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.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This version of "Titanic" was released to TV in two-parts in November, 1996, a year before James Cameron's version in late 1997. Of course, Cameron's film is one of the greatest successes in cinematic history, both critically and at the box office, so not many people remember this lower-budgeted version. But don't let that make you think this was a cheap movie because it still cost $13 million to make; it's just that the 1997 film cost $200 million. In any case, they're both long movies (and so you have to be in the mood for a looong movie to appreciate either of them). The original TV version of the 1996 film runs 173 minutes while Cameron's runs 194 minutes. However, the main story that takes place in 1912 is about the same length in both versions because the 1996 one doesn't contain the modern-day subplot of the 1997 film.

The movie of course details the doomed maiden voyage of the magnificent Titanic from April 10-15, 1912. This is one of the greatest tragedies in human history. There were only enough lifeboats for half of the over 2200 men, women and children aboard. Why? Because the Titanic was so great they thought she was unsinkable. When it was all over only a little over 700 people survived and 1500 people went to their grave in the cold North Atlantic.

This is a movie and not a documentary and, as such, includes some fictional drama to hook the viewer. Despite this, it gives more attention to historical detail than Cameron's film. For instance, there really was a woman on board who was suspected of murdering her own child and kidnapping the child of the family for whom she was employed. What she ultimately does negatively impacts the real parents and their daughter, which explains the only first class child who didn't survive.

George C. Scott is effective as Captain Edward Smith who explains that the Titanic foreshadowed its fate with its name. He laments, "There's a line often quoted in the newspapers: 'God Himself Could Not Sink This Ship.' She was appropriately named: The Titan's dared to challenge the God's; and for their arrogance, they were cast down into hell."

Although an iceberg is what caused the Titanic to sink, Bruce Ismay is often blamed for the tragedy because he allegedly pressured Captain Smith and Chief Engineer Joseph Bell to go faster in order to arrive in New York ahead of schedule and generate positive press. He's painted in a slightly better light in this film than the 1997 version since he's shown helping many people into lifeboats before his escape, as well as his sorrow over the disaster.

Unlike Cameron's film, this version details the nearest vessel, the Californian, which has been accused of leaving the people of the Titanic to drown. We don't know for sure why this ship failed to offer succor and probably never will, but we do know that the Californian tried to warn Titanic of the ice in its path and the Titanic's wireless operator responds by saying, "Shut up!" In defense of the Californian, it was trapped in a field of ice and so if it had gone to help the Titanic they would've had to carefully steer around the ice in the dark and, by the time they made it, most of the people on the Titanic would have already frozen to death. In any event, this 1996 version gives an excellent depiction of what likely went down.

In addition, the movie depicts John Aster's request to go with his wife and the crew's refusal, as well as a brief part devoted to survivor R. Norris Williams.

So this version is worth seeing just to grasp the fuller picture of the tragedy since it contains more historical detail than Cameron's rendition.

As for the dramatic subplots, there are about five and they help you view the events on a human level, just as Jack & Rose's escapades do in the 1997 film. The full-length version includes a rape scene, which people criticize, but these types of things happened in the "good ol' days" and, besides, it's there to make a point in that particular story arc. Speaking of which, I was impressed – even inspired – by some of the subtexts, like enlightenment, repentance & forgiveness, the wages of sin, and the question of how a good God allows such suffering and evil, etc.

All the cast members rise to the challenge, which include the likes of Peter Gallagher, George C. Scott, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Eva Marie Saint, Marilu Henner, Tim Curry, Roger Rees, Mike Doyle, Sonsee Neu and more.

BOTTOM LINE: Since this version of "Titanic" cost $187 million LESS than the famous 1997 version, it obviously lacks the aesthetic appeal of the latter. For instance, the special effects are rather lame by comparison but, at the same time, they're certainly serviceable, considering it's a TV movie and the year it was made. So this version is clearly the lesser film, but that doesn't mean it's unworthy. Its strong points are its historical detail, its competent cast and potent subtexts. I suggest watching them both.

GRADE: B+ (keeping in mind it's a TV movie from 1996)

This made-for-TV version of the famous disaster actually stands up fairly well against its $200 million James Cameron counterpart. The effects are good - and in a few cases even on par with Cameron's version. Indeed, watching the two films back to back, you might be surprised at the similarities between the two versions, at least during some key moments. Both have steerage party scenes, for instance. The cast is generally strong too, particularly Catherine Zeta Jones in one of her first lead performances, and George C. Scott as Capt. Smith. But where Titanic (1996) hits all the wrong notes is in a poorly conceived subplot involving a crooked crewmember (Tim Curry). His character doesn't really belong here, and his villainous actions get to be quite shocking near the end ... it takes away from the human drama of the doomed people on the ship and actually comes close to ruining the movie (though no fault of actor Tim Curry, who turns in a great performance). If you only have time to see one super-long movie based on the disaster, see the Cameron film - if you've got time to see two, this one is worth the rental.