For a freatr insight into the fate of this grand ship i reccomend anybody to wath an in depth documentary The Unsinkable Titanic... Some of the so called standard procedures and events and actions prior to the disaster are imo extraordinary
Honestly, the james cameron's movie was idiotic nonsense. there was no heart of the ocean, no one was allowed to stand on the prow of the ship, a third class passenger and a first class passenger would not be allowed to see each other, and A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is the best titanic movie ever and it always will be no matter what people say. I DO NOT CARE IF IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE, and to be honest, it wouldn't look good in color. So, on a scale, A NIGHT TO REMEMBER: A+ TITANIC(1997): F-
Cameron's film was great but I like how A Night to Remember is so historically accurate. I think the only things it got wrong was the christening of the Titanic (which never happened) and that the Titanic did not snap in two in ANtR (but no one knew that it had snapped in two at the time so it could not have been guessed).
@CyberNecrovalley the official finding of the inquest was that it didn't break in two. you had some witnesses who said it did, some who say it didn't. for whatever reason the official inquest said it didn't. it was only proved that it did when the wreck was found in the 80's, so at the time this was made it was "accurate" per the inquest.
My favorite all time titanic movie is this one, i just don't like that they didn't break the ship, but back then, they didn't know it did break.
@CyberNecrovalley but some people think that the ship broke below the waterline, so even then you can't count it as an inaccuracy. THREE CHEERS FOR "A NIGHT TO REMEMBER"!!!! three boos for "titanic (1997)"
@CyberNecrovalley I agree with you however It surprises me how so many witnesses to the ship's sinking were still alive when this movie was made, and still they portrayed the ship sinking in one piece. Some believe the internal pressure blew the ship apart underwater...but who knows?
@Leuopold That just goes to show how valuable the internet is. Something like that could fly in 1958, but that wouldn't be able to be hidden knowledge nowadays.
@CyberNecrovalley "but no one knew that it had snapped in two at the time"
Wrong! There were witnesses that saw the ship break in two, but they were told by the White Star Line not to say anything about it, as it might lead people to think that their ships were not designed or built properly. In reality, no ship is designed to withstand those kind of stresses.
Hate on James Cameron's Titanic all you want. It won't change how wonderful or iconic that epic masterpiece is.
However, A Night to Remember is the best docu-drama on the Titanic tragedy. If anyone is interested in Titanic and loved the 1997 film, they NEED to watch this movie too.
A night when 2200 men, women and children were faced with a terrible fact. The fact that most of them were going to die! i mean how fucking hysterically sinister is that line!! FUCKING HILARIOUS!!
@cedricnot Slt, oui le film existe en français, il est dans un coffret DVD peu courant. En France le film est sortit en 1958 sous le titre de " Atlantique latitude 41° " .
Naitch35 The remarkable thing about "unsinkable" Titanic is that unlike Brunel's SS Great Britain, the bulkheads did not go all the way to the deck forming a watertight compartment. If it had, it probably would have had a considerably extended life. As it was water just cascaded over each compartment bulkhead - rest is history.
@FatBaz43 Another one of the "What ifs". I like the analogy of that it was similar to an ice cube tray in the way that water fills each slot as more water is poured in.
On a side note I've already watched this movie many more times than the 1997 film!
As an ex Merchant Navy Officer, I did not want to watch the James Cameron version. There is nothing glamorous or romantic in a sinking ship. Depending on how quickly it sinks, the lights go out, once familiar surroundings now become a maze. and finding your way out requires calm and collective thinking. Cargo ships carry enough boats on EACH side for Crew, Passenger ships enough on BOTH sides. The Stokers & Engineers kept Titanics lights on until very near the end. Remember them.
@FatBaz43 Excellent point. I was reading the book "Unsinkable" recently and it talked about how many crew members' families were devastated since the only bread winner of the home was now gone. Fortunately some funds were set up for these families but it that didn't bring back somebody's father or husband. One of the nice things about this movie is that the crew gets a decent amount of recognition.
Just purchased the DVD and it really is as good as everyone says. I watched it after "Titanic-The Complete Story" and the movie echoed the survivor accounts with surprising accuracy. For Titanic followers this is a "must have" in your DVD collection. It can hang in there with the 1997 movie in case you're wondering but needs an educated mind (on the subject of Titanic) to understand that.
Does it really matter if Rose and Jack really existed? I absolutely LOVE Titanic- one of my favorite movies ever, never heard of this one until just now when I was on wikipedia and saw this movie title somewhere, but I noticed lots of the scenes well some) are the same in both movies.
I have never watched this movie but I don't understand why you couldn't watch this movie and the other one too. I love the story of Jack and Rose (but then again Im a sucker for romances).
@marinamatthies17 you have never watched this film?? Oh my God! The one that you speak of, the winslett/di caprio one, isnt a patch on this classic 1958 film,do yourself a favour and just watch it, an absolute masterpiece compared to the modern version as it faithfully tells the story of what actually happened that fateful night instead of focussing totally on 2 imaginary characters..
@allanouche62110 In fact, neither characters existed. The ''Jack Dawson'' that existed who is buried in Halifax, Novia Scotia, is in fact James Dawson, who was a trimmer for Titanic's crew.
@keikoeastman Fair enough, for me Titanic just isn't as poigant and dramatic as A Night To Remember and I'll take Kenneth More and his portrayal of the stoic second officer over Jack and Rose anytime.
@cha5 I agree with you. I refuse to have anything to do with James Cameron's Titanic. I refuse to watch it ever. Why bother making soap opera crap when you can have this perfect classic that tells the story leanly with thrills.
My favorite Titanic film actually. Dare to say even more favorable than James Cameron's film.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Cameron's film, it's just I think this film focused more on the ship and the events itself, while as Cameron's was a focus on 2 individuals.
@BlueKewne you are correct. all the TITANIC movies are sad & scary. all have different stories. i hope you saw raise the titanic. the soundtrack was so touching. TITANIC 1997 was also good. in year 2012 it's the 100th anniversary of the tragedy. i'm sure they'll make another one. i could name lots of celebrities that should be in it.
well... its kind of hard to tell over the internet, you know, with no facial expression or mock sounding vocals to tell the difference. also didnt think anybody would actually think that since it is broken up. anyway, no hard feelings. just how things get worded xD i should have added 'lol' at the end, wouldve helped realise what type of message i was conveying.
The 4th funnel gives way, suggesting that the ship breaks apart. But it's only a suggestion within the film. It was largely thought the ship sank intact, even right up to her discovery in Sept 1985. But during the initial inquires in 1912, it was believed she broke apart, but the consensus was more to believe that she sank intact.
Though there were some flaws, those sets were INCREDIBLE! Maybe they have a couple paneling bits wrong, but I could easily distinguish what rooms they are intended to be. It's much better than what many other Titanic films used...
"Ismay pressuring Smith for speed, didn't happen..."
Apperently we should all listen to galoon, because it sounds like he was actually there, and that he knows more than all research indicates. I'm sure that if you'll all read "ANTR", and research on the Titanic, we'll see who's right here....passenger testimonies, or opinion.
