User Reviews

"Lusitania, murder on the Atlantic" may well be considered as a cheaper version of the 1998-blockbuster "Titanic", starring Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. Although the Lusitania-film provides good entertainment, it leads you on false tracks when it comes to history.

The big question with Lusitania, unsolved to this day: the ship was too big to sink with only one torpedo. However, historically it is beyond doubt that she was sunk by just one torpedo. Even more so, after being hit she sank pretty fast.

Every fisherman at Ireland's Southern coast can exactly point out the location of the Lusitania-wreck, about 100 meters down. So the wreck has already been investigated by several diving parties, among them one led by Robert Ballard in 1993. Ballard is the American who discovered the wrecks of the "Titanic", as well as that of Hitler's famous battleship "Bismarck". Ballard thinks that the torpedo hit one of Lusitania's coal-stores, making the coal-dust explode. Carrying this explosion on to neighboring coal-stores. Later on another diving party found considerable quantities of unexploded ammunition inside the Lusitania.

Given its status as a passenger-ship carrying civilians, Lusitania's sinking in May 1915 did the German cause in World War I no good.

The film states that this disaster marked a turning point in the history of warfare, by dropping humanity and chivalry completely. This is wrong: for instance, when the German army invaded Belgium less than a year before, their behavior against defenseless Belgian civilians still evokes horror to this day.

Nevertheless Lusitania's sinking functioned well to win over the USA for their military participation in World War I. In Belgium people do not speak English, so German atrocities over there had been missed by the people of the distant USA.

Another false understanding widely current in the Anglo-Saxon part of the world: in shipping-disasters Lusitania comes only second after Titanic.

Counting in lost human lives, the greatest shipping disaster of all was the torpedoing of the German vessel "Wilhelm Gustloff" by a Soviet-Russian submarine. This happened in January 1945, when the Hitler-vessel carried about 10.000 refugees from Germany's threatened Eastern provinces westwards to safety. Nearly all these people drowned in the icy Baltic Sea, making their number of casualties at least four times as big as that of the Titanic.

The Lusitania was a passenger ship of the Cunard Line, sunk by a German submarine in 1914 with a tremendous loss of life, 1200 crew and civilians of all ages, in the frigid waters of the north Atlantic. It was a big ship -- 800 feet long, about the size of a battleship -- and at 25 knots very fast for its time.

The German government had issued warnings that all British ships were in danger of being fired on because so many were transporting supplies and arms from the US to Britain. The US hadn't yet entered the war and the arms business was booming. But almost everyone, the Royal Navy included, scoffed at the warnings as hogwash.

When the ship is at sea, a scene took place that at first startled me. I was afraid the story would be completely derailed. We're all on the bridge, the captain (Kenneth Cranham) and number one are strutting around in their gold-emblazoned blue uniforms, and the humble helmsman pipes up with, "What course shall we be sailing when we enter submarine waters, captain?" I can't count the number of hours I spent at the helm of a US Coast Guard cutter, but if I or any other helmsman had been so impolitic as to ask a question like that, we'd have been drawn and quartered like William Wallace. Fortunately, the captain at once establishes a return to reality. "And what business is that of yours?", he snaps, shutting the cheeky helmsman up.

The story is carried by the narration of a Scots professor (John Hannah),one of the few survivors. The German U-boat crew is dealt with at some length, and portrayed more as ordinary humans rather than ravening beasts. In the more simple-minded films you can often tell at a glance what view of the enemy will be taken. How mean are they to one another and, especially, how ugly are they? An exception must be made for the brains behind the beef. The leader is often charming, suave, cultivated and fond of good wine and classical music.

The film is far harder on Alfred Vanderbilt (Kevin Otto), a handsome young scion of an American family that built its fortune in the fur trade. He's arrogant and sly. Sounds like a character in the unfortunate "Titanic," as it should. The stories and characters are isomorphic, except that instead of two doomed lovers we have the Scots professor and a young girl and neither of them drowns.

There's also a kind of epilogue. The German U-boat commander, who hesitates briefly before sinking the ship with a single torpedo, is not hailed as a hero back home because it's a propaganda victory for the Allies. He's lucky to keep his rank. The British seize on the event and promote it as evidence of the Hun's barbarity, claiming there were as many as three torpedoes, and using the incident to round up more enlistees. It also influenced America's entry into the war. The US hated all things German after the Lusitania. Sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage" (cf., "freedom fries"), and prohibition was enacted in 1919, which shut down all the breweries like Anheuser-Busch, Blatz, Schlitz, Reingold,and Budweiser.

