BRITANNIC 2000

BRITANNIC IS 2000 FILM IN WHICH .TYREE TILLMAN VOLUNTEERED TO HELP MAKE THE ENDING OF ALONG SIDE BRIAN-TRENCHARD SMITH.

= Britannic  (film) =

 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Jump to: navigation, search

 Britannic  is a romantic drama TV film from 2000, directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith and produced for cable network Fox Family. It is a fictional account of the sinking of the HMHS Britannic off the Greek island of Kea in November 1916, that explores the theory that a German agent sabotaged the ocean liner, which then served as a hospital ship for the British Army. The film stars Edward Atterton and Amanda Ryan, with Jacqueline Bisset, Ben Daniels, John Rhys-Davies and Bruce Payneas co-stars.

== [edit] Plot ==

The film opens in Southampton in 1916, where the HMHS Britannic (sister ship of RMS Titanic) has been refitted as a hospital ship for wounded soldiers fighting in the Gallipoli Campaign. Among the nurses who are to serve aboard her is Lady Lewis (Jacqueline Bisset), who is being delivered to Greece via Naples, where her husband has become Ambassador for Great Britain. Traveling with her is Vera Campbell (Amanda Ryan), an operative of British Intelligence posing as Lady Lewis' governess. Campbell is constantly unnerved by the voyage, having survived the sinking of the RMS Titanicfour years previously, losing her husband as well.

Meanwhile, a German spy has boarded the Britannic posing as the ship's chaplain, Chaplain Reynolds (Edward Atterton), and soon discovers that the Britannic is indeed carrying small arms as was believed - although he is unaware that Captain Bartlett (John Rhys-Davies) has placed the small arms aboard as a means of protection against mutiny. Under the articles of war, Reynolds considers his actions against the Britannic to be legal (any attack on a hospital ship in wartime is considered to be a war crime) and sets about initiating a series of sabotage attempts to either take over the Britannic or otherwise sink her, including allying himself with the Irish stokers, all members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, to mutiny and take over the ship.

Over the course of the film, each sabotage attempt is foiled by Vera Campbell - with the eventual co-operation of the ship's crew. Unaware that Campbell is responsible, Reynolds finds himself growing attracted to Campbell whilst the voyage continues. As the two of them spend time together, they fall in love and Campbell finally has sex with Reynolds. However, Campbell soon discovers Reynolds' true identity, that he's a German spy, not a chaplain. Reynolds blows a hole in the port side bow of the ship which blasts a gaping hole in its hull. The Britannic, mortally wounded, tries to sail for Kea Island three miles away, but the beaching operation causes the hospital ship to sink even faster. Campbell soon discovers that William, one of Lady Lewis's children has disappeared and she goes and gets him. Reynolds helps her and they manage to get the boy to the lifeboat before it is lowered. An explosion causes Reynolds to be trapped in a flooding room under debris and he can't get out. Campbell helps Reynolds out and the two of them fight their way throughout the ship, swimming through flooded rooms, vents, grates, and corridors. Finally they make it outside and watch a lifeboat filled with evacuees get smashed to pieces by the still spinning propellers. Reynolds ties Campbell to a line that was thrown from Lady Lewis's lifeboat. Despite her protests, Reynolds throws her into the sea after kissing her one last time. Reynolds floats in the boat and is killed by the propellers. A few moments later, the ship rolls over onto her starboard side the two forward funnels collapse and everything on the deck topled into the sea like toys and sinks beneath the waves. Then a warship, HMS Victoria, arrives on the scene and rescues the survivors.

Britannic (TV) More at IMDbPro »

 '''Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.'''

13 out of 15 people found the following review useful: Torpedo or Mine?, 2 January 2004 Author:Howard Morley (luke@morleys.demon.co.uk) from London, England

