Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

ironhorse_iv Made way before director James Cameron's Oscar Winning 1997's 'Titanic', even hit the movie waves, and became a cultural phenomenon. There was a 1958 black-and-white British movie about the 1912 sinking of RMS Titanic called 'A Night to Remember' that chronicling the maritime disaster that claimed the lives of 1,517 of the 2,223 people on board, due to the absence of lifeboats, negligent regulations to safety and the imbalanced treatment of the three passenger classes during the evacuation do to class warfare. Based on Walter Lord's nonfiction book of the same title, the film directed by Roy Baker is best known today, for being more historic accurate dry and preachy film, than the later epic semi-fictional romantic films that came after it. After all, this is one of the few films that talk in depth about how the Titanic did not heed the Iceberg warnings sent out from other ships; while also showing some light of the S.S Californian controversial and its aftermath. It also focus more on the real-life characters of the tragedy, than Cameron's version. However, the film doesn't do, a good job, making the real-life characters that interesting. There were only a few passengers and crew that I can honestly say, stood out, like shipbuilder, Thomas Andrews (Michael Goodliffe) & Captain Edward J. Smith (Laurence Naismith).The others, only because of their humor, such as Chief Baker Charles Joughin (George Rose), Mrs. Margaret 'Molly' Brown (Tucker McGuire) & the pig lady, Miss Edith Russell (Teresa Thorne). Unfortunately, the majority of the actors that played these people weren't the best actors at the time, often not giving enough compelling sense of fear or anxious. Some of them, really did little to nothing, to make their characters to stand out. Plus, others minor characters didn't have, enough screen time for me to care about their lives. I really didn't feel as emotional with these people as I do with Cameron's version. However, there are two portrayal of real-life people in this film that really errs me. One of them is the main character, at least, I think, is supposed to be the main character, Second Officer, Charles Lightoller (Kenneth More). While, there's no fair way to deny most of the crew and officers acted heroically, I think the movie went a little too far, on showing him as a hero, when in truth, he was a complex man that did a lot of mistakes. First off, Lightoller interpreted Smith's order for "the evacuation of women and children" as essentially "women and children only". As a result, Lightoller lowered lifeboats with empty seats if there were no women and children waiting to board. Second off, he was very fearful of the panic of the Third Class Passengers to the point that he abandoned his post to escape the growing crowds, and dived into the water, which cause the deaths of many people. Another person that was badly portrayal in this film and James Cameron's film was White Star Official, J. Bruce Ismay (Frank Lawton) who is depicted as a dirty money-hungry weasel. In truth, Ismay was far from being a yellow-belly coward. He strenuously worked hard to get people into the boats, helped launch them and only took a seat in one of the last boats to leave the ship having made sure that there were no women and children nearby. However, since, not all women and children were saved on the Titanic, the few men who survived, like J. Bruce Ismay, were initially branded negatively. Other historical inaccuracies that this film has, is how the film, depicts the christening of the ship at its launch, when in truth, the passenger liner was never christened, as it was not the practice of the White Star Line. This has come down in popular lore as one of the many contributing factors to the ship's "bad luck". Yet, the film does not mention, how the Titanic nearly collapse with the S.S City of New York in Southampton harbor or how there was a fire in coal-bunker. Another historic inaccurate that people often bring up about this film is the fact, that the film depicts the ship sinking in one piece. We now know that the Titanic broke into two before sinking, but unlike the James Cameron's version, the crack happen, below the water line. In my opinion, the visuals of the sinking of the ship, by this film is still somewhat accurate despite its modest production values. Some of the shots is impression at the time, even if they kinda ruin some with poorly-obscured mannequins or taking clips from an old Nazi propaganda film from 1943 to show the ship sailing in calm waters, during the day, and the flooding of the walkway in the engine room. In my opinion, would rather have them, use more of the 1938's launching of the Cunard Liner, Queen Elizabeth than old Nazi footage and had the frozen child scene, still delete in the clean-up, clear Criterion DVD release. It really didn't match well. Another problem with the film is the lack of intense, classy or epic music. It felt like a black and white silent movie at times. It really hurt the tone that it was going for. Still, I have to say, the production value of the costumes and set pieces were very amazing. Not once, did I think, they were filming in a stage studio. No wonder, why only after seeing this film that James Cameron decided to make, his version of Titanic. In fact, Cameron was so taken by this film that he lifted ideas, plot lines, conversations and characters, including a minor character similar to the one played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Overall: A Night to Remember is a cautionary tale of the limitations of modernity and ambition when it comes to technological advances. It's worth remembering. So check it out! I think you will like it as well.

