The story of the 1912 sinking of the largest luxury liner ever built, the tragedy that befell over two thousand of the rich and famous as well as of the poor and unknown passengers aboard the doomed ship.
The construction of the RMS Titanic at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast against the background of union riots, political and religious conflicts, and a romance between a young ambitious engineer and an Italian immigrant.
On the 100th anniversary of the original voyage, a modern luxury liner christened "Titanic 2," follows the path of its namesake. But when a tsunami hurls an ice berg into the new ship's ... See full summary »
Shane Van Dyke
Shane Van Dyke,
The plot focuses on the romances of two couples upon the doomed ship's maiden voyage. Isabella Paradine (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is a wealthy woman mourning the loss of her aunt, who reignites a romance with former flame Wynn Park (Peter Gallagher). Meanwhile, a charming ne'er-do-well named Jamie Perse (Mike Doyle) steals a ticket for the ship, and falls for a sweet innocent Irish girl on board. But their romance is threatened by the villainous Simon Doonan (Tim Curry), who has discovered about the ticket and makes Jamie his unwilling accomplice, as well as having sinister plans for the girl. Written by
Thomas Andrews, the architect of the Titanic who was actually present on the disaster, doesn't appear on this film. He also didn't appear on Titanic (1953). See more »
During a sweeping crane shot of the port side of the ship, there are several mistakes in the design, including an extra deck house on the poop and forecastle decks; the main mast facing the wrong direction; and the absence of 'B' Deck. See more »
[after observing that Jamie is shocked seeing her smoking a cigar]
What's the matter? Never seen a woman smoke a cigar before?
Well, no. I mean, not a lady, anyway. Not like you.
Well, get used to it. Woman's emancipation. We can smoke cigars. We can tell you men how to run the world. Hell, we'll probably have a woman president in the next hundred years.
See more »
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.
2 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?