Firstly the facts:R.M.S.Britannic was the third of the "Olympic" class of liners to be launched by White Star from Harland & Woolf's shipyard in Belfast after the original "Olympic" (1910) and "Titanic" (1911).She was launched in 1914 but due to the outbreak of the First World War in Britain in August of that year, was requisitioned by the Admiralty and soon converted into a hospital ship with her distinct white hull and huge red cross on her sides.On her 6th outward voyage to the island of Mudros (Greece) she was either torpedoed or mined in the Kea channel in November 1916.The actual cause is still something of a mystery and I presume this doubt partly inspired the "plot".Lessons had been learnt from the earlier loss of "Titanic" (1912), notably the cellular double bottom, higher watertight bulkheads together with distinctive and exaggerated davits from each of which several lifeboats could quickly be launched. Mercifully there was minimal loss of life since it only had the White Star crew and medical staff onboard who were going to tend the casualites arising from Winston Churchill's ill advised Gallipoli campaign (1915) which he ordered when acting as First Lord of the Admiralty.Had this tragedy occurred after embarkation of the troops, the disaster could have become monumental.As one perceptive critic has observed below, one Violet Jessop had the dubious distinction in serving as steward/nurse on all the three aforementioned sister ships but was not mentioned in the film. It seems almost "de rigeur" in all these type of marine disaster films to have a fictional slushy love story wrapped up in a few facts.We had Robert Wagner and Audrey Dalton in "Titanic"(1953) Leonardo de Caprio and Kate Winslet in "Titanic" (1997) to name but two.I have read Robert Ballard's account of his expedition to the wreck which is still in remarkable condition lying on her starboard side when compared to what is left of "Titanic".I also have another video which explores the second explosion (the first being caused either from a German mine or torpedo) and whether this was caused by igniting coal dust or cold water causing the exposed boilers to explode.The most fascinatng part of the film was what appeared to be authentic newsreel footage of the launching of "Britannic" as I had never seen this before.As regards the film itself, it can only be judged on entertainment value alone.Present are the usual Hollywood stereotypes of "Irish Freedom Fighters" given free reign in a wildly imaginative plot adequatly dealt with by my fellow reviewers below. Violet Jessop fractured her scull in the water as the ship ploughed on while her rising propellers still turned and I assume this gave rise to the suicidal scene where the German agent commits virtual suicide while sitting in his life boat as it advances towards them without making an effort to avoid them.This was at odds with his desperate escape earlier.On enertainment value alone I rated it 5/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Enjoyable, 5 December 2003 Author:blueroots

LOL.Some of the previous "reviewers" seem to have forgotten that this TV Movie wasn't intended to be a history class!If you're looking for a documentary on the Britannic this isn't it.If you're looking for a well acted,entertaining hour and half than you might like this movie.I do agree with the person who mentioned the cheesy special effects and some of the cringe-inducing dialoge.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Characters' actions more puzzling than ship's demise, 19 July 2003 Author:mlevans from Oklahoma

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Britannic's tragic story will never generate the same interest or emotion as that of her more famous sister ship. Still, the Britannic met an even more mysterious fate and does constitute the world's largest shipwreck (the Britannic having been 20 feet longer than Titanic). This brings us to the 2000 made-for-TV movie. Overall, it provided an enjoyable evening's entertainment. It wasn't until near the climax that some disturbing anachronisms and very unlikely character behaviors began to seriously take away from my enjoyment. The film features Amanda Ryan as governess/British intelligence agent Vera Campbell, along with would-be chaplain/German intelligence agent/saboteur Father Reynolds (Edward Atterton). Jacqueline Bisset, as an aging and infirm aristocratic English matron, is the only big name in the cast-and her role is somewhat small. The cast is solid, though, also including John Rhys-Davies as Captain Barrett and Ben Daniels as First Officer Townsend. SPOILERS There is certainly plenty of room for speculation with the Britannic story. Did it hit a mine? Was it torpedoed? Was an internal explosion the primary (or a secondary) cause of the sinking? If so, was it intentional? Was the hospital ship carrying contraband troops (as the real-life Germans seemed to believe) or a cache of weapons (as the movie Germans rightly believed)? These are all fair questions and any halfway feasible explanation is about as good as another. Therefore I had no trouble with the basic premise of a German spy on board and a German U-boat being involved-although the film shows the U-boat failing to sink the ship and then being destroyed by a British warship-something that did not happen. Other than the tiresome, ever-present presence of a 1990s feminist, EXPECTING 1990s treatment (and thoroughly surprised and outraged when her male antagonists act basically as they would have in 1916 instead of 2000), the film has a few other anachronisms. For one, Atterton and Major Baker (Bruce Payne), the ship's doctor, glibly discuss the explosive dangers of coal dust in the bunkers. I could be wrong, but hasn't this phenomenon been discovered only in the past 25 or so years? Secondly, this IS 1916. Whatever Vera Campbell's morals, her sudden and uninvited (at least expressly uninvited) return to Reynold's cabin where she immediately began disrobing without a word is quite a stretch! Not having figured out his ulterior plans, she still thought he was a minister. True, they were beginning to be very attracted to each other. Yes, they had shared a steamy kiss a short while before. In 2000, perhaps the woman returning and diving into the man's bed would be a feasible occurrence. But with a MINISTER, in 1916? Not that the two of them COULDN'T have gotten together during the movie…but, my gosh…if nothing else, her assuming that he would welcome her advances was a clear lack of respect for the man and his principals! I would have to believe that 85% of REAL ministers in 1916 would have been both flabbergasted and offended (if titillated ) by a young women bursting into his room (even after sharing an earlier kiss) and disrobing. This pales in comparison, though, with Agent Baker's suicidal desire to rescue Reynolds-AFTER she knew he was responsible for sinking the ship! Her being hesitant to leave him trapped in the sinking ship I can understand. But running back onto the ship to miraculously (love the length of time TV shipwreckees can hold their breath!) save a man who undoubtedly WOULD HANG within a few weeks' time is preposterous. What's more, despite her feminine racing heart (funny how these 1990s feminists are somehow too `feminine' to make a logical decision in movieland!), as a trained operative, she would KNOW that by aiding and abetting the enemy, she would be facing a REAL danger of being hanged, herself! This is where I felt cheated. A pre-flapper female charging around the decks of a ship, firing a pistol…OK…I can buy that within this context. There WERE female operatives throughout history. Yet, in making the character feminine and human enough to be liked, why does she have to make a mockery of the training she supposedly had received? My only possible explanation for this apparent plot hole is that only the two of them and the now-dead doctor (Payne) knew Reynold's identity. Perhaps Vera hoped they could just pretend he really WAS an innocent minister and forge a life together. This, too, sounds outrageous-although, under the stress and passion of the moment, perhaps such muddled thoughts COULD have been running through her mind. In any case, Britannic is an intriguing little film, but one which leaves the viewer with more questions about the characters' bizarre actions than about the mystery of the ship's actual sinking.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful: Not as good as James Cameron's Titanic but better than SOS Titanic, 2 May 2003 Author:de_niro_2001 from scotland

