Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Tad Pole . . . that with a whimper. This TITANIC of 1953 certainly provides viewers with plenty of Big Bangs, unlike the whimper fest of James Cameron's infamous 1997 TITANIC bladder-buster. Cameron's hatchet job makes the Billionaire Class out to be the bad guys, as they scuttle around the sinking vessel shooting at each other with guns! Jean Negulesco's 1953 TITANIC, on the other hand, is surely more realistic, depicting--as it does--the rush of Monied Men down to steerage to carry the shell-shocked poor immigrant women and children to the safety of lifeboats. These wealthy role models of the Fox Corporation Film Studio's 1953 TITANIC outing teach their sons that if they're old enough to wear long pants, they're old enough to surrender their life boat seat to the odd woman out. Barbara Stanwyck's character in the 1953 TITANIC hails from the century-long GOP stronghold of Michigan's Mackinac Island, won hands-down by Leader Trump in 2016. This 1953 TITANIC suggests that had the 20 richest Americans supporting Trump sailed on the TITANIC, he would have seen his entire Cabinet go down with the ship. (If Michigan's Betsy DeVos had orange hair, this would remind me of a certain Eurhythmics song.)

sddavis63 Not everything that's made about the Titanic needs to be or even should be looked at in relation to the James Cameron film of 1997. However, realistically speaking, the 97 film was such a blockbuster that it's probably impossible not to do some comparison whenever you watch any story about the Titanic. This was the Cameron film's namesake - 1953's "Titanic." It's the third movie account of the sinking of the ship that I've seen - along with the Cameron film and 1958's "A Night To Remember" - and it's actually, as far as I know, the earliest film version made. The '58 version was very bare bones and to the point - it was quite a contrast to '97 and it worked very well, probably at least in part because of that. This '53 movie is more obviously what impacted James Cameron more. It uses much of the same technique of weaving fictional story lines among the passengers around the historical event of the sinking. Not surprisingly, it isn't as ornate as Cameron's version, and the actual mechanics of the ship's sinking is inaccurate, but when this was made no one knew that the ship had broken in half. Some of the historical names are changed. In this version, for example, there's no Molly Brown, although there's a Molly Brown-like character, played by Thelma Ritter.Most of the melodramatic content revolves around the Sturges family. Fed up with her posh life in Europe, Julia Sturges (played by Barbara Stanwyck) is leaving her husband and taking her children to America to start a new life. Her husband Richard (Clifton Webb) manages to get on board the ship to convince his children to go back to Europe with him. His wife he couldn't care less about. That was a reasonably well developed storyline.Some of the historical details seem inaccurate as well, although the basics are covered. There's no one from the White Star Lines, though, on board, pushing Captain Smith (Brian Aherne) to increase speed, and the strict polarization between first class and steerage doesn't seem as strict as it should be. This is a far shorter movie than Cameron's, and as it approaches the end the emotion does build, especially as Richard finds his son Norman, who suggests that they can "make a swim of it" together. The actual sinking - long and drawn out in '97 - happens fairly suddenly in this, and the movie ends, I thought, rather too abruptly, with no attention to the survivors afterward and their rescue.I saw this movie many years ago and was impressed with it. It's still quite good, and it has an obviously very impressive cast. People will inevitably compare it to James Cameron's movie. That's all a matter of personal taste I suppose. I liked both - and I liked "A Night To Remember" as well. To be honest, though, I'd probably rank this one as #3 out of those 3 - but #3 out of 3 very good movies. (7/10)

