Dan Conlin's Review Notes to the Titanic film

Overall, I felt the film to be an impressive piece of cinema spectacle, making spectacular use of the medium to tell a well played, albeit very old fashioned, love story that survives the biggest challenge of a Titanic movie: making an individual story interesting against its catastrophic background.

The visual spectacle is very rewarding, a heady mix of dream and nightmare:

• Dreamlike because you get a sense that you are boarding and exploring this legendary ship - climbing the grand staircase, leaning out over her bow etc. You are also seeing her through the eyes of the two lovers, whose brief relationship is intimately tied to Titanic's features, especially her very bow and very stern. The details from those scenes on her decks and interiors are meticulous. I made a list of about five technical errors - but they are very trivial.
• Nightmare because you get to see this huge Edwardian machine destroy itself in horrifying fashion as corridors flood, doors burst, funnels topple, and decks rupture.

The film makes interesting use of the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic's collection of Titanic wooden artifacts. The climatic lover's death scene takes place on a floating fragment of carved archway that was based on an indentical artifact on display at the museum, retrieved in 1912 with bodies. The Grand Staircase is also a key part of many scenes and its woodwork replicates the patterns that survive in the newell post and balustrade at the museum.

There are some very impressive cinematic moments: transitions from the Titanic wreck of 1995 to the living Titanic of 1912; visual contrast such as the breathtaking bow knifing through the water in contrast to the hades-like boiler room. These are usually backed by a moving soundtrack with a strong Celtic touch - some wild fiddle chases and Enya-like orchestration. Nearer My God to Thee, whatever you think about the controversy around the last song played, is used in a very sad and lyrical manner in a scene near the end.

The film reasonably reflects several truths to the Titanic story: the deadly class barriers, the refusal of lifeboats to rescue those in the water. It does harp on the misleading impression that Bruce Ismay was preoccupied with speed (when in fact Titanic could never have broken speed records - being designed for luxury, not speed) Bruce Ismay comes off as a rather grotesque caricature, but a mercifully brief one. Thomas Andrews, Titanic's designer is in contrast well portrayed. Capt. Smith is dutifully done a as tragic figure, and his final moments are well chosen. Contrasting Andrews to Smith, you get a sense of engineering outstripping traditional seamanship. Andrews builds a huge ship that Smith's traditional skills are not up to managing. The film is unable to resist using the very suspect report that First officer Murdoch committed suicide after gunning down third class passengers - I guess the symbolism was too hard to resist. Unquestionably, the 1959 film A Night to Remember devotes more time and is more faithful to the various real historical characters which in this film are, except for Andrews, mainly vignettes or cameos.

I was at first concerned about the film glorifying the central figure of a modern day salvager looting the Titanic wreck, a concern to those of us worrying about preserving historic shipwrecks. However I was reassured that the treasure hunter character is portrayed as a treasure hunter, first and foremost, paying glib lip service to history but really only wanting to find a valuable diamond.

I had a few beefs: a stupid scene with the villain blasting away with a handgun (Do Americans feel legally or culturally obligated to have these scenes in their films?). There are also a few corny lines, but on the whole I found the writing quite well done. Don't expect period conversation though - to reach a youth audience the speeches have 1990s expressions.

Would I recommend it? Yes. Not profound art or historical study but impressive use of the moviemaker's arts. And you want to know more, I would recommend Walter lord's book A Night to Remember or Stephen Biel's Down with the Old Canoe.

Trivial Technical Errors: 1. China dollhead shown inside the wreck, when it is actually outside in the debris field. 2. Welded (not riveted) gangway as passengers board. 3. Two brief scenes where smoke seems to come out of the ornamental fourth funnel. Other scenes correctly show only steam venting 4. Shiny Nylon rope on boatdeck scene. 5. The cargo hold was not as accessible as shown and carge was stowed with heavy bracing and packing crates, not lying open.
Marine purists are also aware that the intial lover's scene on Titanic's stern and subsequent scenes on Titanic's prow would be implausible because the bridge watch and afterbridge watch would be quick to shoo passengers away from these out-of-bounds areas of the ship. However, the film does suggest subtle reasons to justify these important and moving scenes, so I was content to supsend disbelief.

Questionable Historical portrayal: 1. Murdoch's shooting 2. Ismay's preoccupation with speed.