chaswe-28402
This was probably the first Titanic film I'd seen (I may have seen, but forgotten, A Night to Remember, countless years ago), but for some reason I knew what was going to happen. So there were no twists or surprises. I'd heard the ship hit an iceberg, sank beneath the waves and lots of people (I found out they numbered 1523) drowned. I don't think there's anybody aged over 30 in the western world who doesn't actually know about this unsinkable ship sinking.But it was obvious from the very beginning what else was going to happen. The petty thief was clearly going to survive, and repent. His baddie buddy was going to come to a wet end. The beautiful star was going to be saved. I'd also heard that Molly Brown was unsinkable.I will admit that since I knew what was going to happen I fast forwarded a good deal. It didn't fascinate enough to fill the full three hours. But it wasn't that bad, really. Just predictable. Better than 5.9 stars.I don't think I'll bother with the $200 million Cameron version.
Wuchak
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)
TheLittleSongbird
It 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
babycakes056
Overall, I thought this was a great, well told film.It's hard to choose which one is the best version of the Titanic, between James Cameron's 1997 version or the TV 1996 Version. Both were amazing and even though they were telling the same story, I found them both very different.The Earlier version is much more true to life, the stories were more realistic with the nanny and I really loved the way it switched between ships. The Cast was amazing and Tim Curry was so convincing as a villain. I though Catherine Zeta-Jones and Peter Gallagher had great chemistry together. I didn't like the romance between Jaime and Olsee (sorry, I can't spell her name) as much as Jack's and Rose's. For a low budget TV film, I thought it did a splendid job.What many people seem to forget is that this one was made before James Cameron version so the 1996 version was being made, they didn't have anything to go on to know whether or not the characters and sets were how they portrayed them.Overall a fantastic film that is worth seeing if you have a free afternoon.