The acting and direction are competent, although the young girl isn't much of an actress yet. The CGIs are primitive but acceptable for a TV movie. It's really a kind of history lesson, and not a bad one for today's youth.

If you want the best info on it read the book Dead Wake. excellent in the details. makes you think you where on it with the detail info on passengers. used the war diary from the german sub commander and he reviewed the books and pics from the sinking. he obtained some very recent info from the British secret service who knew where the sub was but didint tell the ship. a sad bunch of unfortunate circumstances.

I saw the docudrama today, thanks to Youtube, and can't support the criticism of the two other reviews here at all. Imho this BBC movie is a very good effort at educating the public about this crucial episode of history, regarding the constraints of the budget and the running time of the movie.

As a German citizen, I am, of course, not a totally impartial party (even though I try hard to be), but neither are British nor American commenters. However, I have read one of the most comprehensively sourced books on the subject, Colin Simpson's "The Lusitania", as well as countless in formations on the Internet and I'm basing my judgment on the facts that historians agree on, something that is lacking from both other reviews. And, as I see it, this BBC film got the most important facts right, while at the same time offering great acting and a storyline that shows the human side of the tragedy.

To the facts: - The Lusitania transported ammunition for the British war efforts, and this has been proved with documentary evidence. The movie mentions the fact, without going into the length of telling us that not only British officials knew this, but also US ones, as well as the German intelligence service. Since the complex US and German subplot would have taken a lot of time to tell (and introduce a lot of additional players), it is understandable that the movie leaves this side out. However, personally, I would have liked that a least a mention of the overwhelmingly pro-British tendency of the Wilson administration (especially the role of Col. House) would have been made, but it may have made the storyline too confusing.

• Not only ammunition, but also military personnel on the way to the war zone was transported. The movie doesn't show this, probably because it would have necessitated to introduce additional characters.

• As the movie mentions, the Lusitania was indeed on the list of British auxiliary cruisers. What the filmmakers doesn't tell us is that even basements for naval guns had been installed on the Lusitania after the war. Among passengers and staff, there were even rumours and that the guns were already hidden on the ship. Also mentioned by the BBC, contrary to agreed rules of naval warfare, Admiralty had issued orders to the merchant marine calling for deliberately ramming of submarines.

• It's a fact that British officials deliberately asked how the US would react if American citizen would be killed on a British ship. This is shown in the movie, even though it is left to the judgment of the viewers if and how this influenced the Admiralty in their decisions. The movie just shows the known facts, without taking a clear stance, which is a good idea regarding the lack of decisive evidence.

• The Germans had declared the waters an unrestricted war zone, and really warned passengers in the newspapers. The Lusitania, as a well known British ship, was in imminent danger, while at the same time neutrals, like American vessels, would have been relatively safe. Like the movie showed, it was dangerous ignorance in combination with misguided believe in the Admiralty safety promises that led many passengers to ignore the grave risk.

• The movie shows only one torpedo being fired. This is in accordance with German documents and testimonies, and the established view of historians worldwide. There has never been compelling evidence that more torpedoes were fired. The question, why the Lusitania sank so fast has never really been answered, the most recent view being that both the specific construction of the Ship (longitudinal bulkheads!) and an explosion of a boiler played a role. The movie doesn't show how the second explosion happened and so stays neutral on this question. Imho a good idea, because this isn't essential to the story.

• The Admiralty really did take an unfair stance in the court case, as depicted in the movie. Also, the order for the so called "advised course" contradicted other standing orders, as well as the necessities of navigation. And many important information were never relayed to the Lusitania. What isn't shown is that the Admiralty even presented doctored wireless logs, and that the judge noticed that. Maybe it would have been good to include this in the story, since it adds to the understanding of the administration-critical stance of the Judge, and of the consequent verdict.

Only the most important facts, and imho they are covered in a fair and still entertaining way by the movie. It would have been impossible to show every detail in a 90 minute feature, but the viewers get a good summary, which stay close to the view of the historians. And there isn't an especially pro-German bias (hey, it's a BBC production!). The hypocritical stance of the German Kaiser and his Admirals, who didn't want to be remembered of their own orders after public opinion turned against them is exposed, and German sub captain Schwieger is shown as a somewhat weak character, drawn between ambition, orders, and what may still have been left of ethical values. If there's any bias at all it's pro-American, because US officials, who put their countrymen into danger by deliberately ignoring the illegal transport of war supplies on a British passenger ship, aren't given any scrutiny at all. But, OK, this sideline would have taken another 20 minutes or so to tell.