Passenger testimony is only hearsay if there's nothing else that confirms it, which was the case here. Ismay had never before interfered with the running of one of his ships (this was only the third maiden voyage he'd been on) and is on record as stating that he'd never encourage a captain to do something he considered unsafe--there's a full article devoted to this topic at the Titanic Historical Society's website. I can't think of any reason why he'd have behaved differently on Titanic.
"There's no solid evidence that Ismay was pressuring Captain Smith to speed up."
There may not be solid evidence to prove what might have been said, since apparently passenger testimonials may be branded as heresay, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And even if it did, it is very probable that Ismay was eager to break a speed record, regardless of sea conditions, especially since no one was likely to question safety on being aboard the largest, safest ship in the world.
As for Ismay entering a lifeboat, I would have done the same thing under such circumstances, but this was 1912, an era where prominent gentlemen were supposed to act just like they were catagorized as...gentlemen (As the public percieved them then). If they were well-bred, believe it or not, they were expected to accept their fate like men, or be branded as cowards.
men didn't stand a chance because of the women-children only protocol. I think its totally unfair that he's been branded as a coward throughout history, in a desparate situation like that, he saw his chance and took it and rightly so, its human nature to look after number one
Metube brings up a good point about the Titanic's rudder... it was WAY too disproportionate for a ship the size of the Titanic. Now, if the Titanic had been outfitted with a modern (1912ish) rudder similar to the Aquitania, for example, it would be far more suitable in terms of maneuverability.
Fact: Ismay DID order more speed through ice fields. Don't believe me? Look it up!!! Smith DID behave in a passive manner during the sinking, as if in a mental break-down. Look it up!!! And Ismay DID act like the coward he was rightfully portrayed as later in life, sneaking off into a lifeboat. Look it up. Do NOT listen to OlympicClassDandy, for God's Sake!!! He/she does not know what he/she is talking about.
There's no solid evidence to suggest that Ismay was pressuring Captain Smith to speed up. The claims by several passengers that he did are circumstantial at best. The 1912 coal strike dictated economy of operation. It is true that the Titanic was going too fast for conditions, but this was common practice on transatlantic liners of that time and the speed orders came from Smith. Of course this practice of high speed near ice changed after the Titanic's sinking.
Ismay boarded one of the last lifeboats to leave the ship, after helping other passengers into the boats. When he entered Collapsible C, there appear to have been no other passengers in the immediate area. Under the circumstances, it's hard to call someone a coward for getting in a lifeboat. It's easy to talk about bravely staying on the ship, but actually doing so, with the slanting deck sinking under your feet in freezing weather in the blackness of night, is quite another. What would we do?
OlympicClassDandy, what the HELL are you talking about? Ismay DID sneak off in a lifeboat, and Smith DID behave in a passive state of mind. Even his officers did some of the thinking for him, since it was Lightoller's idea to get the evacuation underway. My claims here are only backed up by research and eye-witness accounts if you don't believe me. Please do your research before posting crap like this.
OlympicClassDandy, you are VERY wrong about J. Bruce Ismay and Captain Smith NOT behaving the way they did that night. Ismay DID sneak into a lifeboat at the last minute, as referenced in the novel ANTR. Even the MOVIE managed to get that right. And Smith WAS in a passive state during the sinking. It was even Lightoller's idea to start the evacuation while Smith was alone in his thoughts. Call it a mental breakdown or whatever, it HAPPENED! Plz do your research before posting junk like this.
I like this movie better than Cameron's version, even though I don't think Kenneth More was convincing as Lightoller, although he is a great actor. The thing I didn't like about Cameron's version was the suicide of Murdock. I thought that was disrespectful to Murdock's family and there is no evidence that this happened. I do think Cameron did a good job of casting Lightoller and Lowe as the actors looked like the real officers.
OH MY GOD! INACCURACY!! The twenty-seventh passenger to get onto the life-boat was wearing loafers, not heels!!! This film is an abomination!! An insult to the tragedy that befell those poor people!!
...
Seriously guys, no depiction of the Titanic's story is going to be perfect. Relax and enjoy them, for Pete's sake. It's not like they had a muscular He-Man swing in on a vine and rescue half the ship in one arm, and rescue the beautiful damsel in distress with the other.
@ OlympicClassDandy....Yes, I am aware of the MANY glaring mistakes in Cameron's version, But what about ANTR? For a film that is supposed to stay faithful to the event, it sure does contradict Walter Lord's historically accurate novel. Did any of you READ the novel, because if you had, you would notice that the film may not be the stunninly accurate peice of work you all make it out to be.
@darwin23: No, there's a HUGE difference between the two.
James Cameron's Titanic (the newer one) does not tell the real story of Titanic. His film is a twisted version of the real history of Titanic, as Cameron bastardizes historical figures, adds in a fictional story line and distorts many facts.
A Night to Remember is the most factual to date, and in that case, there is a huge difference between the two.
I actually have to Disagree with you Olympic. While James did Twist the story and add in more characters/Story line (Jack, Rose and her Family and anything following them) Most of the facts were ture. Thus being pretty accurate (Unless there are things I don't know )and a good movie in it's own case.
A night to remember is, yes, the most accurate. But there will always be flaws to all the stories. Even ones by actual surviors because everyone pictures or remembers it diffrently.
Thank you for your polite opinion. You're right, most of the facts were indeed true. The big issue that I had with it was the portrayals; I think that when you portray a historical character in an incorrect manner (in this case in a way that is bastardizing), and the film becomes popular, then it sort of leaves a permanent scar upon their reputations. I also don't understand why Cameron felt it necessary to change the story; the original history is interesting enough, in my opinion.
That is ture and I agree with you. But I'm confused. Which Character's did they "Bastardize". And anyway. Cameron felt it necessary to do what he did so it would sell. Today people are more about money than truth in most casses. Though I think it would have sold just as well had he found a real life love. (i'm sure there were plenty aboard) And portrayed that. instead of as I/We have said before createing one.
@HiHello005: The three biggest characters that Cameron made look terrible in the film was First Officer William Murdoch (shown taking a bribe, killing a passenger followed by himself), Joseph Bruce Ismay (shown sneaking onto a lifeboat out of cowardice and selfishness with no regard for others, as well as interfering with the speed of Titanic) and Captain EJ Smith (shown going into a cowardly state of shock after the sinking). In reality, the above figures never did what you see in the film.
I totally agree about Murdock. Cameron admitted in a documentary that he made this up based om "what could have happened" I think this showed no respect for Murdock,as there is no evidence that he took a bribe, shot a passenger or himself. I truly dislike Cameron for doing this and this shows how insensitive he is. He also gave little screen time to Lightoller and Lowe which makes no sense considering that he chose the actors he did to play them.
I agree with you on the first two. Except there was rumors of Murdoch taking is life. The Captain however. I have to diagree on. He went down with his boat so unless worded wrong he wasn't there "after" the sinking. I was however surpirsed, That after 8 or 9 sinkings most of them by running into things he was surprised. Maybe it was just because the Titanic was "unskinable".
