Titanic II (Video 2010) Poster

(2010 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
106 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Someone Actually Spent Money on This
rscafidi8524 January 2011
Well, not a lot of it (clearly), but enough to rent out the Queen Mary, hire a bunch of random extras from a Greyhound bus station, and pay some kit with a Commodore C64 to slap together a few CGI "effects". Better movies have been made for much less money, and that is both sad and infuriating.

Before even getting to the plot, such as I was able to piece together, some attention needs to be paid to the production values, if you can call them that.

No attention was paid at all to continuity, some exterior scenes and establishing shots use the 1936-vintage Queen Mary, moored in Long Beach, CA; while other outside scenes utilize some of the most god-awful CGI animation I've ever seen, which appears to depict the 1912-vintage Titanic. The ship shifts from a '30s three funnel liner to a pre-WWI four funnel liner and back again multiple times, the colors of the funnels even changes between red and yellow and the name sometimes disappears from the bow.

The permanent rock breakwater surrounding the Queen Mary can bee seen in some parts where the ship is supposed to be out at sea, along with glimpses of the Long Beach skyline in a few parts. No attempt at all was made to disguise the fact that the location ship never left port.

Interiors were filmed in either rented motel rooms, office elevator lobbies, or the main concourse in a suburban shopping mall. The engine room scenes are clearly a concrete basement with air conditioning equipment.

Extras in "action" scenes either stumble around aimlessly with no expression or intentionally trip over their own feet. All sound effects, including screaming, were added post production with no cause visible.

Now, back to the plot. Its bad. Like flimsy soft core porno bad. Some millionaire has financed the construction of an exact replica of the Titanic, which has set out on its maiden voyage from New York in 2012, on the 100th anniversary of the original. In a shocking coincidence, global warming simultaneously causes a massive ice sheet to break off from Greenland and drift toward the ship. Oh, and a tsunami. A massive, massive tsunami was caused somehow and is actually propelling the iceberg toward the ship at greater than the speed of sound. Yes, that fast. Also, only the ship is endangered and not all of Europe and North America, as might be expected from a tsunami of such biblical proportions. Part way through the movie, the actors appear to lose interest in the iceberg threat, and it is forgotten and replaced solely with the tsunami, which doesn't capsize the ship, but merely damages the hull in the same place as the original Titanic. Also, it destroys half the lifeboats- that is one smart killer wave.

I was really hoping this would be one of those campy movies that are so bad their almost good and can be appreciated ironically as unintentional comedy, but "Titanic 2" is just too bad even for that. This movie has no redeeming features whatsoever and is merely a colossal waste of time and resources. All copies of this film should be collected and shot into the sun, lest future generations find them and judge our civilization based on this affront to all taste and decency.