Another reviewer compared this to Young Indiana Jones and it's a fair comparison. The presence of John Rhys-Davies reinforces the comparison. Amanda Ryan is a lovely looking actress. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of her before. I didn't think Britannic would be particularly good as it is a made for TV movie and they tend not to be too memorable but I was pleasantly surprised. Naturally the effects are not as good as those in James Cameron's film. Some shots, though, do remind you of shots in Titanic but mostly they're the kind of graphics you see in historical TV documentaries. There is quite a bit of suspense in it and the presence of the two kids makes it a good family film. Miss Ryan goes undercover as a governess and this is a departure from the way they are usually portrayed, as sadistic tyrants who abuse the children in their care. It is definitely better than SOS Titanic and the Catherine Zeta-Jones mini-series Titanic. Jacques Cousteau's discovery of the wreck is referred to at the end of the film and if anyone's interest in the Britannic has been kindled by this film I'd recommend that you try and get hold of the National Geographic video of Jacques Cousteau's 1976 expedition. It is very interesting. In 1976 some of the survivors were still alive and they give first hand testimonies in this documentary. One survivor, an elderly lady from Edinburgh, Mrs Sheila Macbeth-Mitchell went down in one of Cousteau's submarines to the wreck. She must have been 86 at the time but still brimming with enthusiasm and fun. She definitely would have been interested in this film.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">8 out of 10 people found the following review useful: Too far from the facts, too close to Cameron's Titanic..., 9 January 2000 Author:Michael R. Tomkins from Knoxville, TN

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Britannic starts off quite well, with relatively good effects and interesting characters, although its claim of being "based on true events" is very misleading, somewhat similar to saying that Men In Black was based on true events as Earth, where it was based, existed. The Britannic did indeed sink off Greece, although the sinking was believed due to a torpedo strike or mine, not German agents on board the ship as the film pretends. Too many facts are wrong in this film, either made up or worse still blatantly contradicting the real event - but taken as a work of total fiction, which it basically is, it is still enjoyable. That said, it just copies its sibling, James Cameron's Titanic, far too much - too many things in this film are copies of Titanic's plot, right down to the love story between two people of different classes - in this case German and British rather than First Class and Third Class. The film weakens noticeably towards the end, the special effects (which seem to have been quickly put together by the same effects house as for Titanic, but with little of the attention to detail) get a lot poorer, and the plot falls to pieces in its attempts to copy the Titanic formula. Watch it if you've nothing else better to do, but don't expect the plot to live up to the real event's promise...