Theflyace Over forty years since the Titanic tragically went down on her maiden voyage, author Walter Lord published what many consider, including myself, the definitive account of the sinking. It was indeed a fascinating and incredibly detailed read, which accounts for why this film is the result of a faithful adaptation. A Night to Remember is a gripping docudrama which acts almost like a reporter observing a tragedy live. In a similar approach to the brilliant United 93, this film doesn't try to emphasize the drama, but rather let the drama speak for itself.The plot revolves around the moments of both heroism and terror after the Titanic begins to sink, slowly but steadily. As the ship was popularly deemed "unsinkable," many of the passengers opt to stay with the ship, as we the viewer are helpless to tell them otherwise. Many of these moments come straight from survivors which lends a great air of authenticity. One major subplot of the film entails the activity, or rather inactivity, of the liner SS Californian. What might have happened if the distress call was received is almost too heart- wrenching to bear, and the film lets this sink in slowly. In a narrative sense, this could have easily been too dry for audiences, like it was with Tora! Tora! Tora!. However, because of the source material, as well as the painstaking detail, the story is never dull, nor does it ever lose its suspense, all the way to the end. The casting uses fine respected British actors, but they were far from"stars." In this way, again like united 93, the people become far more "real" for us, and therefore there is no previous baggage for the actors to try to leave behind. Some of this acting is sublime, scubas Kenneth More's portrayal of 2nd Officer Lightoller, arguably the protagonist of the film.Others do fine in their roles, but some are rather crusty with no personalities, but this is perhaps the intent of the actors, so I give it leeway. Technically, the film is quite well produced. The legendary director of photography Geoffrey Unsworth brilliantly uses the camera to give weight and size to the ship, and intimacy of the human element. All in all, the production is well guided by director Roy Baker and producer William MacQuitty, who both try to reproduce the liner in all of its glory. It did not have the budget of James Cameron's film, but that does not make it any less of an achievement than that great film was. If there is anything to be considered "lackluster" in this movie, it would probably be the model work involved. I am a huge fan of miniature models and many times in film they are used well, rarely giving away scale. In this case, most of the shots work, making the Titanic looks grand. It is far better than the 1953 version of Titanic by leaps and bounds. However, the shots of the stern in the air and sliding into the ocean are not particularly convincing, but I will overlooks it as I am engrossed in the story. Also it sinks in one piece, but as this was the common perception at the time, it can also be forgiven.I am ashamed that this movie does not get as much attention as it deserves. I myself love James Cameron's film and it is indeed a special and brilliant spectacle. However, both are definitive accounts of Titanic, and both should be viewed.

Marc Israel The recreation of the famous world event seems to have been meticulously accurate and tragically predictable. Roy Ward Allen places you on the ship full of social class, exquisite tastes and proper procedure but, unfortunately, not enough life boats for everyone. While the much heralded James Cameron film 40 years later would out-do the special effects, its' interior of the ship in 1958 production is incredibly the same as its' remake, a tribute to the detail of those in charge. What is missing for the first third of the film, however, is character identity. The first rule of the disaster film genre is to get the audience to care about those in peril. I felt for a father and those locked below in steerage, but hardly anyone else. Cold? Not as cold as the water, the force behind the drama and I needed a bit more to know who to invest my heart with. Without specific rooting interests, I was left to watch inevitable history without the ruse of entertainment.

robertalexanderlindsey THE GREATEST TITANIC FILM OF ALL TIME, and that's all I need to say. For those who have been obsessed with the Titanic for more than a decade, like me, or for those who want to know what really happened on the night of April 14-15, 1912, without having to watch pathetic love stories or listen to corny Celine Dion songs, 'A Night to Remember' is a film that absolutely must be seen, by everyone. It pays more attention to realism and the individual, fascinating true stories of those who were there, and looks very closely at the causes of the disaster, such as the reason for the infamous lack of lifeboats, the failure to deliver ice warnings to the bridge by the Marconi wireless operators, the fact that passengers actually REFUSED to enter the lifeboats and escape the ship until the very end, and the truly gruesome end that awaited the over 1500 passengers and crew who failed to leave the Titanic in time. For those who care about history and humanity, here is the TITANIC, the way it really happened, and the way it should always be remembered.