Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    What you have to expect in watching this docudrama is a docudrama! I feel that some of the bad reviews going on here were expecting an epic of a film wrapped up in 130 minutes or just a series of historical facts strung out one after the other. I am a huge fan of dramatic films and documentaries and this hybrid was right on the sweet spot for me. People are going to complain about the CGI and while it wasn't blockbuster standards guess what it wasn't a blockbuster. It was a TV movie and they did what they could within their means.

    The love story between Gwen and Wilhem was delivered quite well. I would have wanted more of that in this project but again it is a docudrama not just purely a drama. Some tough choices had to be made on what to cut down on I'm sure and given that the actors had only such a small story arc I commend them for the performance.

    Really, check this out if you have time to kill and adore documentaries. I think that is the target audience for this project. In that regard, 10/10.
  • I'm not sure why all of these reviews are so bad! Every movie has a budget, and what this team was able to do with their budget is AMAZING! Sure the CGI could have been a little stronger, but looking at the project as a whole I give it 2 thumbs up! I would have like to see more of the Gwen/Wilhelm story, and i'm sure if we were able to see more of the drama the above people wouldn't be complaining about the "lack of drama" or how it was so terrible. When you aren't given a proper amount of time for a story arc based on documentary needs, that tends to happen.

    I think the information presented was fascinating, and it's all new information no one had before! You will always get those that disagree with you and try to bog down a project, but whether you agree or disagree this docudrama was well done. I gave 9/10 stars because I believe there could have been more story line to Gwen and Wilhelm, and more drama from Bill and Diana, but I can't give a poor rating based on "bad acting" when the actors weren't given a full story arc to realize. I think they did a GREAT job with what they had in the story!
  • NormanRask16 January 2017
    Screw the people that gave this 1 star or 2 stars. I really enjoyed it, and I thought the acting was great! Young Wilhelm was adorable :)

    I do not normally watch Reels channel, but I am glad to see a network that promotes ideas that are contrary to what people normally believe or have been taught

    The only thing I would have changed is less interviews at the top, and more dramatization.

    I agree with the people upset about the drama, but maybe the reason is wasn't so well received by them is because there wasn't much of it? And when there isn't much of it you can't really dock the actors for being bad. Their stories simply aren't fulfilled.
  • I normally don't rate documentaries or docudramas, but this one really stands out to me. The acting and interviews blended very well together!

    Also, I loved Robert Michael as Wilhelm, very authentic. I appreciated his use of dialect. Most actors use a standard German dialect, but I appreciated his modification to specific regions.

    I would have liked to have less interviews, but as a previous review stated I am not expecting a blockbuster movie. This is a docudrama, and some action has to get cut. I would love to see a longer version if it ever comes out, since the run time on IMDb is a little over 3 hours and the TV version was only 2.

    Good stuff guys!
  • skyking-1425 December 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    I really don't know what to say. Is there some new info here? Yes, but is it valuable, or even accurate? THAT is the question. My first doubts came early on at the premise that a retired airline flight attendant would have a new and break through perspective because she assumed that how she and her co-workers were trained to handle emergencies on a commercial airliner in the 50's/60's were at all comparable to the training of ships crews in 1912!

    Then, as I watch, it becomes increasingly evident that those involved in this project don't even know the difference between port and starboard... a key element of ship handling! They have the office on deck sighting the iceberg to starboard and ordering "hard to starboard" only to see the helmsman turning the wheel counter-clockwise (to port). In almost every scene where port and starboard directions are used, they are opposite of reality! For those who are unaware, "port" is left and "starboard" is right, so if you are approaching an iceberg to your right, "hard to starboard" is hardly the correct command!

    Key conversations are manufactured with no recorded evidence to support the statements made and with the participants either dead or in no position to substantiate them. Most of the key evidence comes from a "survivor" who was not even on the manifest for reasons that may be credible, but still raises questions. Then despite all of the dialogue they created to show that Lord Ismay was largely responsible for the disaster they suddenly reverse history's condemnation of his taking a seat on a life boat to save his own skin as somehow virtuous?