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">7 out of 10 people found the following review useful: Titanics sister, 15 June 2001 Author:anaximandros from Sweden

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This film isn't a top movie exactly but its history is interesting. The Titanic is world famous for its destiny but her sister the Britannic who followed the same fate is almost forgotten. I think it was very interesting to learn about the Britannic and it's destiny. It's important not to forget such incident. I really recommend you to see this movie even if it isn't the best made.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">10 out of 16 people found the following review useful: Good film - but awful mistake!, 20 May 2003 Author:DFBrowne from Ireland

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">While this is one of the better sort of 'made for TV movies', it did contain one mistake that made me cringe. During a conversation between the German Spy and an Irish accomplice, the accomplice states that many of the Irish seamen aboard will be glad to take part in the seizure of the ship because ' they've had family killed by the Black and Tans'. This is supposed to be 1916. The Black and Tans weren't founded until 1920. Its just a pity that that small element wasn't properly checked out first.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">5 out of 7 people found the following review useful: hodgepodge telling of the fate of Titanic's sister ship, 12 April 2004 Author:zpzjones from East Coast, U.S.A.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I wouldn't say this movie was tacked together to take advantage of the Cameron Titanic's fame and box office success. Honest! First off it's made for t.v. and contrary to how the film tells the story of Britannic, there are some pretty good CGI effects. So being on t.v. there is no box office to appeal to. I just wish the Fox Family channel who produced this would have pertained more to what really happened on Britannic. Perhaps that's what documentaries are for as in the Discovery Channel's excellent docu on the Britannic's story and filming of her wreck. But if you go into this movie with prior knowledge of the real Britannic, you can enjoy this movie for what it is. Like I said there are CGi effects in this that could rival the Cameron Titanic. The story concerns a female undercover agent recruited by the British in 1916 to fish out a German Spy on the ship. I won't say what happens except that she gets him in more ways than one. The film makers spend much time recreating and touring different sections of the Britannic as they tell their story. What the ship looked like in the engine room or on the bridge or the lifeboat area etc. So those are pluses in the movie. John Rhys-Davies as the Captain is improbable here(he doesn't look anything like the Britannic's real Captain Bartlett). But I like Rhys-Davies as he is very portly and looks 'Captainly' ... is that a word. Don't take this story about the Britannic 'too' seriously. It's not what happened except that the ship sinks. But enjoy it for the 2 hours it gives you. Better yet go to the web or to a library to find much more bonafide info on this somewhat forgotten tragedy.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">6 out of 9 people found the following review useful: Entertaining..worth a look!, 27 November 2003 Author:yellowdoby from Canada

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The "special effects" are nothing to write home about,and there is some corny dialogue,but it is entertaining to watch.The acting is terrific by all the actors,but the two kids got on my nerves.If you're a fan of Ryan,than you'll love it;she is wonderful in the role of Vera Campbell,and she is in practically every scene.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">6 out of 9 people found the following review useful: '''Ripping Yarn! Young 'Indiana' Jones Style Adventure''', 10 January 2000 Author:Beery1 from Boston, Massachusetts

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I watched the movie, prepared for the usual fluff T.V. movie fare, but I was thrilled to discover a very fine, well acted movie with a gripping plot and excellent special effects. The film has some weak points: historical fact takes a bit of a beating, and the plot suffers from the usual tendency of T.V. movies to give away the plot and the motivations of its characters too soon. Even so, it still turns out to be a very thrilling movie. It succeeds in showing off some new acting talent, and it illustrates how good a T.V. movie can be, if given time and a good storyline. This movie also showcases the latest in special effects: the HMHS Britannic of this movie rivals James Cameron's Titanic in the way David Beavis creates the largest (though least-known) passenger liner ever created. While the FX sometimes seem a bit too polished, they are certainly worthy of the best movie effects technicians. Both Amanda Ryan and Edward Atterton give good quality performances as the main protagonists, both of whom are haunted by conflicting loyalties and self-doubt. John Rhys-Davies does his usual competent job as the stiff-upper-lipped captain of the great liner, and Bruce Payne (of Passenger 57 fame) pulls off a small but convincing part as the ship's doctor. All in all, a stirring adventure yarn. If you like old-fashioned adventure movies like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', or older pre-George Lucas/Steven Spielberg films such as 'The Riddle of the Sands' or 'Zeppelin', you'll love this one

<p style="margin: 5pt 0in;">Reviews & Ratings for Britannic (TV) More at IMDbPro »

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> '''Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.'''