I'm just glad I watched this as a free bootleg on the Internet, if I had actually paid to buy or rent this, I would probably be setting something on fire right now.
68 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
What a ridiculous excuse for a film
rp-817-82699313 August 2010
This was the worst piece of television I have ever seen. Shane Van Dyke was having a laugh when he made this. The effects were a total joke, looked like a PC game from about 10 years ago. The story was madness (an 800mph tsunami forces an iceberg into the path of the titanic). James Cameron must have been laughing his head off. Acting was awful, can't believe any actors would star in this film even for money. If you have 2 hours of your life you don't want to get back, you should watch this film. Almost so bad it's actually good. I hope they don't consider a titanic 3 because that would really be a disgrace to the film industry.
184 out of 195 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
How NOT to make a movie
twatchy20 November 2010
It's laugh-out-loud BAD. The script, acting, plot are all woeful and my 12yr old could have done a more convincing job with the CGI. Most of it is filmed on the real Queen Mary which is now a hotel in Long Beach, Ca or in a concrete bunker, sorry, "engine room". They hired about 20 extras from the local homeless shelter by the look of them who wander around aimlessly or fall over their own feet during "action" sequences. There is some preachy stuff about global warming backed up by bogus "science" and a 800mph tsunami (that's faster than the speed of sound folks!). I hope this movie was released as a joke but fear it wasn't. But seriously, if you haven't seen it yet then please do so because it's hilarious and you'll have lots of fun spotting the glaring errors, continuity bloopers, wooden acting and super-low budget production. It's so bad it's good.
36 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Poor example of any kind of movie
jwebb6325 August 2010
The black guy at the Coast Guard headquarters, toothless. Anyone notice? From the imitation special effects to the silicone breasts, I've seen better hommade vacation videos. I can't imagine paying to buy this DVD, this is the most awful movie I have ever seen. The acting was high school thespian at best, they all appeared to be students of some second rate acting school. I would not recommend this video to anyone. Out of respect to the original Titanic and the poor souls who went down with her, it is a shame that such a poorly done movie about a new Titanic was done so cheaply and with such low budget actors. This is a waste of film and money.
93 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
The Horror
robert-dacey19 September 2010
Not only a waste of a hour and a half of my evening but quite possibly of my entire life! It was so painful I do not believe I could begin to adequately describe the trauma I now feel - I genuinely write this as a warning to my fellow human beings who value their sanity. Never in my life have I seen work (of any form) of such poor quality. Having only just finished viewing this film I feel the need for a shower and referral to a good psychiatrist. I've been more entertained watching paint dry - and a tin of paint could produce/direct a better cinematic experience. Simple put, if 0 out of 10 was I option I'd have awarded that instead - I want my 1.5 hours back!! THE HORROR, THE HORROR!!
138 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Lots of CGI stuff
Mat_Hadder9 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I somehow caught this trash on cable over the weekend. I have no idea why it aired on TV in Australia before it even got a US release, but at least I didn't have to go out and rent it.

The movie opens with some guy surfing off what appears to be a Canadian ice shelf; when a large chunk of ice falls he rides the wave. Unfortunately for him, a piece of ice the size of Manhattan breaks off and that's the end of his story.

An old coast guard captain gets a call from NOAA and he flies out to the ice shelf. Lot's of mumbling about the evils of global warming and how they need to warn the planet that an epic tsunami is going to destroy the world... but most importantly it will destroy the Titanic II. It turns out the captain's daughter works as a nurse on the ship which has just set off on it's maiden voyage. The captain gets in his super-chopper and decides to fly all the way to the titanic to save his daughter.

His daughter used to date the guy that owns the shipping line and the Titanic II, he of course is on the ship. He has three girlfriends now but begins to regain his old affections for the nurse for some reason. The tsunami hits the ship conveniently wiping out half of the life rafts. I don't think the director was trying to be funny here, but all of the people bouncing back and forth pretending that the ship was falling over made me smile.

The boat continues to sink and the guy and girl run around trying to get out but don't. Fortunately they come across some scuba gear, unfortunately there's only one mouth piece. Rather than try sharing it, the guy just dies and that's pretty much the story.

Terrible acting, crappy CGI, hilarious dialogue The interiors of the Titanic II look like they were filmed in a rundown motel 6. They have a shot of the engine room and it looks like a dump truck backed into a loading bay.