So, all in all, a very good docudrama combining historical facts with good storytelling an cinematographic values. The special effects, the appearance of the Lusitania and the sub, don't look too cheap (which is often the problem with docudramas), also the use of historical coverage is accomplished in a convincing way. Taking also in consideration the good acting, especially the performances of John Hannah ("Four Weddings And A Funeral") and Adrian Topol, this movie deserves 8-9 out of 10 points. Job well done, BBC!

Movies about the Titanic have come and gone and many such movies, from blockbuster epics to cheap low budget movies (some were so low budgeted that the camera crews tilted their cameras instead of tilting the set!) have made their way from the movie theater and the TV, to video and later to DVD.

Yet little has been said about the Lusitania, whose sinking opened a lot of potential.

The story behind the Titanic can be summed up as follows:

Ship sets sail on its maiden voyage.

Ship hits an iceberg.

Ship sinks in the mid Atlantic.

Casualties mount.

A few survive.

End of the story.

But the Lusitania had a story far more complex. Were they bringing arms to England? Were passengers warned? Were dispatches sent to the Captain? Was the Captain innocent? Or was he guilty? These are complex questions with no real simple answers.

The movie was very well done and sure, some facts were distorted. It was war. And every historian knows that the first casualty in a war is the Truth.

Unlike TITANIC (1998), the central characters in this feature were not fictitious. They really did exist. Prof. Ian Holbourn (born November 5, 1872 and died September 15, 1935) was a passenger on the Lusitania. And he really befriended a young girl named Avis Dolphin (born 1903? and died February 5,1996).

And that "good German" on the U-boat that sank the Lusitania was not a fictitious character added to keep things politically correct, either. He also existed. Quartermaster Charles Vogele allegedly refused to relay the order to fire the torpedo and he was tried and courts-marshaled, and spend 3 years in prison for his crime. (Some accounts claimed that Voegele was an electrician, not a Quartermaster.)

It was no secret that Captain Turner later admitted that had the roles been reversed, he wouldn't had behaved any differently than Lt. Capt. Schwieger, who gave the order to fire that torpedo.

I rate this movie an 9 out of 10.

##### Possible Spoiler #######

In this event Politics won. This is what we have to come call a "docu-drama" the telling of a story within an actual historical event.

In this case the event was the sinking of the liner RMS Lusitania on the 7th May 1915 by the German submarine SMS U-20. 1,198 passengers and crew were killed and the outcry against Germans was resounding and loud, especially in the then neutral US.

Even against the backdrop of the horrors of WWI it was big news and yet it has largely faded in favour of the Western Front or Gallipoli when WWI is reviewed. So this film should have been interesting and informative. However what we got was a fantasy that would have made the dead turn in their graves.

Those "right-on" chaps at the BBC who made this rubbish probably had this discussion first.

Producer "I don't like the Iraq war so I want to make a film that shows I don't. So I am going to tell the tale of the Lustiania.

Editor "Err OK, but wasn't she sunk by the Germans?"

Producer "Yes but we can have a German sailor with a conscience which will absolve them of any blame"

Editor "Err OK, but was't she off her advised course?"

Producer "Yes,but we will make up a reason and make the Captain a sympathetic guy picked on by the evil government (Dr Kelly anyone?) trying to cover up the fact she was carrying munitions"

Editor "Err OK, but hasn't it been proved by the survivors, manifests of the cargo from New York and by modern divers to the wreck that an ammunition explosion didn't happen? And anyway its was illegal to torpedo the liner without warning first?"

Producer "Yes, but we will just follow German propaganda at the time and at the end of the film tell everyone in writing we just made that bit up!"

Editor "How do we blame the government to make the viewer understand they shouldn't support the Iraq War?"

Producer "We show imagined conversations between Churchill and a captain who wanted the Lusitania sunk. We make the view believe the liner was routed into the path of U20 in order for her to be torpedoed, we don't tell them the admiralty were sending two destroyers at speed to escort her, we make it like their was only one U Boat in British waters, we don't tell them the Germans altered the U20s log ...

Editor "But if viewers are stupid enough to believe this made up tosh as accurate history how do we get them to link it to the situation in Iraq?"

Producer "Simple at the end of the film the lead character turns to camera as tells the viewer that he was betrayed by his government.

If the BBC want to make political points (and they increasingly do) than that's their affair. But for them to twist and invent historical fact to do it is disgraceful. Poor.