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">5 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Sinks Faster Than Titanic, 10 January 2000 Author:comquest from Atlanta, GA

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">At the end of this Fox Family Channel original movie, you find out that Titanic's sister ship, the Britannic, actually sank in 51 minutes -- twice as fast as Titanic. Unfortunately, the movie sails for two hours and the plot begins taking on water long before the ship does. It becomes tiresome and plodding at times and, although a few scenes are compelling, the film fails to generate the excitement that one would expect from a "based on fact" sea tale. The good news is that only 30 people lost their lives when the real Britannic went down. Far more died of boredom while watching this slow-moving flick.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Facts about the Britannic., 19 January 2007 Author:Dante Kindley from United States

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">*** This review may contain spoilers ***

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Here's some facts. Improved safety features included raising 5 bulkheads from E to B deck (it could stay afloat with 6 compartments flooded, dia instead of the Titanic's 4), making it 904 ft. long, 94 ft. wide, compared to 883 ft. and 93 ft. of Titanic, and weighed (est.) 48,000 tons, the Titanic 46,000 tons, so Britannic was the longest, widest, heaviest, and largest of the 3 "Olympic" class ships (Olympic, Titanic, and Britannic). Because of WW1, it never hauled a revenue passenger, it was used as a hospital ship. It's sinking was similar to the Impress Of Ireland in one crucial fact: many port holes were left open. Had the port holes been closed, it probably wouldn't have sank. Some say a torpedo sank it (there was a U-Boat in the area), but it was more likely a mine (the U-Boat had laying mines in that path). Here's a mistake in the movie: the explosion was from a bottle of ether in a coal bunker.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Very interesting story line, but disappointing scene., 26 September 2006 Author:Jake from United States

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">*** This review may contain spoilers ***

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I believe this movie was made for TV, and I think that I have seen better special effects in an older video game. But I don't think that those things make this a bad movie, the plot is interesting and the movie never gets boring. If you are looking for a historically accurate story of the Britannic, then you might not like this movie. It is true that the Britannic was the sister ship of the famous Titanic, that it was suppose to be even safer and grander, and then the ship was commissioned by the British government as a hospital ship during World War One. But the story about spies on board, and that they were the ones that made the ship sink is not true. The ship was really sunk by a mine, or torpedo and I really doubt that there were any spies. The movie is not rated; I don't remember any swear words, or crude language. There is some violence, but it is not bad. But I was disappointed that the movie does have a nude/sex scene, in which Amanda Ryan shows off her stuff. This scene really disappointed me because the movie had been so clean and family friendly until that point. But I really do think that this movie was interesting, and if cheesy special effects, and nudity (You can always hit the skip button) do not bug you I would suggest watching this movie.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">3 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Disgraceful, 24 March 2001 Author:rmssw from Akron, OH

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">30 or so people died when the H.M.H.S Britannic sank, 55 minutes after striking a mine, and this is how we respect them? I am shocked at the fact that the film makers had the nerve to use the name Britannic in this steaming pile of a movie. Don't even bother seeing this movie for yourself, the real story is far more dramatic. For instance, Violet Jessop, who was a nurse on the Britannic, was also on the Titanic 4 years earlier, and she was onboard the Titanic's other sister ship, the R.M.S. Olympic, when she collided with the British cruiser, the H.M.S. Hawke, in 1911. This poor women was on all three Olympic-Class liners (as they were called) when they experienced tragedies, and she isn't even mentioned. However, I believe that the main character in the movie is loosely based on her.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Made for TV, 8 August 2012 Author:James Turnbull (jturnbull@xtra.co.nz) from New Zealand

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">*** This review may contain spoilers ***

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">While this is an obvious made-for-TV follow up to Titanic (Cameron) it does draw attention to a signficant shipwreck that has been largely forgotten. Bollards relatively recent expedition has shown that the ship was sunk by torpedo's as shown, but sunk because the portholes were open and the bulkhead doors were not closed. It is indeed fortunate that it happened on an inwards transit because on an outwards one the loss of life would have been enormous. Yet again we have intrigue and romance fictionally built into a disaster movie but the truth of the matter is that the sinking of Britannic was an act of war with minimal loss of life. With what had happened in Galipoli and the Western Front it was hardly newsworthy. The movie for all its slights of hand might have just made its sinking more noteworthy than has otherwise been the case.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Sub standard heroics on one boring ship, 28 November 2011 Author:Leofwine_draca from United Kingdom