How did this happen??
67 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Possibly the worst movie every made ...
gerreinfo29 August 2010
Be warned that this is probably the worst movie ever made. At least it gave a good actor, Bruce Davison, employment. Nice concept, but so poorly made that you understand immediately that the makers knew zero about the 1912 Titanic and cared even less. With an obvious low budget, the movie made use of the 1930's Queen Mary permanently moored at Long Beach, CA. But, 1912 maritime design is very different from 1930s maritime design as was White Star Line, (Titanic), to Cunard Line, (Queen Mary). Shots included the sea wall enclosing the Queen Mary, rust on the railings of this "brand new Titanic II", and red funnels when the original Titanic had yellow funnels, (which they corrected within the movie and then went back to red funnels). Some scenes showed the ship with three funnels, some scenes she had four funnels. One of the best, laughable scenes was the cast running down into the "engine room" with concrete walls!!!? The Titanic II sailed with the name emblazoned on it's bow, then the name was gone, then it was back again? Where were the continuity people? Or could they not afford to employ them. The score even had slight reminisces of the movie Titanic's score in a shameful attempt to piggy-back on the success of the James Cameron movie. Gives new meaning to unoriginal and predictable. Do yourself a favor. Skip this movie. It's not even good trash.
69 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
I can't believe I even watched this
freak_out100022 September 2010
Really I can't Vote 0? Titanic 2 was an absolutely horrible waste of time. Awful acting and outdated FX, I've seen better from high school students. The story was highly unbelievable, however may have been more entertaining if better presented. The only thing that drew me to the movie and kept me watching was how bad it is. Its like when some1 says "careful its hot" you gotta touch it just to see how hot it is, I just had to watch to believe. I fully agree that Titanic 3 should never happen. Although, nor should have Titanic 2 which has left me in shock that this movie was ever made, and empathic of all involved with Cameron's Titanic for having their amazing work now associated with this.
42 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
'Birdemic' On Ice
DANEMOD3 October 2010
I think my title says it all - this alleged movie is so inept, so cheaply made and so poorly written and acted that I'm not sure anyone could find nice things to say about it. I could almost understand this blatant rip-off of James Cameron's film if it had been made in 1997 or 1998; at that time, all you had to do was to say "Titanic" and people automatically reached for their wallets. But this is thirteen years later, and there's just no excuse for what is on the screen here. Horrendous CG (the birds in 'Birdemic' are masterpieces compared to some of what's in 'Titanic II'), goshawful acting (the guy who played Maine should have been billed as Ed Wooden), and a general contempt for the audience make this one a must-miss. On the evidence of this film, inmates are definitely running The Asylum.
36 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Another awful film from The Asylum that should be sunk without trace.
Paul Andrews27 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Titanic II starts exactly one hundred years after the launch & sinking of the original Titanic in 1912, in 2012 a new luxury cruise liner christened the Titanic II is about to set sail on her maiden voyage across the Atlantic. Meanwhile in Greenland a huge ice glazier has fallen apart & a huge tsunami caused by the huge iceberg crashing into the Ocean smashes straight into the Titanic II after it's engines blow. Rapidly sinking, badly damaged & with an even bigger tsunami on it's way the Titanic II & those aboard look doomed to suffer the same fate as the previous Titanic one hundred years before...

Written & directed by Shane Van Dyke who also stars in the thing this is yet another shameless rip-off from The Asylum who specialise in conning people into renting or buying their crappy films with copycat artwork, titles & plots. Here with Titanic II The Asylum are obviously leeching off the success of James Cameron's epic Titanic (1997) although this 'Mockbuster' & 'Disasterpiece' is more similar to something like Poseidon (2006) with the majority of the running time devoted to the sinking of the Titantic II, attempts to escape alive & various problems that go against the main character's. As one would expect from anything made by The Asylum Titanic II is total crap, an awful script that doesn't even get going until the fortieth minute (that's when the first tsunami hits) & a second half that has two people run through a few slightly wet corridors trying to look panicked. All the old disaster film clichés come out, at one point people even get stuck in an elevator & a door won't open because something is blocking it from the other side. Also, stop me if this sounds familiar, it seems big business has put profits first rather than human safety by cutting corners on the construction of the Titanic II. That's the best the script can do, that's as original as it gets & while the script obviously tries to mirror the events surrounding the sinking of the original Titanic it's slow going & it's impossible to care about anything. I suppose the script could have tried to say something about the dangers of global warning & the polar ice caps melting but it merely uses the iceberg thing to parallel the original sinking & the tsunami or it's after effects are never mentioned or seen again once it's hit the Titanic II.