@HiHello005: Oops, bit of a typo there! I meant to say after the collision; thank you for pointing that out for me. I know that Smith went down with his ship, and I'm sure you know what I meant to say now!
You mentioned that you were surprised that after 8 or 9 sinkings you were surprised about his shock; Smith had never experienced a wreck during his entire career at sea; he had, however, had an incident with another vessel. There may have been other incidents, but he had never been wrecked.
Really? How do you know this? On my part I correct myself he did wreck not sink. He wrecked 8 or 9 times. and had only one sinking in that. Or at least I learned/was told by quite a few people that that was ture. Unless they are wrong.
Smith had a very blemish-free career. The only major event was the collision with the HMS "Hawke." Other than a few minor incidents with other ships under his command (though the ships were docked at the time), there really wasn't anything else. To quote Smith, "...in all my experience I have never been in any accident of any sort worth speaking about...I never saw a wreck and have never been wrecked, nor was I ever in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort."
Also one big irony IMHO is that the two main fictional characters of Cameron's film 'Jack & Rose' are basically responsible for the sinking of the Titanic being that they were fooling around on the forward deck (where they weren't supposed to be) and the lookout were goggling them with binoculars instead of
@cha5 yes i came away with that problem with the movie as well. in fact, I wondered whether Jack and Rose were documented characters with a storyline added around them. it would seem they are fictious. The problem with any Titanic movies is that if you don't fill 2 hours with some sort of story about the passengers, you cannot make a movie that will keep bums on seats. Titanic leaves southamptom proclaimed unsinkable. Titanic hits iceburg, Titanic sinks, not much of a movie if you don't add
Jack & Rose are 100% fictional characters created by Cameron, however there are plenty of other characters taken from history who were on the ship Molly Brown, Captain Smith, Ismay,
which is one reason I find ANTR more interesting than Titanic. One other thing that kind of turns me off of Cameron's film is during Oscar night after his win he asked for a moment of silence out of respect for the victims of the Titanic and then let out a war whoop of "NOW LET'S PARTY TILL DAWN!!!!"
@cha5 Of course having a romantic soap opera subplot is easier than having a straight retelling of the history of the ship's sinking which was due to such facts as the lookouts not having binoculars among other things.
According to the IMDB both Rose and Jack were fictional characters,
according to Wikipedia there was someone who died on the Titanic that Jack was based on namewise at least, but that is taken from Wikipedia after all which isn't always all that accurate as far as information goes.
Face it, people, the MAIN reason so many of you claim that the newer version is historically innacurate is because of the love story. Anyone who is interested and/or knows about the Titanic looks past that. Who cares?
@TheGozalus: I'm honestly surprised that a self-described "active member of [a] Titanic Research Society" is saying things like this, as Cameron's film was incredibly inaccurate compared to ANTR. Could you please link me to this "research society?" I'm from THS (Titanic Historical Society), and a majority of members there would agree that Cameron's film lacks a great deal of historical accuracy.
I think the biggest boner of Titanic 97 was showing 1st officer Murdoch murdering a passenger and offing himself. The movie crew had to offer an apology for that scene to the family of murdoch. Also one big mistake was portraying the lookout crew as distracted by the loving couple instead of looking out for icebergs. In reality they were looking hard, but the moonless night afforded them no warning. Other than that James Cameron's movie was pretty accurate (except for the Californian)
inacurracies: There were no wind instruments included in the first class orchestra, it was the forward funnel, not the aft one, that fell on the swimmers and nearely missed Officer Lightoller, the windows that were supposed to be above the alcoves in the first class smoking room were missing, etc...
As an avid Titanic enthusiast and an active member of Titanic research society, I can honestly say that this film is jam-packed with innacuracies. here are just a few...
this is one was better in its story line but the new one i love cause they actually built the dishes to match and wine glasses and all that which i like cause the effort put into it alot of money put into 1997 movie and more heart more heart.
i have read in one book it say when william McQuitty was 6 years old his father took him to the Harland & wolf shipyard in Belfast to see Titanic launch and he was inspire to it and make this film
I just finished reading a book about the story of Titanic.. and it mentioned the main character here and his acts of heroism. I haven't watched this movie yet, but as I was reading I only hoped for a movie based on real survivor's stories rather than Jsck and Rose. It was an entertaining story, but aside from the flashy lights, people want more out of a movie. Let's hope this movie isn't disappointing.
I think this movie is FAR SUPERIOR to the 1997 version, the only thing that it had was a hearttrhob and special effects, otherwise this movie outdoes the other tenfold. I am shocked when I hear idiots say that the 97 film was more accurate, please, give me a break, there were many more survivors who did act as consultants and advisors from what I read. So please, give me a break, put down your 21st century thinking that a movie is only good with hot people and special effects.
Agreed. I do love the '97 film for its detailed re-creation of her lovely interiors, jaw-dropping camera work, special effects and the spectacularly filmed final plunge. However, most of the plot is an exercise in the suspension of disbelief...at times downright embarrassing in its condescension and lack of period. The facts of that night, in all their folly, heroism and horror, are more interesting than any super-imposed fiction. When I watch ANTR, I feel like I am actually there.
1997 movie is way better because of the music,special effect,color and what not.tis movie right here seems so boring already and i havent even watched 1 minute of it,the trailer sucks so bad i sure wouldnt want to spend my money to go see it.if this is so much better why nobody cares about it? the 1997 version made millions and people after 11 years stilllove to watch it so please just shut up grandpa,if you was someone young you wouldnt say all that nonsense
Grandpa? It just so happens I am 31 and if you think I am a grandpa then you must be 10. Anyway, the truth of the matter is, the younger generation ONLY knows special effects. They know nothing of plot, character development etc. for being only 31 it is a shame to see the youth of today not being exposed to good movies, and I can tell you that I am not the only one in my generation or younger who thinks so.
I completely agree with you. Those who have been brought up with big brother, special effects etc. only have a 10 second attention span and probably don't read or doing anything that isn't immediate. They get bored. I was 19 when Titanic came out and although it is not a bad film, even then I could see through it. I prefer depth, characters, a well-written script, intelligence etc rather than computer-animated special effects aimed at the lowest common denominator.
One more thing, how do you know that people do not care about this movie? I know plenty of people who do care about it and prefer it to the 97 version. also, you cannot compare the technology of then to now because they just did not have it. If you ask me the special effects were quite good for 1958 when this movie came out.
ALL the people i know including my dad who is 50 years old so yes hes OLDER then you likes the 1997 version better,so what you say is is just hilarious no offence,my entire family likes the 1997 version because its more beautiful this movie is plain boring i mean just look at it,i think i acted way better at my school theater then the actors and actresses in this movie
Being a good film is not only about the flashing lights, things blowing up, colour etc, mainly by a computer. There's no soul or heart. That's all very superficial. It's aimed at kids and adults with a low attention span/intelligence. The kind of people that probably never read great writers or listen to great composers and watch big brother etc. Those with a bit more intelligence and class like a film with elegance, characters, emotions - and this film has those in abundance.