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">A cheap cash-in on TITANIC, replacing the heading-for-an-iceberg storyline with one involving a German agent (this is set during the First World War) with plans to sabotage the titular hospital ship. BRITANNIC is sub standard in every respect, with poor casting, a laughable script and all manner of low-rent heroics which never convince. When I tell you that this is a made-for-TV movie, all of the above will make sense. I watched it for Brian Trenchard-Smith, the maverick B-movie director of TURKEY SHOOT and THE MAN FROM HONG KONG, who can still make a decent Z-grade flick occasionally (I'm thinking AZTEC REX). Sadly, Britannic isn't one of his better films, as it's an entirely forgettable escapade which pales in comparison to just about any other seafaring movie you can mention. The leads are dull, the only cast interest comes from three B-flick veterans (John Rhys-Davies, delightful as the gruff captain; Bruce Payne, not a bad guy for a chance; Wolf Kahler in his usual typecast role) and the most offensive part of the story is that we're supposed to buy a romance between the female agent and the German spy! Even worse, we're supposed to sympathise with the guy's predicament when he's the one responsible for what happens in the first place; I don't know about you, but I was cheering when the propeller appeared.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">2 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Finally, a reason to live!, 18 February 2006 Author:cgillespie202 from United States

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">In lieu of composing a comprehensive summary of the film in question, I would simply like to submit this to the curious viewer: My advice, son, is go to sea. There you will find more than you bargain for, and, if all is as it should be, meet the nanny of your dreams. The hatred of the aristocracy is entirely natural, but one's affection for the coal miners, sweepers, or shovelers must be brought to the screen to be believed. Now for the Volta of text: Many Germans are in fact spies. Many nannies are in fact spies. Many nannies are in fact available. Finally: I only was able to discover the film (the film in question, that is) by virtue of a fortunate Flaw in the Matrix: All cable channels numbered between 26 and 52 were mysteriously frozen for a certain period on a certain date. (By way of an afterthought: the scrawl on Fox News Channel at the time read "Biologists discover a huge ---")...

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">2 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Spoiler: An unfortunate pseudo-documentary, 28 July 2000 Author:scarlet-23 from New York City, United States

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">*** This review may contain spoilers ***

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Jacqueline Bisset a once and still magnificently beautiful and talented actress is regrettably the most notorious name in the cast. It is so unfortunate that she allowed herself to become a part of its ensemble since the film has little, if any, value at all. As can be expected, the film attempted to ride on the coattails of the enormously successful, Titanic, but fell far short of its expectations. Most importantly, it is not historically correct. The same argument could be made regarding Titanic, as the characters were fictional. However, in the case of The Brittanic, not only are the characters fictious, so is the plot. In addition, the rating is decidedly incorrect, as the film is full of violence and should have received an R rating for its violence alone. I surely regret having to pan a film starring Ms. Bisset. However this film does not deserve to have been distributed and certainly not under the guise under which it was. Hopefully, having received as little publicity as it did, it will not reach a much larger audience than it has to date.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">3 out of 6 people found the following review useful: A fair film!, 8 August 2005 Author:Movie Nuttball from U.S.A.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">*** This review may contain spoilers ***

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Britannic is a good film that has a good cast which includes Edward Atterton, Amanda Ryan, Jacqueline Bisset, Ben Daniels, John Rhys-Davies, Bruce Payne, Alex Ferns, Eleanor Oakley, Archie Davies, Ed Stobart, Adam Bareham, David Lumsden, Wolf Kahler, Philip Rham, Daniel Coonan, Daniel Tatarsky, and Martin Savage! The acting by all of these actors is very good. Rhys-Davies and Payne are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The nudity scene was a bit unneeded and I thought it brought down the impact of the film a few stars. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Edward Atterton, Amanda Ryan, Jacqueline Bisset, Ben Daniels, John Rhys-Davies, Bruce Payne, Alex Ferns, Eleanor Oakley, Archie Davies, the rest of the cast in the film, Thrillers, Dramas, Romance, War, Action, Mystery, and interesting true stories films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">3 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Not half as good as TITANIC, but still somewhat entertaining., 21 September 2002 Author:Jack the Ripper1888 from Chicagooooooo

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The latter TITANIC was not the epic film about the perilous disaster that the ship beheld when it crashed into an iceberg. No, TITANIC was a mediocre love story written around the ship's disaster. And, this film made the pathetic mistake a few years ago, to try and rip off the success of that first movie with making a TV "special" about the tragic journey of Titanic's sister ship (this TV special also included about a zillion commercials). The characters are even less interesting than they were in TITANIC, and the special effects and camerawork and not nearly as good. And this is not a good thing, especially since the producers obviously made sure that everyone knew this film was coming, so that they would watch it. And when it finally arrives, it is a complete and total flop. This did not keep me from buying again for my video collection when I saw it at Hollywood for under five dollars. All together, the storyline is slightly more interesting, as there are several gunfights and thrilling moments in which people are chased around. The film is not the thriller that it says it is. It is just another average film based on your true story (with the facts altered of course) and tries to rip off of the success of its predecessor. BRITANNIC gets 2/5.