As one would expect the CGI computer effects are awful, the CGI Titanic II looks terrible as does the iceberg & glazier breaking up. No-one really dies on screen, with a main cast of about three the expected fatalities don't really happen. I suspect the makers never left dry land, obviously shot on sets that just look like normal building they don't even shake or tilt as the Titanic II is supposedly sinking. The whole film looks as cheap & nasty as most productions from The Asylum, the second half of the film is also really dark & it's sometimes hard to make out what is going on.

Released straight to DVD in the states (although it had premiered on TV in at least Australia & Britain before that) on August 24th in an interview the producer said Titanic II only finished filming on May 7th which gives you some indication just how quickly The Asylum get these things out & that rushed post production surely contributes to the awful CGI, bad pacing & general lousiness. The acting sucks, plain & simple & the so called emotional bit at the end is embarrassingly bad.

Titanic II is awful, then again coming from The Asylum did you expect anything else? Bad CGI, bad sets, bad acting, bad script & a lot of unhappy Titanic fans who may be suckered into giving this crap a go means The Asylum's output just isn't getting any better.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
This film is so bad that its good.
matt-285510 September 2010
I just happened to stumble across this when flicking through the channels. the title of the movie immediately suggests that it is going to be bad.

The acting is wooden, the CGI is terrible and the plot is far fetched but I just could not stop watching it.

There are lots of scenes where people are pretending to interact. There are lots of scenes when a plastic boat goes past, lots of studio shots. I think you get the message.

I really suggest you watch this. When you do please watch it for what it is. Don't take it seriously and you will find it rather amusing. Take it seriously and you will be seriously disappointed.
47 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
2/10
Can someone please, oh please, tell me why....
Paul Magne Haakonsen26 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Alright, this is one of those movies that you know is going to suck, just by looking at the cover or hearing the title of it. I mean, "Titanic II", for real? So what were people thinking here? We take the elements from the old "Titanic" movies and throw in a pinch of "Poseidon" just for good measure. The end result will be fabulous! People couldn't be further from the truth.

"Yeah, let's make a ship in the spirit of Titanic, call it, say I don't know... I got it, Titanic II. Yeah, that's it, let's do that!" ... I can just imagine people actually saying that.

There is not enough storyline in this movie to make a weak cup of broth. It is one of the more pathetic attempts at a disaster movie in a long, long time. Now, don't get me all wrong. I have deep respect for the events that transpired on April 14th, 1912, especially because I had relatives on the Titanic. So of course, I have a historical interest in the events and the boat, and as such have seen the previous Titanic movies. But this was just trying to cash in on the major blockbuster from 1997 with DiCaprio back in the day.

Throughout the movie there are lots of really bad continuity errors, and lots of things and events that just make you want to pull out your hair by the root. While I was watching this movie, my cat was resting on my lap, and at one point he got up and left the room. I swear it was in protest because of this movie.

One of the worst errors in the movie, was when they ran down towards the infirmary, and they were running inside a stairwell area of a building. What boat would have concrete walls? Come on... And when they did get to the infirmary, the best thing to patch up an injury was a credit card and 2 strips of tape? Seriously?

Now, what made this movie bearable to sit all the way through, for me at least, was the performance of Bruce Davison. He, and he alone, carried this movie. Now, I am not saying that the other actors and actresses performed badly, but they didn't even reach Davison to the knees.

Also, in favor of the movie, lots of the effects weren't all that shabby to look at. And I say "lots of the effects" not "all of the effects", because some were, well dubious.

And also, in the case of an event such as that, wouldn't you think more wheels would be set in motion? You sit with a very empty feel throughout this movie, like something major is missing. And something is indeed missing - a plausible story and people actually acting accordingly in a crisis situation like that one presented in the movie.

If you, like me, liked any or all of the 'older' Titanic movies, do not sit down with a serious mind to sit through this movie. It feels like a slap to the face with a wet glove. I suspect that the movie might be good if you are entirely unfamiliar with the tragedy of Titanic and the events of Poseidon, but for the rest of us enlightened people, this just doesn't have any meaning to it.

