Titanic

In all fairness, I can't see the pitch for this mini series as being another other than "Hollywood is producing a big-budget Titanic story - let's get there first." Fortunately, this isn't too bad, in fact, compared to a lot of the guff on television, it's actually quite good. There are as many historical innaccuracies as in Titanic '97 - but this mini-series has one redeeming feature - it is not a gob of sentimental pap. There is a fairly interesting narrative, sturdy direction, and a very good cast. It's a good effort, but everyone knows that every film about the sinking will be compared to the benchmark of "A Night to Remember". and so far, not one has come close.

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.

A lot of other comments stated that the acting was great, especially George C. Scott. Sorry, but that's just not so. His lines are delivered dripping with melodrama, so much so that I thought I was watching an amature production. His explanation of the ship and what would happen as soon as he stepped in the wheelhouse (after the collision) was laughable. How he knew the ship was doomed before anyone sounded the hull was amazing. Further technical gaffs was the sound of creaking wood and running water, even in the first class section, within minutes of the collision. The rape scene was apparently some scriptwriter's idea of connecting with contemporary stories, but it was ugly and just not true. In fact, this film is filled with more false info than any other (except the film by the same name with Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyk (sp?)). If you want to see the most accurate tale of what occurred during that April night, see the superb "A Night to Remember". I rate this one star out of 10.

Though Titanic purists and some critics did not particularly care for this mini-series, it is rather good.

The cast is strong, including George C. Scott as the captain. The computer FX are well done. The only disappointment for me was the hodge podge way the final sinking was represented -- it was just a confusing series of cross fades that really showed nothing. Nevertheless, the film is worth seeing.

The 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.