<p style="margin: 5pt 0in;">Reviews & Ratings for Britannic (TV) More at IMDbPro »

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> '''Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.'''

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">4 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Far from the truth but very well done., 25 March 2000 Author:Danorgan from Maryland

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This movie was defanately far from the truth. There were not german agents onboard who tried to blow up the ship and sink it and the ship didn't get hijacked and crew members were not shot by german spys. The Britannic was torpedoed off of Greece. So, this movie was extremely fictional so if you are looking for something historical acurate, this will not make your list. But, the story, I personally thought, was very neat and the effects and settings were very well done and looked very true to life. It's worth the time watching but THIS IS FICTION!

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">5 out of 10 people found the following review useful: great film, 21 April 2002 Author:George Ferdinando from Edinburgh, Scotland

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Hi I loved this film, i thought it would be dull but it was exciting and the actors where very good, if people think it will be like Titanic then they are wrong this films story is much better and its about time there was a film made on the Britannic. Thanks quacker31

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">0 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Terribly disappointing ending, 11 September 2010 Author:LemonGrove from United Kingdom

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">*** This review may contain spoilers ***

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">My review of the plot of Britannic would only mirror other reviews, it's a good movie and does well with it's budget. It is a little to similar to Titanic for my liking in that there is unexpected romance aboard a large ship that sinks. It's still very watchable until right at the end when the ship actually sinks. It switches from real footage of the characters to a computer animation of the ship sinking. The ship then topples over and sinks in all of about 10 seconds. The fact that it's animated couldn't be more obvious. It's such a let down, they coped well with the low budget throughout, then at the climax of it all they cheap out with some very nasty CGI.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">0 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Britannic, 12 August 2009 Author:Jackson Booth-Millard from United Kingdom

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">*** This review may contain spoilers ***

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">After the high-budget high-gross success of James Cameron's Titanic, it is quite inevitable to try and make a copy-cat film about something based on the same idea. In this TV made case, it is a fictionalised story of the events concerning the Titanic's sister ship. Basically, the Britannic was a hospital ship carrying thousands of medical supplies to be used for the troops of the First World War. As it is wartime, a certain passenger, British Secret Service agent Vera Campbell (Amanda Ryan), and a survivor from the Titanic sinking, is searching for German spies. The Germans' attempt to take over the ship fails, and the spy, Reynolds (Edward Atterton) sees no choice but to cause the ship to sink. There is a lot of discussion as to how the ship sunk, it was either mine or torpedo, in this case (true or untrue, I don't know) it is a strong alcohol dropped down a drain. Obviously when the ship has water coming in very slowly, Captain Barrett (John Rhys-Davies) gives the order to abandon ship, and while Vera gets out alive, Reynolds is mashed by a propeller, and the ship eventually topples over and sinks completely. Also starring Jacqueline Bisset as Lady Lewis, Ben Daniels as First Officer Townsend, Bruce Payne as Dr. Baker, EastEnders' Alex Ferns as Stoker Evans and Eleanor Oakley as Sarah Lewis. The story is pretty thin, the acting is a little lame, and the special effects (being made for TV) are nowhere near the quality Titanic had to offer, but it does have its moments. Okay!

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">1 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Completly fiction, hardly any truth., 1 December 2003 Author:Yourbigpalal83-1 from Long Island New York