There are times in your life that you wish you could go back and do things differently. Trust me, after this movie, you wish you could do just that.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
The WORST movie I have ever seen!
maxileech26 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Well, where do I begin.......... The awful CGI, the awful acting, the awful plot. The acting and the plot is just so unbelievably bad that I was left almost speechless after watching this god-awful excuse for a movie. The in-flight refuelling scene is a classic! And the submarine running into the initial tsunami......what a joke. The only good thing about this movie is that it's so bad, it's funny! Take my advice, don't watch this movie if you are sober / straight / not high. In fact, my advice would be to get bent, in fact, GET SERIOUSLY BENT and then THEN watch this movie, then you will really appreciate this shocker of a movie.

MaX
23 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
Worse Than The Original Even Though It's Not A Real Sequel
Theo Robertson15 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure if anyone will genuinely believe this to be a sequel to James Cameron's 1997 blockbuster but we shouldn't underestimate the collective stupidity of the human race . In fact considering the original made so much money , much of which was due to 14 year old girls continually queuing outside cinemas to watch the film for the twenty seventh time anything might be possible where a gullible public are concerned .

Writer/director Shane Van Dyke is no James Cameron and when you consider Cameron is a very mediocre in the first place that's a rather poor assessment of Mr Van Dyke . A large piece of Greenland crashes in to the North Atlantic causing a massive tsunami which is the path of the ill named Titanic 2 . Actually early on there's a piece of scientific reality where it's stated that ships at sea won't be affected by a tsunami . But then the accuracy is spoiled by a character pointing out that beneath the tsunami will be massive icebergs . Hmmm is this scientifically accurate ? Even if it is there's no internal continuity involved because the Titanic itself is hit by not one but two massive tidal waves . I guess no one paid any attention to the dialogue ? What makes it even more ridiculous is that a character states the tsunami is traveling at 800 miles per hour ! Put it like this - the speed of sound travels at 761 MPH so we have a tidal wave going faster than the speed of sound

That's the problem with TITANIC 2 - everything seems totally implausible . You can understand the main protagonist James Maine being so concerned about the fate of the Titanic since his daughter is on the ship but surely a wave that large going so fast would crash in to North America and Western Europe endangering millions of lives . This possibility is completely ignored

If the premise of a mega tsunami is ignored so are the little details . For example a scene of panic should involve ... well panic . Instead we see a scene which is supposedly set inside the Titanic but resembles a shopping mall where the passengers either

1 ) Rush around tripping over their own feet

2 ) Shuffle out of shot with a bored expression on their face

The scene features lots and lots of screaming but it's painfully obvious the screams have been added in post production

I'm afraid that sums up TITANIC 2 and when a character says " Looks like history is repeating itself " you get the feeling he's not referring to over 1 Billion dollars at the box office and 11 Oscars
33 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
My God...... This movie should of went down with the ship
Joseph Emerson1 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Well, where do i begin with this disaster? Well, I'm a big James Cameron fan, and i was surprised to hear that there was a sequel to Titanic, Titanic 2. I thought to myself, "Really? How could they make a sequel to one of the most highest grossing films of all time?" Oh, wait, no, i'm a f***ing dumba$$, it's not a sequel to Titanic. Instead, it's a horrible ripoff of Titanic and, not to mention, The Poseidon Adventure.

I started writing down notes while watching the movie and here are my notes on all the problems of this movie:

1.Poor Acting- Like all of The Asylums movies, the acting is SO BAD! I've seen better acting at a high school play.

2.CG effects- There is no other word to describe how pathetic the effects are. It's like I'm watching a cutscene from a video game; a bad one.