There's no soul or heart. That's all very superficial. It's aimed at kids and adults with a low attention span/intelligence.he kind of people that probably never read great writers or listen to great composers and watch big brother etc.
A Night to Remember sticks more closely to history, except for minute details of the ship and the wrong funnel collapsing. People still enjoy this one 50 years after it was made. Just because one film made more money and has more bells and whistles doesn't make it better--no one ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public. The makers of ANTR, unlike Hollywood, give the viewer more credit for intelligence and knowledge. The 1997 film is, like Flyboys, a teeny-bopper movie.
CharlieDraper--for one thing you have Thomas Andrews telling Lightoller to put more people in the lifeboats--didn't happen. Ismay pressuring Smith for more speed--didn't happen. A Third Class passenger being invited to First Class and vice versa--nope--this was against the policy of all transatlantic lines for social reasons and for disease control. Murdoch shooting someone and then himself--more evidence against it than for it. For a popular movie I guess fictional characters are OK, though.
15 years beofre this ever happened robinson wrote a book about a great ship called titnai which sank after hitting an iceberg and then it really did hapen 15 yeras later in real life so you see it was done as a fiction book frist and then well.
I have that book. The ship didn't hit an iceberg and sink like the Titanic did. It hit an iceflow and went up on flat ice and fell over on its side. With the lights out and people disoriented because everything was now sideways, they drowned when the ship slipped back into the sea.
"The ship is unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable"
Ten Seconds later...
*Ship sinks*
TheCGIMaster 2 weeks ago
1:00 Fuck... MARY!
flyboy685 2 weeks ago
James Cameron's Titanic ftw<3
MissMegalula 3 weeks ago
@jordanrb1996-- Let's just agree to disagree.
LadyElfOfRivendel 1 month ago
that's the only reason why titanic is so famous, because people said it was 'unsinkable'
JoshuaJJSkittles 1 month ago
For a freatr insight into the fate of this grand ship i reccomend anybody to wath an in depth documentary The Unsinkable Titanic... Some of the so called standard procedures and events and actions prior to the disaster are imo extraordinary
Oggmasta 1 month ago
@jordanrb1996 Yes, I mean that one. It shouldn't matter to you what version of Titanic I like. END OF STORY.
The last I checked, I'm entitled to my opinion. And you need to butt out of it!
Have a wonderful day.
LadyElfOfRivendel 1 month ago
@LadyElfOfRivendel A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is better :)
jordanrb1996 1 month ago
Going to watch this tonight! I hope it's even better than 1997. 1953's Titanic was horrible. Too many inaccuracies.
MrsRoseDawsonn 2 months ago 2
this is my favorite movie
jordanrb1996 2 months ago
Honestly, the james cameron's movie was idiotic nonsense. there was no heart of the ocean, no one was allowed to stand on the prow of the ship, a third class passenger and a first class passenger would not be allowed to see each other, and A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is the best titanic movie ever and it always will be no matter what people say. I DO NOT CARE IF IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE, and to be honest, it wouldn't look good in color. So, on a scale, A NIGHT TO REMEMBER: A+ TITANIC(1997): F-
jordanrb1996 2 months ago
I prefer the 1997 version.
LadyElfOfRivendel 2 months ago
@LadyElfOfRivendel oh, you mean the one that is inaccurate, messed up, and stupid?
jordanrb1996 2 months ago
A good movie which does the Walter Lord book justice.
MrCombat1965 4 months ago
I absolutely LOVE James Cameron's version of Titanic, I thought it was absolutely incredible. :)
But to be honest, this film looks really good aswell! I wanna watch it. :)
RachieeBabiee100 4 months ago
1997 one is the better to me. But this is obviously still good for it's time.
WhitneyElizabethH 5 months ago
@WhitneyElizabethH it is good for ALL time
jordanrb1996 2 months ago
great movie, trailer doesn't catch your interest though. but maybe back then this did catch attention? One of my favorite movies of all time
RayneStormRN 5 months ago
They found the wreck of the titanic
mololo5555 6 months ago
Cameron's film was great but I like how A Night to Remember is so historically accurate. I think the only things it got wrong was the christening of the Titanic (which never happened) and that the Titanic did not snap in two in ANtR (but no one knew that it had snapped in two at the time so it could not have been guessed).
CyberNecrovalley 7 months ago 4
@CyberNecrovalley the official finding of the inquest was that it didn't break in two. you had some witnesses who said it did, some who say it didn't. for whatever reason the official inquest said it didn't. it was only proved that it did when the wreck was found in the 80's, so at the time this was made it was "accurate" per the inquest.
My favorite all time titanic movie is this one, i just don't like that they didn't break the ship, but back then, they didn't know it did break.
RayneStormRN 5 months ago
@CyberNecrovalley but some people think that the ship broke below the waterline, so even then you can't count it as an inaccuracy. THREE CHEERS FOR "A NIGHT TO REMEMBER"!!!! three boos for "titanic (1997)"
jordanrb1996 2 months ago
@CyberNecrovalley I agree with you however It surprises me how so many witnesses to the ship's sinking were still alive when this movie was made, and still they portrayed the ship sinking in one piece. Some believe the internal pressure blew the ship apart underwater...but who knows?
Leuopold 1 month ago
@Leuopold That just goes to show how valuable the internet is. Something like that could fly in 1958, but that wouldn't be able to be hidden knowledge nowadays.
Zengeance 2 weeks ago
@CyberNecrovalley "but no one knew that it had snapped in two at the time"
Wrong! There were witnesses that saw the ship break in two, but they were told by the White Star Line not to say anything about it, as it might lead people to think that their ships were not designed or built properly. In reality, no ship is designed to withstand those kind of stresses.
ashlescats 1 month ago
I love this movie the first time I saw A Night To Remember.
Was back in 1999 I was 12 it is a classic!
MrDeCorey 7 months ago
i wonder if this pissed of any surviving members?
PHATB0Y20 8 months ago
@PHATB0Y20 Why would it have done? I think it maybe wouldn't have pissed off survivors, but I reckon it definitely would have upset a lot of people.
Foxglurves 2 months ago
it's 1912 not 1911
DeFrikandelspeciaal 8 months ago
Every single film of Titanic is good, stop complaining.
CarlitaWtfxD 8 months ago
100 years still famous :)
kid3499 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watched this film last night actually
JustPlainInsanity 8 months ago
James Cameron= WAAAAAAY BETTER!
Luckyduckgal 9 months ago
James Cameron's version is a piece of shit
hwcperfect 9 months ago
my grandma saw a night to remember!
25raely 9 months ago
this is the BEST titanic movie
unlost 9 months ago
This movie impressed me because it was the only movie that had the correct grand staircase before they found the titanic.
matrixfan127 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thumbs up if you wish the only language in the world was English!
trentwilson7777 11 months ago
You can tell James Cameron referenced this a lot in his film. And that's fine with me.
cores717 11 months ago
Titanic is my project at school
MagicalLego 11 months ago
Hate on James Cameron's Titanic all you want. It won't change how wonderful or iconic that epic masterpiece is.