    Then come conclusions that are utterly nonsense when they claim that because the Californian (by their calculations) could not have reached Titanic before it had already sunk, that they could not, therefore have rendered aid is patently false. It assumes that survivors not in life boats would've died immediately upon entering the water and while survival time would not have been long, it was certainly possible.

    We live in an age where "fake news" is a common label. For those of us who are truly interested in learning from history it's a very challenging time. We must remain constantly alert to anything that fails to ring true. If it doesn't make sense, we need to question it... not just accept and repeat it. In the end result, I have to call BS on this.
  • A great presentation of interesting new facts and I highly recommend viewing whenever possible. Well acted and cast.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    So, I realized things were going to be kind of squirrelly when we were going to be dealing with a previously unknown/undocumented Titanic survivor. While some of the circumstances for his story could happen it all seems too convenient.

    So without further ado, here's a list of some of the issues I had.
    • Not sure if the telegram sent to Sand Hook about Titanic's early arrival to New York matches up with when they fixed the telegraph or were in range of Cape Race.
    • They need more than one ship claiming they saw the Titanic to verify Titanic was in the northern shipping lane. Wouldn't that also mean the Californian could have been in the northern lane when it was heading to Boston?
    • Everything involving the "dangers" of the coal fire. It's unlikely it would have warped the bulkhead that severely, coal fires were common back then so it wasn't something to panic about, and even if it did damage the bulkhead it would not have been the death sentence they claim it to be. Titanic was already doomed and they noticeably cut away from the naval engineer when discussing this. Kind of sketchy there.
    • Muller says the iceberg might have been a growler, but many more people testified to the size, shape, and even color. Plus it doesn't line up with the shelving theory that's given for the collision.
    • Ignoring the Frankfurt was not for completely jingoistic reasons like they claimed. Phillips tried to get them to do something multiple times that night, but they just didn't get the gravity of the situation. Eventually the airwaves got jammed up, so he told them to stay out.
    • Everything with the character assasination of Ismay. He was actively trying to evacuate people that night, and no one can verify that he griped to Smith about Lowe or that Smith chewed Ismay out. That's pure supposition. Also, he was getting into an empty seat, no one else was nearby to take it, and it was on Murdoch's side of the ship. He had every right to it.
    • Andrews was also seen helping people on deck. If he did go down below after his diagnosis it was not for an extended period of time because he knew the crew knew their jobs.
    • Everthing about Muller's story just seems too good to be true, especially with him not being on any survivor lists. Many were taken on Carpathia so they could send lists of survivors to the shore. He wasn't noted in any of them?
    • Towards the end it almost devolves into a conspiracy theory based around protecting the IMM. If that were the case then they did a terrible job of it since the main person pursuing the American hearing was out for blood regarding Ismay and the IMM. Not saying the companies didn't try to cover themselves, but it's a stretch to make it as big as they seemed to show it.
    • I'm not sure how the Titanic surviving would have affected WWI. Aside from maybe some deals between German and British lines, it still seems kind of shaky to assume the IMM and Titanic would have altered things. And the anti-German attitude being nudged along by the British at the time really doesn't help the credibility of Muller's story.


    Granted there were a few points I liked, such as the economic background of the IMM, the shelving and mirage theories, and that someone finally got Murdoch's bridge actions right (yes, you are supposed to turn the ship to the left when ordered hard to starboard: tiller commands were used, look them up). However getting through Muller's story and the parts that I had issues with were such a slog it almost wasn't worth those bits.

