freemanpatrick7 When the story has been covered a dozen times why even bother to re-tell again? The dialog is embarrassing - like a bad community theater production.Speaking of community theater, most of the acting is laughable and it doesn't help that every other person's accent is about as believable as Nicolas Cage trying to do Italian, or Geoffrey Donovan attempting Irish, or...never mind, you get the idea.I'm not sure what George C. Scott or Tim Curry were thinking when they signed on for the but it must have been a long time since they have decent role offers so they just took what came along.If you didn't see this on TV then you didn't miss anything.

ianlouisiana Rich man,poor man,beggarman,thief;all human life is aboard RMS "Titanic" on her maiden voyage.As she steams inexorably towards her fate,various dramas are played out amongst her passengers and crew. A familiar enough story even prior to the recent outbreak of media frenzy marking the centenary of the disaster. This 2006 TV movie does a remarkable job within its restraints both technically and financially. The period feel is excellent and the costumes are worn naturally and comfortably;there is never the feeling that the actors are merely "dressing up". "Titanic" experts may quibble at some of the details but this is not a serious historical document,it is entertainment,and of a very high order. The cast is exceptionally good with special mention to Mr Tim Curry as a psychopathic Irish Steward and the lovely Miss Eva Marie Saint,still recognisably the cool Hitchcock blonde who ruffled Mr Grant's feathers in "North by Northwest". Miss Zeta - Jones is rather affecting in an early American role. "Titanic" is well able to stand on its own merits as a first - class example of the "Passengers in peril" genre as exemplified by "Stagecoach" and regurgitated innumerable times since.

MartianOctocretr5 This looks like a made for TV rush job; perhaps they heard a blockbuster version was in the works (Cameron's mega-hit the next year), and hurried to finish this before the release of it. These coat tail copies have been done before. In any event, this effort at relating the infamous maritime disaster of 1912 is big on ambition, but crippled by low budget.There are distinct parallels to its more famous 1997 cousin. You get a Jack & Rose type romance, which is written very awkwardly. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Peter Gallagher did their best with it, but it really doesn't evoke the passionate emotion intended. Overall, the idea of the soap-opera entanglements of several characters is a good plan, and the actors mostly do well. However, the constant heavy-handed bashing of rich people is about as subtle as a repeated blows to the head with a tire iron; it really gets old. In particular, the slant on Molly Brown was so far afield it was just dumb. I thought George C. Scott was pretty good as the ill fated Capt. Smith, who inherits the lines of the Titanic's designer, a character that is in other versions, but deleted from existence here.The film makes an earnest effort to portray the horror and sorrow of the tragedy, but one blunder really hurt the effectiveness: to show the gradually increasing listing of the ship, the director simply has the camera turned at a slight angle, but fails to have the actors lean in the direction. The painfully comic result is characters standing perfectly upright at odd angles where their center of gravity would force them to lean. Also a problem was the unnecessary house-thief crewman (Tim Curry) still wandering around burglarizing state rooms as the water gushes in all around him. Even worse, the character is played as a constantly giggling idiot.The montage sequence was a good answer for the limited resources available, and the protracted epilogue aboard the Carpathia might have worked better had it been dedicated to giving fates of real survivors; instead, we get the schmaltzy and unrealistic fates of fictional people.Just fair entertainment, and hardly a good source for the history of the event. If you want the best historical approach at the Titanic's story, see "A Night to Remember," and if you prefer a highly dramatic and fictionalized version, the 1997 Titanic is better than this one.

grabitrun_11 Who the hell decided that this was a good idea? The very fact that TV producers have to invent bogus love stories to make the greatest and most famous maritime disaster in history more interesting is insulting - to introduce a fictional rape is positively impertinent.Had anyone involved in this crap ever heard of the Titanic before? It didn't seem like it, as others have noted before me the inaccuracies in construction of the ship itself along with the events portrayed is simply laughable.As for the performances, George C. Scott - one of my all time favourite actors - must have been really hard up to stoop to this clunking mess, and Catherine Zeta Jones, well...the Oscars really don't mean anything if talentless pouting hacks like this wooden woman can win one, or perhaps her husband helped buy her it, and as mentioned Marilu Henner gave possibly the least-like Margaret Brown performance ever.Add to this mix of wooden performances, some hammy ones too - most notably Tim Curry, who was hamming it up something rotten - if only he had twiddly bits on his moustache and said "curses!" every 5 minutes, he would be ideal for the local am-dram group's pantomime villain this year.With all the wood and ham on display, everyone could have been saved from this Titanic disaster, sailing on a sea of wooden performances and eating ham sandwich soliloquies till they reached New York.Avoid this rubbish at all costs!