictional love stories wrapped up with the actual facts?."Titanic"(1953) and Cameron's (1997) both had them.At least "A Night to Remember (1958) had two low key lovers on their honeymoon.We all know why film producers have them, - to amuse those not interested in history or the actual facts and so rope them into the cinemas or video shops.I found Catherine Zeta Jones' character irritating as she prepared to renounce her lovely daughter for some ex-boyfriend and go galavanting off to Bolivia with him.She certainly changed her tune when she landed safely in New York and discovered her husband had not received the cablegram stating she was leaving him.
4.Must we endure grating American accents portraying British officers?This is a point I have made here before e.g. (see "Love Letters (1945)).There is always a great pool of authentic British acting talent available for these roles!!
5.Lazy research.How different from the late Walter Lord in his famous work "A Night to Remember (1955)".This was the product of the extensive research he did in his own time while working as an advertising copywriter in New York.See my critique "A Tribute to Walter" in the film mentioned before.A few examples will suffice.Titanic is seen to leave Southampton with her starboard side nearest to the dock whereas it was actually the port side.Anyone could have gleaned this from the easily available photos showing "Titanic" moored at the "Ocean dock" Southampton.One in particular is famous (taken 10th April 1912 on Good Friday) with flags bedecking her from stem to stern.The captain is seen to be holding the ship's wheel.Never!!This was the job of the coxain e.g. Robert Hichens who incidentally was notionally in charge of the same lifeboat as Molly Brown.No passengers would have been allowed on the bridge and certainly not allowed to turn the ship's wheel!!Ridiculous!!
6.There was no evidence this was Captain Smith's last voyage - only speculation and Ismay did not descend to the boiler room ordering more boilers be lit.The only documeneted fact is that Mrs Candee claimed she was in the 1st class lounge drinking a beverage with a friend and thought she heard, at an adjoining table, Ismay request Capt. Smith to better the "Olympic's" maiden voyage time if possible.
7.None of the music heard was easily recognised from the White Star music list.Each song and tune had a number which the ship's band had to know by heart.At least we were spared "another rendition of, "Nearer my God to Thee" which is itself debatable as the last song heard as the ship took her final plunge.
8.The rape scene as mentioned by my learned colleagues below was completely unnecessary to the plot and highly unlikely even in this fiction.
9.The reason the lookouts did not have binoculars was because they had been removed at Southampton.The water-tight doors were closed before, not after the collision.It was Thomas Andrews, not Capt. Smith. who explained the ship's architectural drawings and the effect of the inrush of seawater to the officers, I could go on but I'm boring myself.
10.Again I stress.When will film producers listen to the experts when dealing with actual historic matters and not carry on with their own stupid agenda?It is also an insult to that army of clued up intelligent viewers who also know the facts having read the official testimony, books and evidence etc.We have had this before when a recent film claimed it was an American submarine who captured the German "Enigma" codes in WWII and I was aghast to hear recently that there is soon to be a film starring Tom Cruise who passes himself off as a hotshot WWII fighter pilot who wins the Battle of Britain in 1940 virtually single-handed!!.Hollywood agenda again - urgh!!
Now to the film's good points.Are there any? I always hope I will learn something new from a film like this which deals with actual historical facts but sadly I was deliberately mis-informed.It can only therefore be judged as a work of fiction to entertain a less discerning audience.On that basis it was average.The final denouement of the ship sinking was portrayed as a rapid pastiche of overlaid images, a neat way of avoiding having to go to the expense of actually "sinking" the Titanic!
I rated it 4/10 on entertainment value alone. -
Contrary to many critics, and people in general, who say with great confidence, "Of course the theatrical version was by far superior, {to the television miniseries}!", I believe in many respects, that this humble, human take on the story, featured some aspects, and yes, even performances, that indeed out-shined those played out in what I consider an extremely overrated, "Let's see how big a "blockbuster" movie James Cameron can make", movie.
I was so moved by the chemistry between, and charisma exuded by CatherineZeta-Jones, and Peter Gallagher, playing "Isabella", and "Wynn".. what a magnificent couple they made.
The story here was so filled with who the people were, how they lived, what they cared about, what their lives had been, and where they were going! My head spun with the meticulous attention payed to even the most infinitesimal details, and the simplicity in which it was told.
