Lawbolisted Powerful

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

TheLittleSongbird I wanted to like this mini-series, really I did. I love Downton Abbey and Gosford Park is great fun, so it isn't as if I am not a fan of Julian Fellowes. And this had a great cast on paper. Unfortunately, apart from some beautiful photography, gorgeous costumes and a wonderfully-rendered ship as well as some decent turns from Glen Blackhall and Geraldine Somerville, this soggy ITV drama sadly never seems to leave the deck. A main problem of mine was the pace. Most of the drama had a very rushed feel to it, consequently characters came and went, story lines(and rather derivative ones at that) were introduced but never satisfactorily elaborated upon or resolved(especially Mary Maloney's) and the main characters lack depth or even any sort of genuine personality and it doesn't help that here they are all underdeveloped stereotypes.Some scenes particularly at the start take a while to get going, maybe in an attempt to give the characters depth but seeing as they failed with that aspect the first episode was dull, and the sinking scenes which had potential to be riveting lacked any true tension. The dialogue lacks the control and wit also of Downton Abbey and Gosford Park, it is all very stilted and soap-opera-ish with some parts like with the younger actors cringe-worthy and there are a couple of heavy accents too making some of the dialogue muddled. The rest of the acting considering the cast pedigree was disappointing, and the fact that a lot don't have much to do has a lot to do with it.Toby Jones for example is a good actor, but is one of these, and for me he also had a character that was all too derivative of some of his other roles(such as a less-evil version of Quilp from The Old Curiosity Shop). The rest of the cast that aren't the main focus of the drama are so little used and so scatter-shot in their appearances that their acting is downright forgettable. All in all, a big soggy and largely unmoving disappointment, better than the animated versions, which are the "what-the-devil-did-I-just-watch?" sort of quality, but for a better version try the sumptuous James Cameron version which had an absolutely riveting last hour and especially the brilliant A Night to Remember. 4/10 Bethany Cox

gradyharp The DVD hasn't been released here yet but the 'mini-series' is now over. It is difficult to call this amalgamation of snippets about an historic tragedy a miniseries because it was spread out so unevenly (3 hours on first night, one hour on second night) and we are now informed that the film is a total of 184 minutes which means that the fourth hour was completely filled with the most distracting and disrupting of commercials. Why this new version of TITANIC wasn't place on cable television where it could have been enjoyed on one uninterrupted three hour showing is beyond understanding. Perhaps when the DVD is released and there are no loud and ugly commercials every 5 minutes the story will hold together.Julian Fellowes, so respected for his writing of such series as Downton Abbey, etc. seems to have the urge to tell the story of the event through quick snippets of personal stories among the passengers - a commendable idea, but when the tiny tales are buried in the almost immediate collision with the iceberg and the attempt to flesh out the story by making it about how tragedy affects people's relationships come as little disconnected pop-ups, it is difficult to care about anybody, much less get to know them well enough to remember them at picture's end. Granted there are some moments before the ship is finished that emphasize the fact that the unsinkable Titanic was rushed to completion before it was safely ready, and those flashbacks to offer some interesting moments.But basically the story is the same as all the other TITANIC movies - a study about class distinction not only among the peerage of Brits but also the differentiation among first, second and third (steerage) classes - with a hefty dollop of snubbing the crass American passengers. Jon Jones directs this amalgamation of ideas. There are some brief but tasty moments for actors such as Glen Blackhall (a memorable Paolo) and Antonio Magro (Paolo's brother Mario), Peter McDonald, Steven Waddington, Ruth Bradley Linus Roache and Geraldine Somerville as the Mantons, Toby Jones and Maria Doyle Kennedy, Celia Emrie, James Wilby and Dragos Bucur (the stowaway Russian). The rest of the cast is so little used that they all but disappear.The film was apparently shot on digital video. Some of the effects are fine, but the whole film lacks cohesion - at least on the American release on commercial television!

lukereed89 I thought it was good. Not great, but good. The back and forth with all the characters/events was a bit much. It left me scratching my head towards the end of the first episode. Even when I got what they were doing I still felt it was too ambitious and confusing (see Intolerance 1916).Though I'm not an expert, the sets looked good as did the cgi. It blended well with the set elements. I thought the acting was good for the most part. Noah Reid, who played Harry Widener particularly impressed me. Let's be honest, any love arc between two young people in this show would have been invariably compared to Jack and Rose. I think Harry and Georgiana's story can stand on it's own though. Character development was pretty good despite the ill advised editing. I was glad that they finally found an actor who resembles Thomas Andrews. The man playing J. J. Astor looked the part too. However, I was embarrassed by how Jack Thayer was portrayed. They seemed to get the hammiest actor they could find. Jack Thayer, based on my reading seemed to be a sensitive, reflective lad. He's portrayed heres as an obnoxious mama's boy. Despite his small part, that probably irked me the most. The coldness of the water was not depicted realistically either. You didn't get that sense of paralyzing pain that was in the Cameron movie. You would think that they could have added cgi breath to reflect the cold at least.So all in all, not greatness but I enjoyed watching it. I think people definitely should have watched all the episodes before reviewing this.

xjennifer-m-rosex I'll admit, I wasn't overly impressed with the first episode. It seemed like it was something and nothing, but I tuned in next week because I had faith that the storyline would start to make sense. It certainly did. Anyone who felt like the first episode made no sense needs to see it as a game as tetris. Each new episode layers on top of the previous one and fills in all the gaps. Having watched all four episodes, I can say they interlink perfectly. I read that originally, the show would be broadcast over three consecutive nights with episodes 1 & 2 shown back to back. Perhaps if this had been done people wouldn't have been so quick to switch off. I think a lot of people are comparing this to James Cameron's Titanic, but if you want a different take on the actual sinking on the ship, then do watch this. Titanic (97) was centred on a fictional love story, therefore we saw everything from Rose's point of view - it was linear. This program shows several different perspectives and we are able to see the extremely different fates that would have befallen us depending on what our sex/class would have been. It includes some really heart wrenching moments that do not cushion you from what a traumatic experience it must have been. Absolutely worth watching each episode more or less at the same time. Several people have said "We see the ship hit the berg so many times, it detracts from the poignancy of it, what can the fourth episode offer?" It offers a hell of a lot! I gave this 9 out of 10 simply because I wasn't too happy with the first episode.