However, A Night to Remember is the best docu-drama on the Titanic tragedy. If anyone is interested in Titanic and loved the 1997 film, they NEED to watch this movie too.
LukeLovesRose 1 year ago
A night when 2200 men, women and children were faced with a terrible fact. The fact that most of them were going to die! i mean how fucking hysterically sinister is that line!! FUCKING HILARIOUS!!
RJACMusic 1 year ago
Il est en francais ?
cedricnot 1 year ago
@cedricnot Slt, oui le film existe en français, il est dans un coffret DVD peu courant. En France le film est sortit en 1958 sous le titre de " Atlantique latitude 41° " .
Voilà @+
pierre1920 1 year ago
@pierre1920 tu la en divix?
cedricnot 1 year ago
wow that was amazing
MrDouglasdc3 1 year ago
Naitch35 The remarkable thing about "unsinkable" Titanic is that unlike Brunel's SS Great Britain, the bulkheads did not go all the way to the deck forming a watertight compartment. If it had, it probably would have had a considerably extended life. As it was water just cascaded over each compartment bulkhead - rest is history.
FatBaz43 1 year ago
@FatBaz43 Another one of the "What ifs". I like the analogy of that it was similar to an ice cube tray in the way that water fills each slot as more water is poured in.
On a side note I've already watched this movie many more times than the 1997 film!
Naitch35 1 year ago
sounds like a great movie
MegaTitanicfreak 1 year ago
As an ex Merchant Navy Officer, I did not want to watch the James Cameron version. There is nothing glamorous or romantic in a sinking ship. Depending on how quickly it sinks, the lights go out, once familiar surroundings now become a maze. and finding your way out requires calm and collective thinking. Cargo ships carry enough boats on EACH side for Crew, Passenger ships enough on BOTH sides. The Stokers & Engineers kept Titanics lights on until very near the end. Remember them.
FatBaz43 1 year ago
@FatBaz43 Excellent point. I was reading the book "Unsinkable" recently and it talked about how many crew members' families were devastated since the only bread winner of the home was now gone. Fortunately some funds were set up for these families but it that didn't bring back somebody's father or husband. One of the nice things about this movie is that the crew gets a decent amount of recognition.
Naitch35 1 year ago
My nan was born a few days after titanic sunk.
doggie101171 1 year ago
RIP Roy Ward Baker
ARandomCanadian 1 year ago
Just purchased the DVD and it really is as good as everyone says. I watched it after "Titanic-The Complete Story" and the movie echoed the survivor accounts with surprising accuracy. For Titanic followers this is a "must have" in your DVD collection. It can hang in there with the 1997 movie in case you're wondering but needs an educated mind (on the subject of Titanic) to understand that.
Naitch35 1 year ago
Does it really matter if Rose and Jack really existed? I absolutely LOVE Titanic- one of my favorite movies ever, never heard of this one until just now when I was on wikipedia and saw this movie title somewhere, but I noticed lots of the scenes well some) are the same in both movies.
I have never watched this movie but I don't understand why you couldn't watch this movie and the other one too. I love the story of Jack and Rose (but then again Im a sucker for romances).
marinamatthies17 1 year ago
@marinamatthies17 you have never watched this film?? Oh my God! The one that you speak of, the winslett/di caprio one, isnt a patch on this classic 1958 film,do yourself a favour and just watch it, an absolute masterpiece compared to the modern version as it faithfully tells the story of what actually happened that fateful night instead of focussing totally on 2 imaginary characters..
cioupty 1 year ago
@allanouche62110 In fact, neither characters existed. The ''Jack Dawson'' that existed who is buried in Halifax, Novia Scotia, is in fact James Dawson, who was a trimmer for Titanic's crew.
123peytonE 1 year ago
has it got colour aswell
thelegofankid 1 year ago
Michael Jackson was born in this year , cool !!!!!
hunterrr2009 1 year ago
One of my favourite films ever, far better than Titanic in my opinion. Rose and Jack just annoyed me.
Phaust13 1 year ago
this will always be my fav movie, 1997 movie was a waste of 3 hours
mikesway23 1 year ago
@mikesway23 no, thats so stupid. titanic is the best movie ever
keikoeastman 1 year ago
Comment removed
cha5 1 year ago
@keikoeastman It's not even close to the best movie ever,
Titanic is an overdone soap opera that wears out its welcome in about an hour.
cha5 1 year ago
@cha5 ive watched it 20 times and i never get bored. we just have different taste
keikoeastman 1 year ago
@keikoeastman Fair enough, for me Titanic just isn't as poigant and dramatic as A Night To Remember and I'll take Kenneth More and his portrayal of the stoic second officer over Jack and Rose anytime.
cha5 1 year ago
@cha5 I agree with you. I refuse to have anything to do with James Cameron's Titanic. I refuse to watch it ever. Why bother making soap opera crap when you can have this perfect classic that tells the story leanly with thrills.
Moseslawgiver 1 year ago
My favorite Titanic film actually. Dare to say even more favorable than James Cameron's film.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Cameron's film, it's just I think this film focused more on the ship and the events itself, while as Cameron's was a focus on 2 individuals.
BlueKewne 2 years ago 45
@BlueKewne I agree: this one is better.
thinkersrock69 1 year ago
@BlueKewne you are correct. all the TITANIC movies are sad & scary. all have different stories. i hope you saw raise the titanic. the soundtrack was so touching. TITANIC 1997 was also good. in year 2012 it's the 100th anniversary of the tragedy. i'm sure they'll make another one. i could name lots of celebrities that should be in it.
d4seasons 1 year ago
@BlueKewne yes. the 1997 film is hogwash. it led many people astray too
jordanrb1996 2 months ago
can u get it on vhs
thejackbell75 2 years ago
thats a foam berg
diddykongfu 2 years ago
That's funny dude, good one.
Eres59 2 years ago
did the ship split in half in this one?
voniak289 2 years ago
No, because the wreck had not been discovered yet at this time.
pascalocool 2 years ago
no, went down intact
thattaityguy 2 years ago
no offense, but are you retarded?
sonic4sale 2 years ago
Actually sonic4sale, I was trying to be a bit sarcastic. Guess it missed you.
why do you say "no offense" if you then say something offensive?
thattaityguy 2 years ago
well... its kind of hard to tell over the internet, you know, with no facial expression or mock sounding vocals to tell the difference. also didnt think anybody would actually think that since it is broken up. anyway, no hard feelings. just how things get worded xD i should have added 'lol' at the end, wouldve helped realise what type of message i was conveying.
sonic4sale 2 years ago
The 4th funnel gives way, suggesting that the ship breaks apart. But it's only a suggestion within the film. It was largely thought the ship sank intact, even right up to her discovery in Sept 1985. But during the initial inquires in 1912, it was believed she broke apart, but the consensus was more to believe that she sank intact.