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">As a hobby as a child, i studied the sinking of the Titanic and the history surrounding her and her sister ships, the Olympic and Britannic, and the work of Dr Robert D Ballard, the man who located the wreck of the Titanic and later on went to explore Britannic. Now, when i sat down to watch this film a few years back, (and to re watch it) i was expecting a somewhat historical film with little if any hollywood emblishing. How wrong was I. This film is almost completly false. From the german spy to one of the main charators shooting a machine gun to avoid a torpedo (if i recall correctly) to the almost stupid attempt at being a hero by alowing ones self to be chopped up in the ships spinning props, its just lays it on too thick. Now, given the fact its a made for tv movie, and it was made with the soul purpose of cashing in on camerons titanic, it still could have been done somewhat well and not rushed. I mean, the story is almost generic, the plot completly bull, and the acting worse then a tuesday afternoon soap opera. In closing, this film didn't need to "expand" on its historical counterpart,which athough not as dramatic nor romantic as the sinking of titanic, had enough going to make a somewhat decent movie. This is not that movie, this is hollywood emblishing at its worst, and to boot it was made just to cash in on titanic.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">1 out of 3 people found the following review useful: great start poor finish, 16 July 2000 Author:maw-3

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">We have just viewed this movie. I really wanted to know what happens to this ship. While starting out enjoyable the last 10 minutes are poor. As a women I was disappointed that the hero would seem to forget what side she was on. The special effects at the end were terrible.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Was the above review useful to you?

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">0 out of 2 people found the following review useful: No Worse than an Attack of Malaria, 28 July 2002 Author:Charly-25 from Memphis, TN

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This amazing crapfest came a few years too late to be riding on the coattails of Cameron's Titanic. Which makes one wonder why was it even made. The thin as air plot is based on rumours surrounding the sinking of the ship in 1915, that hold extremely little weight. For the most part the acting is adequate with a special nod to Jacqueline Bisset (she really must have needed the money). Aside from the hysterically unbelievable plot and third rate writing, the worst element of this "flick" was the special effects. Predictable scenes of flooding compartments and passageways, the obligatory swim under water and our heroes being trapped behind locked gates are merely a journey of yawns, compared to the annoying and obvious computer-created graphics of the ship and it's watery demise. I've seen PC games with better and more detailed ships.

== Goofs Edit ==


 * Factual errors: The ship did not sink at early morning before sunrise, but at eight in the morning.


 * Factual errors: The ship did not carry any passengers of any form except for military medical personnel and wounded soldiers.


 * Continuity: Vera Campbell is wearing a different undergarment (or girdle) when she wakes up from spending the night with Chaplain Reynolds then when she arrived at his cabin the night before.


 * Plot holes: It is not possible for a WWI submarine while submerged to shadow a steamer for several days. The steamer is too fast.


 * Factual errors: An Irish crewman claims revenge for the Black and Tans. The Britannic sank in 1916. The Black and Tans were not sent to Ireland until after 1918.


 * Factual errors: The only 30 (est.) deaths were when two life boats were launched before orders were given (when still under way), and sucked into the propellers, and propellers were stopped after orders were given. But in the movie, the propellers were never stopped, and the two life boats were sucked in after all the other life boats had been launched.


 * Plot holes: Most likely there were never any German spies on board, as wreck investigations have revealed that there were no weapons on board, and the most probable reason for the sinking was a mine followed by secondary coal storage explosions, not a bomb. Indeed, a hospital ship carrying weapons would have been a violation of international laws.


 * Factual errors: Britannic's Captain was Charles A. Bartlett, not Charles A. Barrett.

<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 98%; mso-outline-level: 2;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">Full cast and crew for <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 98%; letter-spacing: -0.75pt; font-family: Arial; font-size: 22.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">Britannic <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); letter-spacing: -0.75pt; font-family: Arial; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">(2000) (TV) <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 98%; letter-spacing: -0.75pt; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">More at IMDbPro »

<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center; line-height: 130%;"> ad_utils.register_ad('top_rhs'); <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 130%; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/imdb2.consumer.tv/;tile=3;sz=300x250,300x600,11x1;p=tr;p=tc;ct=com;ua=2;r=afc;id=tt0190281;g=ac;tt=tv;g=brc;g=dr;g=ro;coo=usa;k=c;g=baa;g=hi;g=my;coo=uk;g=war;bpx=1;ab=a;ka=0;ord=333790027371?" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/imdb2.consumer.tv/;tile=3;sz=300x250,300x600,11x1;p=tr;p=tc;ct=com;ua=2;r=afc;id=tt0190281;g=ac;tt=tv;g=brc;g=dr;g=ro;coo=usa;k=c;g=baa;g=hi;g=my;coo=uk;g=war;bpx=1;ab=a;ka=0;ord=333790027371?" border="0" alt="advertisement" /></a>

<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 130%;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 130%; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 130%; display: none; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-hide: all;"> ad feedback

<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 130%; mso-outline-level: 6;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); line-height: 130%; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">(in credits order) <span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); line-height: 130%; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">verified as complete

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> Copyright 2000-present