The casting, sublime.. with the possible exception of the fact that the inimitable Kathy Bates boarded the other "Titanic".. my favorite part of that version! I felt that each one of these people on board were real people! I felt their struggles, their despair, and their hopes.. their fears, their dreams, and their nightmares.. their great wealth, and their poverty.. I felt swept away to where these actual human beings had been on that fateful day in April, 1912.
The people that they were, noble or ruthless, rich or poor, romantic or hopeless, was all so vividly portrayed, you could feel the pulse of these people's hearts, and each individual's reasoning.. right or wrong. Why they were the way they were was so palpable.. it was quite chilling. You even felt for the dastardly, and yes, despicable, "Simon Doonan", played to perfection by the the irrepressible Tim Curry.. so clever a man, Doonan, with a wealth of talents and knowledge so disastrously wasted, the poor schnook.
I would go to see Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Peter Gallagher any day over Kate Winslet, and Leonardo DiCaprio, so completely, woefully miscast in the Cameron production.
The only characters I thought were equally superb in BOTH versions, were the players of Captain Smith. The man in the theatrical release.. I had not seen before, and I felt he embodied the legendary captain to an eerie degree, and with incredible insight, bringing to life again the honor, grace and stoic peace-of-mind so often attributed to the real individual. And George C. Scott, well, it just doesn't get any better than that. Performed with his signature passion and intensity, he gave us a heart stopping portrayal of Capt. Smith's quiet dignity to the very last, tragic, historic moment.
I will remember the individual people of this tender, and powerful.. intricate, human, and masterful rendition for the rest of time.
I will be recalling the ringing in my ears I experienced for many months, from the "My HEART Will Go On" song, {at first beautiful}, that went on and on, wailing throughout the theatrical extravaganza, and the grandeur of the sets, and the hype, and the technical bits, and the wonderful Gloria Stuart, {another true highlight, of but a few, in the BIG one}, for a long time to come. -
jason-2103 October 2004A rather good depiction of the disaster, with the addition of with several fictional subplots. The strength of this film was in the portrayal of the real-life characters from the event. There are too many to list. To mention a few, I think George C Scott's portrayal of Captain Smith was an acceptable and welcome alternative to Bernard Hill's wimpish character in the Cameron movie. Also worthy of note was Terence Kelly's portrayal of Captain Arthur Rostron, the Captain of the rescue ship. Kavan Smith also was thoroughly convincing as 5th Officer Lowe, as was Kevin McNulty for 2nd Officer Lightoller. Scott Hylands excelled as JJ Astor, and Roger Rees did a fine job as Ismay. Nice work.
As with any film based on a true event, one is bound to compare facts with fiction, and I can say that this film is pretty straight portrayal of the disaster. They've added in some nice philosophising by the captain and crew, and they've given captain smith an attitude. In this version the captain is not the weak, ineffectual wimp that Cameron created, but a strong character who gets to make some pertinent - but quite fictional - criticism of the handling of the vessel at the time of the collision. They've also added a scene with guns where a passenger gets shot and then 1st Officer Murdoch shoots himself. Poor Murdoch. Cameron did the same with this character in his movie. This never happened. In reality, only one shot was ever fired on Titanic that night, and this was 5th Officer Lowe firing is gun into the air to silence a panic on the boat deck.
The final moments of the sinking was handled in a semi-abstract way (probably to save money) which was both moving and tasteful, and in a way more powerful than in the Cameron movie which relied on realistic visuals. Another nice touch to this film was the epilogue. We get to see what happens on the rescue ship after the survivors have been picked up, and we get to see them back in New York.
The final thing I should mention regarding this film are the special effects. Of course, they are poor compared to what we expect from films like this nowadays. The ship itself appears to be a not-too-accurate model. Close-ups of the deck areas and machinery spaces smack of musical theatre sets, where cranes, ventilators and boilers almost look like symbolical representations of the real-thing, and are in no way accurate. I mean, every time I saw the boiler room I thought of the film Metropolis. I got the impression that accuracy was never an issue, the focus instead being on designing a set that was spacious and simple enough for the actors to move around and be seen in.
I suppose it's inevitable to compare this to the Cameron movie, but perhaps unfair to do so since this was made for TV with a much much lower budget. 7/10 from me. -
watsondog-112 October 2006The 1996 Titanic mini-series is a poorly thought out adaptation of the story of the sinking. Although it shares some similarities with the 1997 movie, Cameron does a much better (and smoother) job at combining a melodramatic romance with a fictional account of a real event.