RaiseTheTitanic1980 2 years ago
my brother loves titanc
laxcat9 2 years ago
Though there were some flaws, those sets were INCREDIBLE! Maybe they have a couple paneling bits wrong, but I could easily distinguish what rooms they are intended to be. It's much better than what many other Titanic films used...
jkilts 2 years ago
nice
calibar10 2 years ago
ohmygosh wow this film is oldd!
XxxBlondieRocksxxX 2 years ago
remember when trailers were nearly 3 minutes long? now they're around 3 seconds -_-
LilSnappe3r 2 years ago
a night to remember is the only movie that i know of that shows 2nd class passengers insted of focussing on only first and third class
jasonaw2 2 years ago 25
They really should have used that music in the scene at 0:59. The real version had no alarming music.
HoorayforOliver 2 years ago
"Ismay pressuring Smith for speed, didn't happen..."
Apperently we should all listen to galoon, because it sounds like he was actually there, and that he knows more than all research indicates. I'm sure that if you'll all read "ANTR", and research on the Titanic, we'll see who's right here....passenger testimonies, or opinion.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
Passenger testimony is only hearsay if there's nothing else that confirms it, which was the case here. Ismay had never before interfered with the running of one of his ships (this was only the third maiden voyage he'd been on) and is on record as stating that he'd never encourage a captain to do something he considered unsafe--there's a full article devoted to this topic at the Titanic Historical Society's website. I can't think of any reason why he'd have behaved differently on Titanic.
galoon 2 years ago
"There's no solid evidence that Ismay was pressuring Captain Smith to speed up."
There may not be solid evidence to prove what might have been said, since apparently passenger testimonials may be branded as heresay, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And even if it did, it is very probable that Ismay was eager to break a speed record, regardless of sea conditions, especially since no one was likely to question safety on being aboard the largest, safest ship in the world.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
As for Ismay entering a lifeboat, I would have done the same thing under such circumstances, but this was 1912, an era where prominent gentlemen were supposed to act just like they were catagorized as...gentlemen (As the public percieved them then). If they were well-bred, believe it or not, they were expected to accept their fate like men, or be branded as cowards.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
men didn't stand a chance because of the women-children only protocol. I think its totally unfair that he's been branded as a coward throughout history, in a desparate situation like that, he saw his chance and took it and rightly so, its human nature to look after number one
Canashea 2 years ago
Metube brings up a good point about the Titanic's rudder... it was WAY too disproportionate for a ship the size of the Titanic. Now, if the Titanic had been outfitted with a modern (1912ish) rudder similar to the Aquitania, for example, it would be far more suitable in terms of maneuverability.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
Fact: Ismay DID order more speed through ice fields. Don't believe me? Look it up!!! Smith DID behave in a passive manner during the sinking, as if in a mental break-down. Look it up!!! And Ismay DID act like the coward he was rightfully portrayed as later in life, sneaking off into a lifeboat. Look it up. Do NOT listen to OlympicClassDandy, for God's Sake!!! He/she does not know what he/she is talking about.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
There's no solid evidence to suggest that Ismay was pressuring Captain Smith to speed up. The claims by several passengers that he did are circumstantial at best. The 1912 coal strike dictated economy of operation. It is true that the Titanic was going too fast for conditions, but this was common practice on transatlantic liners of that time and the speed orders came from Smith. Of course this practice of high speed near ice changed after the Titanic's sinking.
galoon 2 years ago
Ismay boarded one of the last lifeboats to leave the ship, after helping other passengers into the boats. When he entered Collapsible C, there appear to have been no other passengers in the immediate area. Under the circumstances, it's hard to call someone a coward for getting in a lifeboat. It's easy to talk about bravely staying on the ship, but actually doing so, with the slanting deck sinking under your feet in freezing weather in the blackness of night, is quite another. What would we do?
galoon 2 years ago
OlympicClassDandy, what the HELL are you talking about? Ismay DID sneak off in a lifeboat, and Smith DID behave in a passive state of mind. Even his officers did some of the thinking for him, since it was Lightoller's idea to get the evacuation underway. My claims here are only backed up by research and eye-witness accounts if you don't believe me. Please do your research before posting crap like this.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
...
TheGozalus 2 years ago
OlympicClassDandy, you are VERY wrong about J. Bruce Ismay and Captain Smith NOT behaving the way they did that night. Ismay DID sneak into a lifeboat at the last minute, as referenced in the novel ANTR. Even the MOVIE managed to get that right. And Smith WAS in a passive state during the sinking. It was even Lightoller's idea to start the evacuation while Smith was alone in his thoughts. Call it a mental breakdown or whatever, it HAPPENED! Plz do your research before posting junk like this.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
I like this movie better than Cameron's version, even though I don't think Kenneth More was convincing as Lightoller, although he is a great actor. The thing I didn't like about Cameron's version was the suicide of Murdock. I thought that was disrespectful to Murdock's family and there is no evidence that this happened. I do think Cameron did a good job of casting Lightoller and Lowe as the actors looked like the real officers.
Angele101006 2 years ago
Were any of us there?? No! SO SHUT UP!!
englishguy2005 2 years ago
OH MY GOD! INACCURACY!! The twenty-seventh passenger to get onto the life-boat was wearing loafers, not heels!!! This film is an abomination!! An insult to the tragedy that befell those poor people!!
...
Seriously guys, no depiction of the Titanic's story is going to be perfect. Relax and enjoy them, for Pete's sake. It's not like they had a muscular He-Man swing in on a vine and rescue half the ship in one arm, and rescue the beautiful damsel in distress with the other.
Hiei1314 2 years ago
@ OlympicClassDandy....Yes, I am aware of the MANY glaring mistakes in Cameron's version, But what about ANTR? For a film that is supposed to stay faithful to the event, it sure does contradict Walter Lord's historically accurate novel. Did any of you READ the novel, because if you had, you would notice that the film may not be the stunninly accurate peice of work you all make it out to be.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
...
TheGozalus 2 years ago
This Movie & the Newer Version are both good
They both tell da real story
the only difference is dat da newer version is based on 2 ppl
dawrin23 2 years ago
@darwin23: No, there's a HUGE difference between the two.
James Cameron's Titanic (the newer one) does not tell the real story of Titanic. His film is a twisted version of the real history of Titanic, as Cameron bastardizes historical figures, adds in a fictional story line and distorts many facts.
A Night to Remember is the most factual to date, and in that case, there is a huge difference between the two.
OlympicClassDandy 2 years ago
I actually have to Disagree with you Olympic. While James did Twist the story and add in more characters/Story line (Jack, Rose and her Family and anything following them) Most of the facts were ture. Thus being pretty accurate (Unless there are things I don't know )and a good movie in it's own case.
A night to remember is, yes, the most accurate. But there will always be flaws to all the stories. Even ones by actual surviors because everyone pictures or remembers it diffrently.