    I'm not expecting it to be 100% accurate, but jeez...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I thought it was great. Thoroughly loved it. Watched it twice, back-to- back, because there was so much interesting information, that I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. My ONLY (slightly) negative comment: Frances Fisher's make-up was awful. She looked totally dead. That said, I don't understand the comment from the reviewer who said it was three hours. It was only 2. I wonder if he/she even watched it. Loved it. HIGHLY recommend it. I thought it was RIVETING. RK
  • Excellent presentation of new and interesting facts. Well acted and finely cast. I highly recommend viewing this when ever possible!!
  • geepakent14 August 2022
    Nicely done! Ed, Frances, Robert, and Alex did a GREAT job and though the editing was a bit choppy and visuals didn't quite hit the mark, the acting was superb! Loved the information and anything that flies in the face of what's on the books.
  • imaginetr15 September 2019
    Docudrama where the "drama" or performance is the weaker part of this. The information and commentary by the experts is the better part. Ed Adsner's whole story line is boring, contrived and weak, in my opinion. I love a good documentary, I'm open to a docudrama but this fell a bit short for me.
  • This is one of the most poorly made documentaries I've ever seen. At times it seemed like a joke.

    The laughably bad computer graphics are half finished at times and the dramatizations are so badly acted it's awkward to sit through.

    The information presented isn't the worst but the presentation is awful.

    Reelz has pretty good historical recreations and dramatizations in some of their other programming so I was highly disappointed in this.

    Steer clear.

    1/10 would not recommend.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Not Worth your time. Information is completely false and assumption based and lost a portion of my life i cannot get back. 3 hours of my life down the drain and Horrible CGI effects and assumption based story without any full evidence to back up the information provided.

    Better off going on YouTube and watching fanboy presentations and assumption videos from different up loaders that will tell you one thing different after another.

    Thats what this is about but put into 3 hours.

    as Mentioned above. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THIS DOCUMENTARY

    If there was an option to leave 0 stars i would
  • If you want fictional and highly sensationalized drama only loosely based on historical events, and you can tolerate cheap CGI, bad acting, and clips that looked like they were borrowed from other treatments of the Titanic story, you might find this a tolerable way to pass a few hours if you're sick in bed and can't reach the remote to change the channel.

    But the "facts" presented in this documentary are nowhere to be found in the primary source materials of the actual disaster, and the narrative and conclusions are speculative at best. There is a lot of "it could have happened like this" along with quite a few "this might be what happened" and "if this had happened, then that might also have happened" type of analysis here. But most of the supposedly new information that sinks the myths are invented, stretched, incorrect interpretations, and just patently wrong and easily disproved.

    As for passengers declaring that the rockets were the wrong colors... does the woman who wrote the book for this script really expect us to believe the passengers knew more about the proper use of distress signals than the crew or the ship's owners did? Neither Capt Smith, nor any of the deck officers, nor Thomas Andrews, Bruce Ismay, the QMs in charge of firing the rockets would not have noticed "these aren't distress rockets..." Passengers would not get into lifeboats, did not believe the ship was sinking, and yet they knew more about distress rockets than the crew?

    The people who made this "documentary" might think the crew was stupid, but the viewers aren't.

