James Turnbull While this is an obvious made-for-TV follow up to Titanic (Cameron) it does draw attention to a signficant shipwreck that has been largely forgotten.Bollards relatively recent expedition has shown that the ship was sunk by torpedo's as shown, but sunk because the portholes were open and the bulkhead doors were not closed.It is indeed fortunate that it happened on an inwards transit because on an outwards one the loss of life would have been enormous.Yet again we have intrigue and romance fictionally built into a disaster movie but the truth of the matter is that the sinking of Britannic was an act of war with minimal loss of life. With what had happened in Galipoli and the Western Front it was hardly newsworthy.The movie for all its slights of hand might have just made its sinking more noteworthy than has otherwise been the case.

Leofwine_draca A cheap cash-in on TITANIC, replacing the heading-for-an-iceberg storyline with one involving a German agent (this is set during the First World War) with plans to sabotage the titular hospital ship. BRITANNIC is sub standard in every respect, with poor casting, a laughable script and all manner of low-rent heroics which never convince. When I tell you that this is a made-for-TV movie, all of the above will make sense.I watched it for Brian Trenchard-Smith, the maverick B-movie director of TURKEY SHOOT and THE MAN FROM HONG KONG, who can still make a decent Z-grade flick occasionally (I'm thinking AZTEC REX). Sadly, Britannic isn't one of his better films, as it's an entirely forgettable escapade which pales in comparison to just about any other seafaring movie you can mention. The leads are dull, the only cast interest comes from three B-flick veterans (John Rhys-Davies, delightful as the gruff captain; Bruce Payne, not a bad guy for a chance; Wolf Kahler in his usual typecast role) and the most offensive part of the story is that we're supposed to buy a romance between the female agent and the German spy! Even worse, we're supposed to sympathise with the guy's predicament when he's the one responsible for what happens in the first place; I don't know about you, but I was cheering when the propeller appeared.

mlevans The Britannic's tragic story will never generate the same interest or emotion as that of her more famous sister ship. Still, the Britannic met an even more mysterious fate and does constitute the world's largest shipwreck (the Britannic having been 20 feet longer than Titanic).This brings us to the 2000 made-for-TV movie. Overall, it provided an enjoyable evening's entertainment. It wasn't until near the climax that some disturbing anachronisms and very unlikely character behaviors began to seriously take away from my enjoyment.The film features Amanda Ryan as governess/British intelligence agent Vera Campbell, along with would-be chaplain/German intelligence agent/saboteur Father Reynolds (Edward Atterton). Jacqueline Bisset, as an aging and infirm aristocratic English matron, is the only big name in the cast-and her role is somewhat small. The cast is solid, though, also including John Rhys-Davies as Captain Barrett and Ben Daniels as First Officer Townsend.SPOILERSThere is certainly plenty of room for speculation with the Britannic story. Did it hit a mine? Was it torpedoed? Was an internal explosion the primary (or a secondary) cause of the sinking? If so, was it intentional? Was the hospital ship carrying contraband troops (as the real-life Germans seemed to believe) or a cache of weapons (as the movie Germans rightly believed)? These are all fair questions and any halfway feasible explanation is about as good as another. Therefore I had no trouble with the basic premise of a German spy on board and a German U-boat being involved-although the film shows the U-boat failing to sink the ship and then being destroyed by a British warship-something that did not happen.Other than the tiresome, ever-present presence of a 1990s feminist, EXPECTING 1990s treatment (and thoroughly surprised and outraged when her male antagonists act basically as they would have in 1916 instead of 2000), the film has a few other anachronisms. For one, Atterton and Major Baker (Bruce Payne), the ship's doctor, glibly discuss the explosive dangers of coal dust in the bunkers. I could be wrong, but hasn't this phenomenon been discovered only in the past 25 or so years? Secondly, this IS 1916. Whatever Vera Campbell's morals, her sudden and uninvited (at least expressly uninvited) return to Reynold's cabin where she immediately began disrobing without a word is quite a stretch! Not having figured out his ulterior plans, she still thought he was a minister. True, they were beginning to be very attracted to each other. Yes, they had shared a steamy kiss a short while before. In 2000, perhaps the woman returning and diving into the man's bed would be a feasible occurrence. But with a MINISTER, in 1916? Not that the two of them COULDN'T have gotten together during the movie…but, my gosh…if nothing else, her assuming that he would welcome her advances was a clear lack of respect for the man and his principals! I would have to believe that 85% of REAL ministers in 1916 would have been both flabbergasted and offended (if titillated ) by a young women bursting into his room (even after sharing an earlier kiss) and disrobing.This pales in comparison, though, with Agent Baker's suicidal desire to rescue Reynolds-AFTER she knew he was responsible for sinking the ship! Her being hesitant to leave him trapped in the sinking ship I can understand. But running back onto the ship to miraculously (love the length of time TV shipwreckees can hold their breath!) save a man who undoubtedly WOULD HANG within a few weeks' time is preposterous. What's more, despite her feminine racing heart (funny how these 1990s feminists are somehow too `feminine' to make a logical decision in movieland!), as a trained operative, she would KNOW that by aiding and abetting the enemy, she would be facing a REAL danger of being hanged, herself! This is where I felt cheated. A pre-flapper female charging around the decks of a ship, firing a pistol…OK…I can buy that within this context. There WERE female operatives throughout history. Yet, in making the character feminine and human enough to be liked, why does she have to make a mockery of the training she supposedly had received? My only possible explanation for this apparent plot hole is that only the two of them and the now-dead doctor (Payne) knew Reynold's identity. Perhaps Vera hoped they could just pretend he really WAS an innocent minister and forge a life together. This, too, sounds outrageous-although, under the stress and passion of the moment, perhaps such muddled thoughts COULD have been running through her mind.In any case, Britannic is an intriguing little film, but one which leaves the viewer with more questions about the characters' bizarre actions than about the mystery of the ship's actual sinking.

rmssw 30 or so people died when the H.M.H.S Britannic sank, 55 minutes after striking a mine, and this is how we respect them?I am shocked at the fact that the film makers had the nerve to use the name Britannic in this steaming pile of a movie.Don't even bother seeing this movie for yourself, the real story is far more dramatic. For instance, Violet Jessop, who was a nurse on the Britannic, was also on the Titanic 4 years earlier, and she was onboard the Titanic's other sister ship, the R.M.S. Olympic, when she collided with the British cruiser, the H.M.S. Hawke, in 1911. This poor women was on all three Olympic-Class liners (as they were called) when they experienced tragedies, and she isn't even mentioned. However, I believe that the main character in the movie is loosely based on her.