The biggest problem I have with this version is that the writers threw an unhistorical (and somewhat graphic) rape into the mix. Like Cameron, the (already dramatic enough) story of the sinking is accompanied by a romance between two passengers. Unlike Cameron, the writers of this mini-series gave the female character a name very similar to one of the victims of the tragedy AND they portrayed her as having been viciously and violently sexually assaulted by a porter at the moment of the collision. Not only was this an incredibly clumsy attempt at an allegory (the ship is raped by the iceberg at the same time she is raped by the porter), but it makes the mini-series completely inappropriate for younger viewers.
Another problem is how the real people aboard Titanic were portrayed by the writers. For example, the real Margaret Tobin Brown was a middle-aged, rather unattractive (she had jowls, droopy eyes, and crooked teeth) woman who dressed very conservatively. She was also an extremely intelligent, forward-thinking and capable woman. Unfortunately, she is portrayed in this mini-series as "Molly Brown" - a flashy, sexy, sassy, superficial bimbo one step short of a Paris courtesan. Marilu Henner is an excellent actor but her character is so unlike the real Margaret Brown that it's incredibly grating. It is no more believable than having Jessica Simpson play Margaret Thatcher in Daisy Dukes and a bikini top.
The acting is somewhat uneven. Although Henner's character is very inaccurately written, she personally does a good job with it, as does George C. Scott as Captain Smith, but Tim Curry as the rapist-porter chews enough scenery for the entire cast.
I don't recommend this mini-series for younger viewers or for anyone who actually cares about the real human beings who suffered on the night to remember. There was no need to create additional suffering in order to make the night more dramatic, and there was no need to portray real people so inaccurately. -
llihilloh9 December 2000Almost everyone's initial reaction is to compare it to the 1997 version of Titanic. Don't do this! I love the '97 movie as much as everyone else did, but I've noticed that a lot of the writing and actions were taken from this mini-series. All right, so this isn't a billion dollar idea with billions of dollars put into special effects. I liked this four hour movie mostly because it DIDN'T involve all of that. James Cameron put tons of money and people into his movie, plus a substantial amount of jewelry and clothing. He went down to the littlest of detail and while this mini-series doesn't involve every little thing that happened, it still gets the main points across.
After I watched A Night to Remember (1958) and this, I too, compared it to the 1997 one. Maybe a couple of you picked up on this and it may not mean a whole lot, but it does to me. A lot of the lines right down to word-for-word were copied into Cameron's. If I really want to go into detail, I could say that the film focuses on a wealthy woman in first class, and a young boy in third class that made his way on to the ship by accident. Although they don't fall into a deep love here, the character images are about the same.
The special effects that didn't take over the entire second half were well designed and not too fake to where it didn't even look half way real. I especially like the departure of the Titanic from Southampton dock. It gives a fairly good look at the ship here and throughout the movie. A ship/model that didn't have a lot of money put into considering it was a made-for-TV movie, was still very enjoyable.
The actors did an okay job. It was good how it focused on a couple of different characters and not just one or two. Really drew a picture of what everybody else was like. Other things like writing, costume design, and music were also drawn well. The attempt to recapture the look and atmosphere of the real ship was partly good. Mainly for the attempt and not actually finding it.
This was a good mini-series with a good topic to go off on. Titanic has been one of the most popular stories and epics of all time and it is good to see a variety of movies trying to portray it. Remember to rate this as a film of itself and NOT a duplicate of James Cameron's. -
kjetilbang7 May 2004When i first saw this movie on a internet store, i bought it in that moment. When i received it, i loved it. True, only the 97 movie gave us the effect that we were sailing on the Titanic, and i don't get why is it so hard to get it authentic, with the sets and all, only the 97 movie has done that. I really like that we can se the ship rolling in the seas, giving us the impression of being at sea. The computer graphics are ok, actually better then the Britannic(2000) and it's four years difference. There is a lot of historical goofs, but you must accept that. The final sinking are the worst part of the movie, when we should have been treated with a more CGI. We get to see after the Carpathia has arrived in New York, i love that. The bad part of the rescue is that you see the deck machinery of newer vessel and more modern lifeboats. My Rate: 8\10. I see this as the best Titanic movie.