HiHello005 2 years ago
Thank you for your polite opinion. You're right, most of the facts were indeed true. The big issue that I had with it was the portrayals; I think that when you portray a historical character in an incorrect manner (in this case in a way that is bastardizing), and the film becomes popular, then it sort of leaves a permanent scar upon their reputations. I also don't understand why Cameron felt it necessary to change the story; the original history is interesting enough, in my opinion.
OlympicClassDandy 2 years ago
That is ture and I agree with you. But I'm confused. Which Character's did they "Bastardize". And anyway. Cameron felt it necessary to do what he did so it would sell. Today people are more about money than truth in most casses. Though I think it would have sold just as well had he found a real life love. (i'm sure there were plenty aboard) And portrayed that. instead of as I/We have said before createing one.
HiHello005 2 years ago
@HiHello005: The three biggest characters that Cameron made look terrible in the film was First Officer William Murdoch (shown taking a bribe, killing a passenger followed by himself), Joseph Bruce Ismay (shown sneaking onto a lifeboat out of cowardice and selfishness with no regard for others, as well as interfering with the speed of Titanic) and Captain EJ Smith (shown going into a cowardly state of shock after the sinking). In reality, the above figures never did what you see in the film.
OlympicClassDandy 2 years ago
I totally agree about Murdock. Cameron admitted in a documentary that he made this up based om "what could have happened" I think this showed no respect for Murdock,as there is no evidence that he took a bribe, shot a passenger or himself. I truly dislike Cameron for doing this and this shows how insensitive he is. He also gave little screen time to Lightoller and Lowe which makes no sense considering that he chose the actors he did to play them.
Angele101006 2 years ago
I agree with you on the first two. Except there was rumors of Murdoch taking is life. The Captain however. I have to diagree on. He went down with his boat so unless worded wrong he wasn't there "after" the sinking. I was however surpirsed, That after 8 or 9 sinkings most of them by running into things he was surprised. Maybe it was just because the Titanic was "unskinable".
HiHello005 2 years ago
@HiHello005: Oops, bit of a typo there! I meant to say after the collision; thank you for pointing that out for me. I know that Smith went down with his ship, and I'm sure you know what I meant to say now!
You mentioned that you were surprised that after 8 or 9 sinkings you were surprised about his shock; Smith had never experienced a wreck during his entire career at sea; he had, however, had an incident with another vessel. There may have been other incidents, but he had never been wrecked.
OlympicClassDandy 2 years ago
Really? How do you know this? On my part I correct myself he did wreck not sink. He wrecked 8 or 9 times. and had only one sinking in that. Or at least I learned/was told by quite a few people that that was ture. Unless they are wrong.
HiHello005 2 years ago
Smith had a very blemish-free career. The only major event was the collision with the HMS "Hawke." Other than a few minor incidents with other ships under his command (though the ships were docked at the time), there really wasn't anything else. To quote Smith, "...in all my experience I have never been in any accident of any sort worth speaking about...I never saw a wreck and have never been wrecked, nor was I ever in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort."
OlympicClassDandy 2 years ago
Hmm, Okay Maybe I was wrong. Thanks for correcting that.
HiHello005 2 years ago
Not a problem!
OlympicClassDandy 2 years ago
@OlympicClassDandy
Also one big irony IMHO is that the two main fictional characters of Cameron's film 'Jack & Rose' are basically responsible for the sinking of the Titanic being that they were fooling around on the forward deck (where they weren't supposed to be) and the lookout were goggling them with binoculars instead of
looking out for icebergs.
cha5 2 years ago
@cha5 yes i came away with that problem with the movie as well. in fact, I wondered whether Jack and Rose were documented characters with a storyline added around them. it would seem they are fictious. The problem with any Titanic movies is that if you don't fill 2 hours with some sort of story about the passengers, you cannot make a movie that will keep bums on seats. Titanic leaves southamptom proclaimed unsinkable. Titanic hits iceburg, Titanic sinks, not much of a movie if you don't add
lndac02 2 years ago
@lndac02
Jack & Rose are 100% fictional characters created by Cameron, however there are plenty of other characters taken from history who were on the ship Molly Brown, Captain Smith, Ismay,
which is one reason I find ANTR more interesting than Titanic. One other thing that kind of turns me off of Cameron's film is during Oscar night after his win he asked for a moment of silence out of respect for the victims of the Titanic and then let out a war whoop of "NOW LET'S PARTY TILL DAWN!!!!"
cha5 2 years ago
@cha5 Of course having a romantic soap opera subplot is easier than having a straight retelling of the history of the ship's sinking which was due to such facts as the lookouts not having binoculars among other things.
cha5 2 years ago
@cha5 i believe rose was fake but jake is not
punkprincess522 1 year ago
@punkprincess522 sorry jack
punkprincess522 1 year ago
Comment removed
cha5 1 year ago
@punkprincess522
According to the IMDB both Rose and Jack were fictional characters,
according to Wikipedia there was someone who died on the Titanic that Jack was based on namewise at least, but that is taken from Wikipedia after all which isn't always all that accurate as far as information goes.
cha5 1 year ago
@cha5
you're so right
CandyAndromeda 1 year ago
I loved the movie. This is a cool video, My great Grandpa was born the year the titanic sank. 1912.
loveposh11 2 years ago
My great grandma was 5 when it sank.
HiHello005 2 years ago
oh, thats cool.
loveposh11 2 years ago
What's cool. I just stated the facts?
HiHello005 2 years ago
no, you said one of your great grand parents was 5 when the titanic sank, and i said thats cool
loveposh11 2 years ago
@loveposh11 One of my relatives worked on Titanic.
123peytonE 1 year ago
Face it, people, the MAIN reason so many of you claim that the newer version is historically innacurate is because of the love story. Anyone who is interested and/or knows about the Titanic looks past that. Who cares?
TheGozalus 2 years ago
@TheGozalus: I'm honestly surprised that a self-described "active member of [a] Titanic Research Society" is saying things like this, as Cameron's film was incredibly inaccurate compared to ANTR. Could you please link me to this "research society?" I'm from THS (Titanic Historical Society), and a majority of members there would agree that Cameron's film lacks a great deal of historical accuracy.
OlympicClassDandy 2 years ago
I think the biggest boner of Titanic 97 was showing 1st officer Murdoch murdering a passenger and offing himself. The movie crew had to offer an apology for that scene to the family of murdoch. Also one big mistake was portraying the lookout crew as distracted by the loving couple instead of looking out for icebergs. In reality they were looking hard, but the moonless night afforded them no warning. Other than that James Cameron's movie was pretty accurate (except for the Californian)
MelvinScout 2 years ago
inacurracies: There were no wind instruments included in the first class orchestra, it was the forward funnel, not the aft one, that fell on the swimmers and nearely missed Officer Lightoller, the windows that were supposed to be above the alcoves in the first class smoking room were missing, etc...
TheGozalus 2 years ago
As an avid Titanic enthusiast and an active member of Titanic research society, I can honestly say that this film is jam-packed with innacuracies. here are just a few...