MartinHafer There have been several stories about the sinking of the Titanic. However, "Titanic" (1953) is a bit different because it really doesn't focus on WHY the disaster occurred but instead focused on one particular fictional family and how this horrible tragedy impacted on them. This is NOT at all a complaint--just an observation on the style of film this is.The Sturges family is very wealthy--but they also are a mess. The mother (Barbara Stanwyck) is unhappy about her sterile rich life and its impact on her children. Her marriage is loveless and her daughter, in particular, has become spoiled and somewhat soul-less. So, without telling her two children, she is embarking with to a new life in America--back where she grew up with simpler values. The husband (Clifton Webb) apparently has just learned of her plan to leave him and he desperately works to get aboard the sold out ship. He is determined to bring his kids back to Europe and make them American royalty.When Webb and Stanwyck eventually meet up on the ship, she announces that she is leaving him. She doesn't love him and, in a final slap in his face, tells Webb that his son is NOT his biological son but another man's! At this point, Webb becomes VERY cold towards his wife--which is understandable. But, seeing him turn his back on the young boy is painful--and something the kid doesn't deserve--especially since he practically worships his father.As far as the daughter is concerned, despite her haughty and socially conscious manner, she meets a nice young man (Robert Wagner) and they slowly start to fall for each other. It NEVER goes as far as the romance in "Titanic" (1997) but is much more innocent and sweet. Yet, you know that their relationship is most likely doomed.So far, this is quite interesting and well acted. However, when the film ends, all these things come together so perfectly. It culminates with a marvelously tragic ending--one that really pulls at your heart. I thought the writing really took me by surprise--and when the boy and his father's stories cross, I felt myself trying to hold back the tears. It really packed a nice punch.Now as far as the special effects go, this film, because it's more about a family, aren't as important. Now I am not saying they are bad--by 1953 standards they're very nice. It just isn't the amazing spectacle that the 1997 film is--and could be because of improved movie making technology.Exceptional and so good that I want to see the British version, "A Night to Remember". I have already seen the newest version and the 1943 German version (which is amazing in MANY ways--especially in its anti-capitalism bent) and want to be able to see the full spectrum of films about this disaster.

Supachewy The drama Titanic is directed by Jean Negulesco and stars Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck, and Audrey Dalton. The film takes place in 1912 on the famous Titanic.We all know the story of the great ship the Titanic and how it was the biggest ship ever built and then of course it sadly sank to the bottom of the ocean. But we do not all know the stories of the passengers of the Titanic and what it was like to be there as the Titanic was making it's voyage to the endless depths of the massive ocean. There wasn't enough lifeboats for everyone, only enough for the women and children. This film centers around a family on the ship, the Sturges family, and the battle in the family between the mother, Julia (Stanwyck), and the father, Richard (Webb). The family is extremely well to do and Richard wants their children to live a life like royalty while Julia wants them to be kind, humble people. Well they do not know yet that those problems will sink to the bottom of the list after they spend a few days on their trip to America.The screenplay for this film was decent but it would have been much better with more characterization. By the time the film ended I really did not know who the characters were at all, and that could have been improved if the film was lengthened in order for more dialogue and plot could happen. I do like it when films have a small plot within a much larger plot, I always find that interesting. Other films that do the same type of thing is In Old Chicago with the great Chicago fire and Apocalypto with the Europeans discovering the Americas. The main flaw with the screenplay was the fact that all the characters weren't well developed and also the ending should have had much more drama to it.The direction of this film was poor and this film could have been much better if it wasn't so. This is a majorly dramatic event and yet the film never makes it feel like it is. Negulesco never does any camera movements to make me feel like a ship in sinking and many people will die. She films it the same exact way she films the beginning of the film which is much more lighthearted. It could have been monumentally better but unfortunately not.Even though Negulesco wasn't the greatest behind the camera at least she was able to get decent performances from the actors in their single dimensional roles. Clifton Webb played the part of a gentleman fine and he really did not need to do much more than that because even as the boat was sinking he was still a gentleman. Barbara Stanwyck is one of the great actresses but this film is not the reason why even though she also did a good job, just nothing extraordinary due to the limitation of her character by the writing. She did everything in her role very well though. The same is to be said about Audrey Dalton and all the other actors in this film, most of it centered on Webb and Stanwyck's characters though.Now I would like to compare this film to James Cameron's Titanic which is far superior. The reason why the more recent Titanic is so much better is because it is a three hour film instead of only an hour and a half. For the first two hours we learn about Jack and Rose and grow to know them while we are not able to do it in this film. Then for the final hour is all the drama of the ship sinking, instead of a mere twenty minutes. I felt for Jack and Rose while I did not really at all care for anyone in the family in this film. Sometimes it is better for a film to be longer so the audience can grow into it.Overall I give this film a 6/10 because even though I've said mainly negative things about the film it isn't bad. I would recommend James Cameron's Titanic to you much sooner than this though. It is very interesting to see an older film do something of such large proportions though and I would recommend it to anyone who likes classic films and also drama about true events.