People always talk about Titanic this Titanic that, it was an accident waiting to happen. People died yes on that ship where it could have been averted. The Lusitania however, was the beginning and the end for the Germans and eventually lose World War One. The sinking of the ship was a barbaric act and no doubt a sad ending for those who died. Unlike the Titanic where there wasn't enough lifeboats, Lusitania had all the safety feature that was built into after Titanic like double hull and more then enough lifeboat for the passenger, but wasn't build to stop a torpedo.

The movie itself was really good. I'm surprise that guy from Mummy was in the movie and instead of being a comic relief, gave a very serious acting in the movie where he was a victim on the ship. The other people in the movie also showed the same and for a quality we expected in a docu-drama movie, the movie more the met my expectation. The sinking was very well done and was more sad then Titanic. Thank goodness there is none of this Jack and Rose crap in it.

Otherwise, a very well made movie and one that should be a reminder about how Lusitania became a pawn in the World War.

Superb adaptation of the acclaimed book by Diane Preston. This film keeps close to the facts as it dramatizes the horrific sinking of the passenger liner Lusitana by a German submarine in the Great War. The tragedy of the sinking is all too realistically recreated and one can not be chilled to the bone how senseless this act truly was. John Hannah is superb as one of the passengers who befriends a young victim to be. This should be seen by all people everywhere so the Lusitania is never forgotten, so such an act is never repeated, and so those who died did not do so in vain. This will stand as an important document regarding the crimes of piracy committed by the German Empire 1914-1918.

With a terrific historic reality and a massive disaster to portray, this tele-movie production makes a reasonable attempt to whittle the story down to 90 minutes. The actual sinking was 18 minutes and fraught with a speeding ship plunging itself further beneath the waves as it sank. Lots of costumed extras leaping and screaming and some mean men grabbing at ropes and lifeboats whilst little children escape. Pretty good possibilities...BUT again we are forced to try and see what is going on because of the terrible hand held gawking camera-work. Throwing the camera about is supposed to add to the chaos as the ship sinks but as usual all it does is blur the picture as it darts about, and annoys the viewer. The facts of the sinking are well told in other posts here and the aftermath was Americas excuse to enter WW1, so political intrigue, factual bastardry and epic ocean-liner destruction make for a potent offering. The art direction is good, costumes and sets quite convincing and some CGI impressive...BUT with a swivel head cameraman and contrived visual mess it soon becomes tedious enough to see the viewer turn away. John Hanna is a fine everyman and the emotion with his escape and the water scenes as the ship (apparently) sinks is good. Adding irritation is the ONE long-shot of the 4 funnel ship tilting as it speeds along and then a few minutes later just the stern slipping quietly beneath the waves is as infuriating in its visual cheat as THE LAST VOYAGE using stock footage for the stern shot. There is also a TV version of TITANIC and BRITANNIC + SOS TITANIC and of course Cameron's mighty film. Why someone just does not film THE VIOLET JESSOP STORY and be done with the 3 White Star liners in one movie is a great missed opportunity. Violet Jessop was the nurse who, in real life, was on board OLYMPIC when it collided with a coal freighter, she then survived TITANIC and then sailed on BRITANNIC and survived that sinking too! Now That's a story!

Indeed, this one is remarkably controlled, but it does include key facts that the British wanted covered up:

• that their embargo of Germany was the first and bigger war crime;
• that Churchill wanted the Lusitania sunk, and in typically murderous fashioned schemed to make it happen;
• that the explosion of illegally carried war materials, especially gun cotton, caused the second and greater explosion;
• that the Admiralty first covered up and then destroyed all materials relating to the incident;

And much more. Anybody who argues anything else has not studied the subject in depth; one need only consult THE authority on the subject, Patrick Beesley, in his authoritative Room 40 to know this. None of this is "politics": it's all facts.

Over a century ago, there was a time when warfare between nations was expected to be fought with some semblance of chivalry, and noncombatants were to be protected from harm.

Any semblance of that finally came to an end on 7 May, 1915.

Based on true events, this docudrama tells the story of one of the most pivotal events of the First World War, the sinking of the RMS Lusitania. This was the other British liner that went down tragically, but whose death could not have been more different. While not as lavish a production as the James Cameron movie, "Lusitania" nevertheless gives the viewer a reasonably accurate picture of the ship and its end. The performances are good, the story pretty much follows the historic record, and the special effects are convincing enough in depicting the death of the doomed liner. One of the movie's best scenes intersperses actual film footage of the Lusitania leaving New York on her final voyage, a sobering and haunting moment.

