I love this movie so much

Nice effects though.

An action-packed slog

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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.

Well, for a TV production this still is a quite good one. Of course it's not as well known and appreciated as the multiple Oscar winner from 1997, this movie fairly much tells the same story, with the same characters and situations but also with the same sort of stupid fiction writing.It's an almost 3 hour long production, which means that you'll have to go through a lot of drama before the sinking is starting. This movie has a couple of fictitious characters and plot-lines in it that are just too distracting from the bigger picture and above all totally unnecessarily. I mean, when will film-makers learn that the true story about the Titanic itself is already good and fascinating enough to fill a movie with, with all of its persons and real life situations involved. In that regard this movie really doesn't differ much from similar attempts and therefore also adds little to what has been told so far about the Titanic.Guess this movie got made to profit from the hype surrounding the James Cameron production with the same tittle, which had already began production first in 1995. They had to rush this movie to release it before the James Cameron movie, which is the reason why the movie is not always very slick looking but considering the budget, the circumstances and the time span this movie got made in, the end result is still quite surprising and satisfying. Both movies are comparable in lots of ways and some sequences and lines of dialog are just totally the same, which is a bit of an odd sight at times to notice.This is not a lame looking TV production, with low production values and bad acting involved throughout. They actually did a good job with filming it and the effects are also surprisingly good looking, especially for an 1996 movie with such a restrained budget.The movie has a quite impressing cast but yet none of the characters really work out well. It's because the actors are not really given much room to work with, also since the movie can't really seem to decide on which characters to put its main emphasis. The movie focuses a bit on everyone now, making the movie filled with plenty of characters and some uninteresting side tracks. Because of this some of the story lines within the movie also don't really work out. A bit of a shame of the talents of the fine actors, such as George C. Scott, Tim Curry, Eva Marie Saint and Catherine Zeta-Jones.A quite good attempt but it just isn't special or impressive enough to rate this even above the over praised 1997 version.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

There is a very good reason why the list of factual goofs for this TV movie is so long (and despite it's length it is quite incomplete).This was an extremely rushed production to capitalize on the public's Titanic fever while James Cameron's movie was being made. The sets were slapped together in a great hurry and in the final days of shooting extras would be placed to hide spots where the sets had been damaged. As one of the worst examples, on the very last day of shooting on the hydraulically-tilted ship deck two extras were assigned to support one of the ships exhaust vents to keep it from toppling over.Much of the later shooting was done in an aluminum quonset building and adding the mid-summer heat pounding down to that of of the set lights makes for an uncomfortably hot environment.Combining the rush and the heat was the perfect setting for an extremely tense and stressed working environment, to put it politely.I'm just surprised the production turned out as good as it did, all things considered. It's worth a watch and pretty decent as a made-for-TV production, but best treated as a work of fiction to enjoy the story it tells.

TV mini-series are almost always terrible. Taking a 90 minute premise and stretching it out over several nights is never pleasant. This is painfully evident in this stretched-out mishmash full of unbelievable characters and rather pedestrian performances by the actors portraying those characters. As family fare (supposedly) it truly fails, as there is a graphic rape scene and an extended scene of an couple making love with lots of near nudity. Plus there is constant talk about a woman who killed her baby. If that's family fare, I hate to see what they consider adult fare. Of all the performances, I rate George C. Scott's as passable, and at least Marilu Henner is not as annoying as Debbie Reynolds (or that Bates gal) as Molly Brown. Her "liberated" comments do grow tiresome after a while -- I get it! She's in 1912 and she's emancipated! Wow! Let's see her smoke another cigar. In the meantime, you can imagine Tim Curry in Rocky Horror Picture Show and pretend he just accidentally wandered on to the set of this. Why can't they make a straight depiction of the sinking of The Titanic without all the adultery, fornication and other degradations? Or better yet, let the poor thing rest in peace in its watery grave!