TheGozalus 2 years ago
this is one was better in its story line but the new one i love cause they actually built the dishes to match and wine glasses and all that which i like cause the effort put into it alot of money put into 1997 movie and more heart more heart.
kinggone100 2 years ago
I prefer the 1997 movie, but this one is not bad.
MusicalWizard77 2 years ago
this one shits all over the 1997 movie.
BoneHomer 2 years ago 2
i have read in one book it say when william McQuitty was 6 years old his father took him to the Harland & wolf shipyard in Belfast to see Titanic launch and he was inspire to it and make this film
Danieltitanic1912 2 years ago
O Filme mais perfeito!
Quem disse que o pessoal do Reino Unido não sabe fazer filme?
Essa é com certeza a maior obra-prima sobre o Titanic...Perdendo somente para Titanic de James Cameron.
FelipeTinti 2 years ago
absolutely classic film...unlike the shite film starring leonardo...you know what i mean!!
cioupty 2 years ago
I just finished reading a book about the story of Titanic.. and it mentioned the main character here and his acts of heroism. I haven't watched this movie yet, but as I was reading I only hoped for a movie based on real survivor's stories rather than Jsck and Rose. It was an entertaining story, but aside from the flashy lights, people want more out of a movie. Let's hope this movie isn't disappointing.
bio311 2 years ago
they just gave the new one a storyline
asweete10 2 years ago
If you really want to know the Titanic story this is the film to watch.
gqjohnny 2 years ago 3
agreed.
unclepatrick2 2 years ago
........................
Nanceeeeeee 2 years ago
And as for comedy, let us see you make jokes when you know that you are going to die within an hour. Not many of us can.
anyway, this movie was the greatest and I am searching desperately for it in stores. I guess it seems that I will have to order it.
Mikeyboy609 2 years ago
If you've got a Virgin Megastore in your town, you may find it in the Criterion Collection section.
yes4albert 2 years ago
I think this movie is FAR SUPERIOR to the 1997 version, the only thing that it had was a hearttrhob and special effects, otherwise this movie outdoes the other tenfold. I am shocked when I hear idiots say that the 97 film was more accurate, please, give me a break, there were many more survivors who did act as consultants and advisors from what I read. So please, give me a break, put down your 21st century thinking that a movie is only good with hot people and special effects.
Mikeyboy609 2 years ago
Agreed. I do love the '97 film for its detailed re-creation of her lovely interiors, jaw-dropping camera work, special effects and the spectacularly filmed final plunge. However, most of the plot is an exercise in the suspension of disbelief...at times downright embarrassing in its condescension and lack of period. The facts of that night, in all their folly, heroism and horror, are more interesting than any super-imposed fiction. When I watch ANTR, I feel like I am actually there.
yes4albert 2 years ago 3
1997 movie is way better because of the music,special effect,color and what not.tis movie right here seems so boring already and i havent even watched 1 minute of it,the trailer sucks so bad i sure wouldnt want to spend my money to go see it.if this is so much better why nobody cares about it? the 1997 version made millions and people after 11 years stilllove to watch it so please just shut up grandpa,if you was someone young you wouldnt say all that nonsense
gummibearmelissa 2 years ago
Grandpa? It just so happens I am 31 and if you think I am a grandpa then you must be 10. Anyway, the truth of the matter is, the younger generation ONLY knows special effects. They know nothing of plot, character development etc. for being only 31 it is a shame to see the youth of today not being exposed to good movies, and I can tell you that I am not the only one in my generation or younger who thinks so.
Mikeyboy609 2 years ago 4
I completely agree with you. Those who have been brought up with big brother, special effects etc. only have a 10 second attention span and probably don't read or doing anything that isn't immediate. They get bored. I was 19 when Titanic came out and although it is not a bad film, even then I could see through it. I prefer depth, characters, a well-written script, intelligence etc rather than computer-animated special effects aimed at the lowest common denominator.
219970 2 years ago
c rather than computer-animated special effects aimed at the lowest common denominator.
You know what's the "lowest common denominator'? People like you who assume that people who like things that you don't are illiterate bafoons.
whovian1971 2 years ago
One more thing, how do you know that people do not care about this movie? I know plenty of people who do care about it and prefer it to the 97 version. also, you cannot compare the technology of then to now because they just did not have it. If you ask me the special effects were quite good for 1958 when this movie came out.
Mikeyboy609 2 years ago 2
ALL the people i know including my dad who is 50 years old so yes hes OLDER then you likes the 1997 version better,so what you say is is just hilarious no offence,my entire family likes the 1997 version because its more beautiful this movie is plain boring i mean just look at it,i think i acted way better at my school theater then the actors and actresses in this movie
gummibearmelissa 2 years ago
i'm sure your family is a good representation of the wider population...
BoneHomer 2 years ago
Being a good film is not only about the flashing lights, things blowing up, colour etc, mainly by a computer. There's no soul or heart. That's all very superficial. It's aimed at kids and adults with a low attention span/intelligence. The kind of people that probably never read great writers or listen to great composers and watch big brother etc. Those with a bit more intelligence and class like a film with elegance, characters, emotions - and this film has those in abundance.
219970 2 years ago
There's no soul or heart. That's all very superficial. It's aimed at kids and adults with a low attention span/intelligence.he kind of people that probably never read great writers or listen to great composers and watch big brother etc.
Or arrogant twats like you!
whovian1971 2 years ago
A Night to Remember sticks more closely to history, except for minute details of the ship and the wrong funnel collapsing. People still enjoy this one 50 years after it was made. Just because one film made more money and has more bells and whistles doesn't make it better--no one ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public. The makers of ANTR, unlike Hollywood, give the viewer more credit for intelligence and knowledge. The 1997 film is, like Flyboys, a teeny-bopper movie.
galoon 2 years ago
Why do you consider the 1997 film version to be so inaccurate?
Other than the invention of the main characters (which I consider excusable), I thought the 1997 film was impeccably well researched.
I would however be interested to hear your opinion.
CharlieDraper 2 years ago
CharlieDraper--for one thing you have Thomas Andrews telling Lightoller to put more people in the lifeboats--didn't happen. Ismay pressuring Smith for more speed--didn't happen. A Third Class passenger being invited to First Class and vice versa--nope--this was against the policy of all transatlantic lines for social reasons and for disease control. Murdoch shooting someone and then himself--more evidence against it than for it. For a popular movie I guess fictional characters are OK, though.
galoon 2 years ago
This craps all over the 'Oscar' fest. FACT.
Abide with Me....
douglas18741892 2 years ago
This is the only movie version worth watching.
xltrt 2 years ago
15 years beofre this ever happened robinson wrote a book about a great ship called titnai which sank after hitting an iceberg and then it really did hapen 15 yeras later in real life so you see it was done as a fiction book frist and then well.
eleventhdr 2 years ago
I have that book. The ship didn't hit an iceberg and sink like the Titanic did. It hit an iceflow and went up on flat ice and fell over on its side. With the lights out and people disoriented because everything was now sideways, they drowned when the ship slipped back into the sea.
moslemssuck 2 years ago