There's also an important backstory, namely the reason why the Lusitania was attacked in the first place. Both Lusitania and her sister Mauretania were listed as auxiliary cruisers in the Royal Navy registry. The ship was also loaded with munitions, in violation of international law. Through their agents in New York, the Germans were aware of this. There was also the fact that Winston Churchill, head of the Admiralty, wanted to create an incident at sea to bring America into the allied cause.

There are of course, some flaws in this production. For instance, the actor portraying Captain Turner in no way resembles the real person. The late Ian Holm would have been a better choice. However ,the main criticism of this motion picture is sometimes it gives the impression of being "Titanic" meets "Das Boot".

But when the torpedo strikes the hull and the contraband munitions explode, all similarities come to an end, and the mayhem that was the sinking is shown. People are drowned, pulled under, and meet other horrific ends. Unlike the Titanic, the band did not play on, the lovers did not unite, there was no nobility displayed by the passengers, and the Captain did not go down with the ship. This is where this film truly becomes the "Anti-Titanic". But even this cannot fully bring forth the nightmare that was the Lusitania. To make a comparison, the Titanic took two and a half hours to go under, while the Lusitania, a ship 90 percent the Titanic's size, went down in just 18 minutes. The percentage of loss of life was significantly higher, with 1200 souls lost out of 2000 aboard, including 120 Americans.

The international condemnation of Germany that followed this horrific loss of life was near unanimous. Like a prairie fire a wave of shock and indignation spread throughout America, and none other than former President Theodore Roosevelt declared the Lusitania's sinking to be a "barbarous act of piracy". President Woodrow Wilson however, decided to err on the side of caution. Nevertheless, the fuse was lit for America's eventual entry into World War I.

The movie was okay and the cast did a wonderful job delivering the emotional impact the movie should have. What also worked was the actual footage at the end. What was horrible was depicting Winston Churchill and the British hierarchy as actually evil. That was unnecessary and pure nonsense.

This movie was confusing at first. Was it a movie, a documentary, a combination of both? It turned out to be a combination of both, but mostly a movie. A fine movie. I was surprised how good it turned out. The narrator and main character is a Scottish college professor (John Hannah) returning home to his wife and three sons. He befriends a young fatherless girl (Madeleine Garrood) on the ship who is going to boarding school in England. Their friendship adds warmth to the movie, as well as fear as to what will happen to the sweet girl. We already know from the beginning the professor survives, but not her fate.

There are also some minor passenger characters, such as a rich playboy and his actress girlfriend; as well as Irish parents with a baby, young daughter and young son. The ship's crew is led by a captain who looks very much like the captain of the Titanic, even though the captain of the Lusitania did not. Kenneth Cranham plays the captain is an effective, understated way. There are also many scenes of the German submarine crew, including some showing concern and remorse about sinking a passenger ship with women and children. (Did those feelings actually exist in real life?)

In addition, the British Admiralty is shown as one more concerned about the United States possibly entering the war, than in the lives of those on the Lusitania. Wouldn't the sinking of the great ship make Americans angry enough to want to fight the Germans? There is even Winston Churchill expressing the same idea. (Martin Le Maitre plays him with a very odd accent.) The movie itself was oddly filmed in South Africa. The sinking of the ship, which only took 20 minutes after it was hit by one torpedo, is done in a realistic-artistic way, a truly exceptional job.

All that went on after the tragedy was interesting, too, especially since the captain went down with the ship, but later was picked up unconscious in the water. Would he be hanged for slowing down the ship in the fog, so that the British Admiralty's guilt and negligence wouldn't be exposed? They could have sent ships to protect the Lusitania, as she approached Irish water, but did not. Is this movie totally historically accurate? If not, it's doubtful those who made it were intentionally making it inaccurate. Drama does not take priority in this film. Yet it's a wonderful dramatic telling of the sinking of the Lusitania.

Given the subject matter one would have expected a tense and exciting story. Unfortunately what we are presented with here is dull and tedious. It follows the story of the destruction of the RMS Lusitania from the time of her departure from New York City to her torpedoing off the coast of Ireland several days later and the subsequent Inquiry into the sinking. It is in docudrama format and is narrated in part by John Hannah's character of Prof Ian Holbourn. The acting is rather mediocre, the sets are uninspiring and the outside shots, particularly the sinking, were obviously not shot in the North Atlantic. The scenes on board the German U-Boat are somewhat more convincing. The special effects are sparse but adequate. Kenneth Cranham puts in the best performance as Captain Turner. Very disappointing, I found myself looking at the clock waiting for it to finish.