-
Well... as a lot said before me, is not J.Cameron's version, but for a TV with a low budget movie, it has such a really good effects, credible, not ''marvellous'' but good enough to be nice at sight... the storyline is even more interesting than Oscar-winning TITANIC, because it has more than the ''rich girl and the poor boy love'', but a lot of stories, including historical people ones, like the John Jacob Astor and his wife story and the Allison's story, in fact are both true. And... not to spoiler you... we can add the fact that there is a lot of scenes really ''familiar'' to the people who has seen JC's Titanic... I mean... did JC take them for his motion picture? Who knows (we can suggest this but never the other way around because the first movie was the TV one). Adding more... the fact that the TITANIC have been damaged by losing her nails at the time the iceberg was hit by her is in fact a recently investigation and maybe it's even more possible than the holes explanation... things to think. Interesting movie. As a TITANIC history big fan I can say the music is outstanding, the scenes are really good, in fact as I said many of them taken and improved by J.Cameron. This movie is not about effect anyway, is about entertainment and storyline, and here we have both.
-
jimkis-110 October 2007TV mini-series are almost always terrible. Taking a 90 minute premise and stretching it out over several nights is never pleasant. This is painfully evident in this stretched-out mishmash full of unbelievable characters and rather pedestrian performances by the actors portraying those characters. As family fare (supposedly) it truly fails, as there is a graphic rape scene and an extended scene of an couple making love with lots of near nudity. Plus there is constant talk about a woman who killed her baby. If that's family fare, I hate to see what they consider adult fare. Of all the performances, I rate George C. Scott's as passable, and at least Marilu Henner is not as annoying as Debbie Reynolds (or that Bates gal) as Molly Brown. Her "liberated" comments do grow tiresome after a while -- I get it! She's in 1912 and she's emancipated! Wow! Let's see her smoke another cigar. In the meantime, you can imagine Tim Curry in Rocky Horror Picture Show and pretend he just accidentally wandered on to the set of this. Why can't they make a straight depiction of the sinking of The Titanic without all the adultery, fornication and other degradations? Or better yet, let the poor thing rest in peace in its watery grave!
-
A superior account to James.C's overblown epic but as a t.v movie 'Titanic' moves as slow as a snail, towards it's inevitable doom. Plus points include, the great George C. Scott as the terribly haunted Captain and also features the the man who dressed up as a woman and escaped in one the lifeboats. For me the latter is one of the most interesting aspects of the sinking but completely missed by the other movies (such as the huge Hollywood effort). Why create false drama, when the actual truth is more interesting and far more dramatic? if you can overcome the slowness of the first 30 minutes, this version is far more satisfying.
-
gcd7028 June 2008With an event such as the demise of the Titanic, one needn't worry about having an interesting subject with which to work. Making the incidental interesting is an entirely different matter however.
Director Robert Lieberman and scripters Ross Lamanna and Joyce Eliason easily convey tension as the great ocean liner approaches what we know to be certain doom. On this point though, they could hardly miss. Their failure is twofold; firstly the plot concerning the passengers is uninteresting and lacks bite. Secondly, the actual sinking itself is poorly presented, being a confusing montage of bodies and water.
Cast are barely okay; we never see enough of the formidable George C. Scott, and Tim Curry is not his usual shining self. Sets, cinematography and art are all good, but this is a made for t.v. show folks. Editing is severely under done.
Friday, July 11, 1997 - T.V. -
Boba_Fett113823 October 2009Well, for a TV production this still is a quite good one. Of course it's not as well known and appreciated as the multiple Oscar winner from 1997, this movie fairly much tells the same story, with the same characters and situations but also with the same sort of stupid fiction writing.
It's an almost 3 hour long production, which means that you'll have to go through a lot of drama before the sinking is starting. This movie has a couple of fictitious characters and plot-lines in it that are just too distracting from the bigger picture and above all totally unnecessarily. I mean, when will film-makers learn that the true story about the Titanic itself is already good and fascinating enough to fill a movie with, with all of its persons and real life situations involved. In that regard this movie really doesn't differ much from similar attempts and therefore also adds little to what has been told so far about the Titanic.
Guess this movie got made to profit from the hype surrounding the James Cameron production with the same tittle, which had already began production first in 1995. They had to rush this movie to release it before the James Cameron movie, which is the reason why the movie is not always very slick looking but considering the budget, the circumstances and the time span this movie got made in, the end result is still quite surprising and satisfying. Both movies are comparable in lots of ways and some sequences and lines of dialog are just totally the same, which is a bit of an odd sight at times to notice.
This is not a lame looking TV production, with low production values and bad acting involved throughout. They actually did a good job with filming it and the effects are also surprisingly good looking, especially for an 1996 movie with such a restrained budget.