3.Tons of plot holes- The plot holes in this movie is so gigantic! The scientific facts in The Day After Tomorrow were more accurate than this! First of all, how the f*** can a tsunami get bigger in the middle of the ocean? That's not possible! Second, why are they taking the same exact route the original Titanic took years ago? Are they not even aware that they and the ship are heading to their doom?! BLOW ME DOWN! 4.The characters- The characters act like idiots. They cover someone's wound with a credit card. A f***ing credit card! Is that the best you could come up with?! That would be like if i used my wallet and it would only be a flesh wound. Also, why do they take the elevators to escape the ship? Does the ship not have any stairs or something? Lastly, what dumba$$ would think of surfing on the tsunami in the freezing waters was a good idea?! That's like if you were snowboarding on a avalanche in a blizzard.

5.The story- This is seriously one of the worst poorly written stories i've ever heard in my life. Taking a famous movie, like Titanic, and making it into their own contemporary half-a$$ version of it. The plot of it was two people who fall in love on board a ship that is sinking. How is that so hard to accomplish? Why take a famous love story and turn it into a laughing stalk? My overall impression: STAY AWAY FROM THIS AWFUL WATERY TRASH! Don't even bother getting it on DVD or Blu-ray, not even pay a cent for this disaster! It's not worth the 1 1/2 hours of your life! Spend your money and your life on something more valuable than this loathsome piece of filth! Send this movie back to the bottom of the ocean where it belongs!
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
This is an awful film
David Hartley (HALs_eyeball)13 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The plot (such as it is) of this film has nothing whatsoever to do with James Cameron's Titanic. The title relates to a cruise ship called Titanic II. So having cleared that up, what is this film about? Rich kid, Hayden Walsh (Shane Van Dyke, who also wrote and directed) with more money than sense, builds a ship that looks exactly like the 1912 version. But inside, it is completely different, including turbo powered engines that can run at speeds up to 50 knots. Meanwhile, scientist Dr Kim Patterson (Brooke Burns) studying the effects of global warming on the Greenland ice sheet discovers a crack in the ice. Just as she is explaining this to top scientist James Maine (a sleepwalking Bruce Davison), the ice breaks. The tidal wave is enormous and moving at 850 miles per hour. It sweeps icebergs in its path. A Navy submarine is destroyed. The Titanic II tries to outrun it, but the engines overheat and it is stranded. An iceberg smashes into the side and it starts to sink. Half of the lifeboats are unusable so it's women and children only.

There are so many things that are wrong with this film, that it would be impossible to name them without sounding pedantic. One example: This ship is said to be following the same path as the original. Titanic left Europe in 1912, travelling West. Titanic II leaves New York, travelling East. The cast are uniformly bad. They act as if they are really not trying. Many of them would look bad in a daytime soap. The direction is very poor, many shots of people talking on deck were filmed on an actual ship, but shot from a very low angle with no camera movement so you don't see the background. The effects are the worst I have ever seen, the CGI ship is so bad they'd have been better with an actual model in a water tank.

As someone who has an interest in the Titanic story, this film was a monumental disappointment. As a piece of harmless entertainment, it failed miserably because it was simply terrible. It's worth saying that some films are so bad they are funny, this is not one of those, this is simply a really bad film that has nothing to merit it at all. Do not watch. I only wish I could have given it zero stars.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
7/10
Hilarious!
lollypopples14 November 2010
I know this film wasn't supposed to be funny, but it completely was! the acting (appalling), the effects (terrible) and the complete lack of general knowledge from the writers or directors made this film a complete laugh riot; one of my favourite examples being a scene involving using a credit card to stop a wound bleeding, ha ha :) if you watch this film expecting to something along the lines of a half decent, respectable movie, then you will be disappointed. go in ready to take the pi$$ and ull have as much fun watching it as i did (especially if u watch with a friend!) recommend for all those who like to mock!
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Terrible. Just terrible.
beybes_088 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a fan of Titanic - possibly because I'm was a hopeless romantic and my version of good about 8 years ago was anything that made me cry.