    There are soooooo many things wrong with this documentary. And not just wrong, but demonstrably false. Conspiracy theorists will love this. As for anybody else... watch at your own risk. You've been warned.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Substantively, I had not been aware of some of the material presented, in particular, the focus on the corporate/financial theories that may have contributed to the sinking. I have not had a chance to 'vet' these ideas, but they seem plausible. The interview with the alleged survivor (alleged, because his name is not on any known passenger manifest; at least not on this side of the bottom of the ocean) is done by D.E. Bristow. Bristow certainly has credibility; she already has written a book on the Titanic. Additionally, she not only retired as a Flight Attendant ("Stewardess" in her day...) with Eastern Airlines, but she is also a pilot in her own right. Having said all this, however, I agree with other reviewers that the drama part of the production left a lot to be desired, and was disappointing. Perhaps I weighted my ranking toward more of the substance.
  • rlaws-341753 November 2023
    Warning: Spoilers
    For years there have been movies and books debating what really happened to the Titanic. Why did it really sink? This is simply another one, but one apparently done from the book of a survivor whose name isn't even in the passenger list. There are so many theories. One documentary even claimed evidence that the Titanic's sister ship was the one that actually went down. The Olympic was docked right next to where the Titanic was being finished and some speculate that the White Star Line wanted to let it sink under Titanic's name so they could get the insurance on a new ship since the Olympic had already been in two accidents. Personally I don't believe that anymore than I believe these theories. With that one they described the differences in the ships and I studied the two ships including the real footage of the Titanic taking off that begins James Cameron's famous films. I compared that to pictures and descriptions of the Olympic and other pictures of Titanic and I find it's highly unlikely. There were a terrible, tragic series of events that happened to bring Titanic down. Personally I think we can all look at the conspiracy theories till pigs fly but we won't know the real truth in this lifetime. The ship lies on the ocean floor and is disintegrating every day. Personally I believe that's where we'll find the true story. The only place that can show us what was wrong is with the ship itself and it doesn't change in the telling. The major problem however is how can researchers truly come to a conclusion based on a few facts that change in the telling and a ship they can barely access that is disintegrating day by day. There are a few things that do seem to be consistent, the lookouts had lost their binoculars, the water was crystal clear which meant that it wouldn't be splashing against an iceberg to warn them further in advance of the iceberg's location. In many versions there seem to have been some strange goings on with the distress flares. It's true that the crew would know better what color of flare to shoot, but that doesn't mean that the many eye witness accounts were wrong about what colors they were actually seeing. That's another thing that is consistent; the color of the flares that the people saw, whether they were the correct colors or not that doesn't change what people saw. Also the wire lines were clogged and the man on the nearby Californian had gone to bed for the night and did not get the distress signal from the Titanic. Many ships that did get it, thought it was a joke because Titanic was unsinkable. And even if Titanic hit an iceberg none of them thought she'd go down so fast that she'd be gone before help arrived. Also, at that time, there was some confusion in the actual distress signal. For years it had bed CQD, at the time that Titanic went down they were in the middle of changing the distress signal to the still used, S. O. S. Titanic, if I remember correctly, was actually putting out both just in case. There were far too few lifeboats and no drills on how to handle a calamity. One thing that they absolutely should have done that many other ships had already done, including the Californian, is that Titanic should have stopped for the night. They had so many iceberg warnings, a very clear sea that made icebergs harder to see, but instead of following the example of others, in their hubris, they sped up. Thankfully because of this tragedy every ship that goes out now has to have enough lifeboats and they have to do drills on how to get into those lifeboats in case of an emergency so that there won't be the chaos that went on that night when people finally realized that they really were going down. I can't say that I know much about the fires that were already going on in the boiler room. I'm woefully ignorant on such things but it makes sense to me that they may have been deliberately set in order to get the large ocean liner started warming up and getting the fuel working before hand. I don't know, I'm not an expert but I know that it took a bit to get the older cars started and Titanic was the biggest ship of her day. It's just a thought and probably completely wrong.

    If you want to read a really good and accurate first hand witness account of the sinking of the Titanic, read Colonel Archibald Gracie's account, rather than relying on one given years later by someone who wasn't even on the ship's list. Colonel Gracie wrote his as soon as he reached home while it was fresh in his mind. He went through all views of the sinking. He helped load the lifeboats with 2nd Officer Lighttoller and helped get down the ones that were upside down. Then when the ship was really going down and they hadn't gotten the last lifeboat that they'd cut loose right side up, he and Lighttoller clung to the bottom of it with others until he was finally rescued by another lifeboat after he watched from a relatively close vantage point the Titanic actually go down. He died 8 months later from complications of hypothermia and diabetes and he was still so upset by the sinking that his last words were, "get them on the boats. Get them on the boats." He was a historian and a great reader and loved to tell everyone about history so his book is extremely detailed, and you can actually be certain that he was on the Titanic and that he watched it go down.