The movie has a quite impressing cast but yet none of the characters really work out well. It's because the actors are not really given much room to work with, also since the movie can't really seem to decide on which characters to put its main emphasis. The movie focuses a bit on everyone now, making the movie filled with plenty of characters and some uninteresting side tracks. Because of this some of the story lines within the movie also don't really work out. A bit of a shame of the talents of the fine actors, such as George C. Scott, Tim Curry, Eva Marie Saint and Catherine Zeta-Jones.
A quite good attempt but it just isn't special or impressive enough to rate this even above the over praised 1997 version.
6/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/ -
my-computer2 December 2005What a disappointment. So much like the Cameron version that it is a mystery why they bothered to produce it at all. Similar slushy-romance story line about fictional characters, but different ones this time.
No feelings of fear or horror were induced in me it is kind of anodyne, kind of vanilla really despite two men being shot dead (I don't think this really happened, by the way) and a lot of running about. I didn't feel anything for any of the characters. There was so much wooden acting I think Pinnochio might have been in there somewhere. Well, the cast were getting splinters off one another. Lots of staring into space and also lots of corny dialogue - yuk!
The computer generated shots were not a patch on Cameron's - honestly, what on earth was the point of doing this film? -
Buff200122 November 2005I just found this great film in the Walmart $5.50 DVD bin. I bought it based on the superb cast and the fact that it had a Hallmark credit. I am assuming it is a three hour no commercial version of a two night four hour Hallmark Hall of Fame miniseries. I will refer to this version of Titanic as the CZJ version for Catherine Zeta-Jones one of its most shining stars.
I was far from being disappointed. The CZJ version was very different from its 1997 Cameron Academey Award winning successor. Whereas THE Titanic movie had great music, a single overarching love story and very expensive sets and special effects, the CZJ version gives the big boy a run for its money.
CZJ has two love stories, adequate graphics and effects, ordinary music and average sets and costuming. Where the CZJ version shines is in the concentration of the story on a much broader range of characters and a lot more scenes portraying details of what actually happened from April 9-16, 1914 on the Titanic, California and Carpathia.
Where CZJ really shines is in its casting and the performances of the stars. The well known stars: CZJ, Peter Gallagher, George C. Scott, Marilu Henner and Eva Marie Saint live up to their performances before and after this relatively unknown TV turn. The lesser known young players do an extremely credible job as well.
As I am writing this I can't help comparing these performances to the ones it the big Titanic. In the big Titanic as far as I'm concerned the only decent performances were by players in the "overstory" i.e. the discovery and exploration of the sunken Titanic. These would be performances by Gloria Stuart and Bill Paxton. As far as Kate Winslet and Leornardo DeCrapio are concerned they were badly miscast and stunk up the whole film for me. Actually the real stars of big Titanic were James Cameron and Celine Dion.
Overall,I rated both these versions just about equal. I highly recommend you go to Your local Wal-Mart DVD bin or Amazon.com and find yourself a copy of this overlooked gem. you won't be sorry! -
LightsofDunkirk3 May 2006This is not a bad movie for what it is: namely, a made for TV miniseries.
The effects in THE key sequence (at least for a TITANIC buff is well done, considering that the producers didn't have James Cameron's budget. The ship isn't all that accurate, but if my memory serves me correctly, they used a 178-foot model for the movie, so space is limited.
The worst part concerns the actions of one "Simon Doonan", a fictional crewmember. This scene, IMO, is completely gratuitous and actually detracts from the move.
My main objection is the portrayal of First Officer Murdoch. I honestly think that someone as STUPID as he supposedly is would never have been assigned to what was the flagship of the White Star Line. In fact, he enjoyed a stellar career until the TITANIC, but I suppose there has to be a "reason" that TITANIC hits the berg. If you are a true TITANIC buff, you are unlikely to be impressed by the film's portrayal of Mr Murdoch.
The scene with "Simon Doonan" and the portrayal of Mr Murdoch in my opinion take a film which cou7ld be a 10 and make it only a 6. Still an interesting addition to a TITANIC film collection. -
andy-4867 December 2003While I agree to some degree with the other comments I have seen this film was more accurate in some parts than many others as far as the history goes. It is just a shame that such a load of claptrap (fictional stuff) has to get in the way.
I heartily agree that nothing can get near to A Night to Remember as far as Titanic goes.