But this movie is just terrible. After years of watching movies, comparing movies and seeing awfully made, awfully directed movies and movies that are just AWFUL, I am speechless at this movie.

Effects are unbelievable, plot line is disturbing and acting is PAINFUL! I don't know how there's going to be a Titanic 3 when this so-called sequel is too painful to watch.

The main characters don't have chemistry at all and do not even have any screen presence in the first place.

Take my advice when you see this playing on TV: RUN! CHANGE CHANNELS! GO TO BED! Anything but watch!
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
10/10
A quintessential cinematic revelation!
sylvanusz529 April 2012
This film brought tears of uncompromising elation to my eyes. It was undoubtedly one of the most illuminating movie viewing experiences of my life. James Cameron's adaptation of the tragic story ended too soon, and was far too hindered by factual ethics. An 800mph tsunami in the north Atlantic and explosions are far more visually gratifying than a cliché collision with an ice burg. Coupled with a wholehearted call for awareness for environmental issues for the icecaps of Greenland and a graphic and scientifically based depiction of the very likely outcome of our continued environmental apathy and negligence. This film touched me on a spiritual level. Titanic II is similar to the story of Christ, expressing the true selfless nature of man. This film has changed all of my expectations for future films, this movie may have bested the birthing of Jesus and will give the second coming of Christ a run for its money. Jesus had better hire Michel Bay for special effects if he wishes to best this masterpiece.
24 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
This is the worst excuse for a movie!
matthewgraygubler_cm30 December 2010
Here's a run-down of this awful film. 1. Lifeless expression 2. Wooden acting 3. Laughable CGI 4. Horrible score 5. Inconsistencies galore 6.No research went into this movie which just makes it even worse. If you're going to make an attempt at a sequel to the Titanic, at least give some sort of tribute to your film's and ship's predecessor. 7.Worst sets imaginable. 8. The characters do not have any sort of chemistry. It's like their just spouting lines, not really caring who they say them to.

Run away from this movie! It will be the worst 1.5 hours of your life and you can't get them back!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
Oh yeah, it's a really smart move to name your ship the Titanic II...
Boba_Fett11388 December 2010
No, of course this movie is not being a sequel to the 1997 James Cameron movie. It's just a smart move from the studios to name their picture "Titanic II" and I'm sure that the title alone has already earned them lots of money. The title refers to the name of a new modern luxury liner, that got build in the honor of the 100th anniversary of the original voyage, of the original Titanic, who's faith we all know. The ship is like an almost exact copy of the Titanic from the outside but with all new modern equipment and decks on the inside.

I have seen dozens of really, really bad movies but this movie is simply not being one of them. Yes, its like being a modern B-movie but not all B-movies are also automatically bad ones. This is obviously not a great movie but at least it was one I was entertained by throughout, no matter how ridicules it all got at times.

It's definitely true that this movie features one ridicules concept and story. You could even say that this is being one of those movies that tries to warn us about global warming and its preachy main message can get quite annoying at times. But the story on its own can get way more annoying because of how ridicules and extremely unlikely it all is. But I just see this movie as an adventure movie and adventure movies just never feature the most likely of plots and events. As an adventure movie, this one is simply maintaining enough.

It's a special effects loaded movie and all of the CGI are all quite fake looking but still they are pretty good. It sounds pretty cryptic but once you have seen this movie you will probably know what I mean. I think we have reached the point now that even bad and cheap movies can feature effects that are way better and more convincing looking than we could ever had imaged 10 years ago. I have to say that this movie did a pretty good job with its restrained budget and the only true horrible thing about this movie are its extra's, who are all walking around and looking like non-actors, as if they got picked of the street or were simply being friends or family of the movie its cast and crew members. Their reactions to certain things are incredibly lame and unintentionally funny.

The rest of the cast isn't much impressive either, expect for Bruce Davison. He had a decent streak of good movie roles but it looks like he's back to the B-movie genre these days. A shame, since he definitely has the right talents, though he is certainly beginning to look like an old man now, so I don't have high hopes for another career revival for him.

I think its quite funny how this movie its lead is being played by the same guy who also wrote and directed this movie. Quite unseen and unheard off. The guy I'm speaking of is Dick Van Dyke's grandson Shane 'Ola Toivonen' Van Dyke.

Seriously, this movie is not half as bad as it sounds, or as its title would perhaps suggest. Give it a shot and simply see it as an adventurous, old fashioned, silly disaster movie.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Worst Film EVER!
hazman10213 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This has to be as said by many one of the worst films, i don't ever write reviews for films but this one needs it. The story line is rubbish the actors are rubbish nothing even looks or feels remotely real. The film could have been shot by a 5 year old! Don't waste your time with this it will ruin titanic the original for you. Graphics of the film look like something from ship simulator (most probably). All i can see from the story is they make a new titanic II in memory of the first and oh what a surprise it sinks AGAIN. The story is purely all about how the coast guards daughter is aboard the ship and he goes to save her. The story is predictable within the first 20 minutes oh and the ships control room looks like someone's conservatory with the blinds shut! The controls for the ship looks like well so fake everything is fake and at one point in the film you see the chief engineer run past a long window which is just a lit up city outside!!!

AWFUL!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
It might be the worst movie of all time... and I'm almost ashamed to say I enjoyed it
josh598-538-89267111 January 2011
I'm convinced this movie was made just so the lead actor (who also wrote and directed this pile of junk, by the way) could get his hands on some hot women. I honestly can't believe he got Bruce Davison to act in it.

It's almost impossible to critically review this as a "movie." The dialogue is high school drama club level, the plot is wafer thin, and some scenes that are "aboard the boat" are quite obviously shot in a hotel. The real "triumph" of this movie, however, is the CGI. Oh, the CGI. You will never complain about The Last Airbender's special effects again after seeing this movie. In some cases, special effects in 1920s movies are better.

Needless to say, I laughed out loud throughout the entire thing. You should see this movie to laugh at how bad it is, and I highly recommend seeing it with a 12-pack of your favorite frosty beverage handy.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
So bad it cant even make the worse 100 movies of all time - truly dire
Eddie Burdak5 January 2011
What can I say, other then felt compelled to add my tuppence worth. Some films are so bad they are funny. This is not one or those films. This is worse. In fact its so bad it will never make it on to a worse 100 list because that would mean it would have to get a rating of some sort.

Highlight of the Movie? When some Extra punches Van Dyke and says "its all your fault" I thought how poetic - Shayne must be having a laugh because that was truly awful.

Direct to DVD - it should be Direct to cesspit.

Still I read the reviews and thought I'd give it a shot - I should have known better
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
Great idea but could have done better
simon381821 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I waited with excitement to watch this on Syfy channel last Sunday (Aug 15th) Wow Titanic 2, what could go wrong? Then I saw the film company making it. OK maybe this will be better.

No

OK the plot isn't too bad I thought, new version of Titanic (even though I doubt international shipping would allow another ship bear the name Titanic) and its modern but designed like the original. Yeah good idea. Thats about all the good I can say. The mega tsunami caused by a chunk of ice?? This was just a chunk that broke off and not the entire Greenland Ice Sheet! The life boats looked like submarines that were launched from a compartment like a missile - What the hell was that about? The entire crew and passengers all vanished and no one cared anymore about them apart from our lead characters, and these I'm sure have never read an emergency manual. The ship is flooding and power could go so lets use an elevator. Lets hide in a closet which is guaranteed to get jammed. The CGI I must comment on. It looked like it was put together on an Atari ST - Beginning to wonder if Asylum Pictures are a couple of students spending their overdrafts making these films.

Sorry to rubbish peoples hard work, but please return to the drawing board. And a note to Mr Bruce Davidson - please don't sign up for these low budget films.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed