A Night to Remember (1958) User Reviews

The Definitive Account of the Titanic, Told Through One of the Best Historical Dramas Ever Made

[gus81 · 9/10 · 13 January 2005]

Based on the Walter Lord novel of the same name, A Night to Remember is far and away the most definitive and honest telling of this famous and world-shaking disaster. Flaws it may have, but these largely revolve around a lack of special effects technology available at the time, and a lack of historical evidence due the fact the wreck had not yet been discovered. Despite these minor quibbles, the film is probably the only one to loyally adhere to telling the truth about what happened that night; and it does so in a most compelling way.

Unlike the smartingly awful James Cameron schlock boiler, ANTR doesn't pack a spectacular special effects punch - but nor does it pack a spectacularly corny and improbable love story concocted with teenagers in mind. The producers of ANTR understood that you didn't need a fictitious love story to heighten the tragedy of that night - the bitter irony of the real events sufficed.

And it is this irony and tragedy that the filmmakers brought out absorbingly well. The comprehensive book by Walter Lord was consulted down to the letter; so the story is told as authentically as possible. With a great script involving mainly real historical characters, perfect casting, and performances that show the actors were engrossed in their roles, the film really does shine. The snappy, economical directing is both proof of the lack of pretensiousness of the producers, as well as being extremely effective in bringing out the meaning in each scene. This makes for intelligent and gripping viewing.

Watch out for the poignant scenes in which the crew attempt to contact the nearby Californian to no avail, and Captain Smith walks to the railing and implores God to help them; the scene where the Captain calls "every man for himself", then walks into the wheelhouse just before it dips underwater; and the gripping scene in which Thomas Andrews (the Titanic's designer), a broken man, waits in the smoking room for the end, determined to go down with his creation. All these scenes are powerful, authentic and sincere; scenes in which all the various emotions aroused by such a disaster are brought out very clearly and movingly.

The special effects, although not so brilliant for today, were fantastic for the times; half the ship was actually constructed for life-size shooting, and a large model was also built, complete with miniature little row boats featuring motorised oars, for the long shots. So the maximum effort was made to make as realistic a depiction of the disaster as possible. And, in fact, the interior scenes of the ship are perfectly authentic, and the audience feels that they are actually aboard the Titanic. Only in the long shots, where a model was used, does the film look noticeably dated.

So by sticking as close as possible to the survivor's accounts featured in the Walter Lord novel, and by avoiding modern cinematic clichés, A Night to Remember remains the only Titanic film to provide a genuine account of the sinking of the great ship that is not marred by superficial Hollywood garbage. It tells the story, as it happened, of an event that changed mankind's attitudes toward his own creations; and as such, it brings to the screen the full impact of what this disaster really meant to the world in, as mentioned, a very compelling, poignant and honest way. It is a true testament to British film making.

As a footnote, many actual survivors of the Titanic were on set as the film was being made; and the musical pig in the lifeboat scenes was the actual one from the real disaster. In addition, the Titanic's fourth officer Boxhall was a technical adviser to the production. And the film's producer was there, as a small child, when the actual Titanic was launched in Belfast. This kind of authenticity makes this movie almost a living documentary.

Intelligent, honest and compelling, A Night to Remember is at least one of the best historical films ever made, and is well worth anybody's time. Everyone is bound to get something out of this movie; and indeed it is a powerhouse for anyone with an interest in the Titanic or just history in general. A totally underrated gem.

This is the way it should be done

[MOscarbradley · 9/10 · 7 May 2006]

Roy Baker made this extraordinarily fine film about the sinking of the Titanic in the style of a documentary. Although it has a large cast it has no real stars, except perhaps Kenneth More who was a star in Britain at the time. He is an officer on the ship and is the central, linking character. Constrained by budgetary considerations the film used models but the cutting and the matte-work are so fine you are seldom aware of this. The tragedy engulfs you and the tragedy is of epic proportions. The stories of individual passengers come to the fore and the naturalistic acting of the cast make these stories very moving. The film is an honest tear-jerker in a way American movies never can be. It shows the florid, flabby and bloated James Cameron movie up for what it is.

It May Still Be the Best

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 7 November 2001]

As I looked in awe at the special effects used to create the more recent telling of the story of the Titanic, my mind wandered back to being ten years old and seeing "A Night to Remember" on our black and white TV. Watching the portrayal of the tragic deaths of all those people and realizing that the tragedy was real kept me from sleeping well for several days. While it doesn't have the flash of the contemporary film, it has the heart the newer version never has. No star-crossed lovers, no angry fiances wielding pistols, just the people who trusted the big companies and the engineers to produce an "unsinkable" ship.

This film, which starts slowly, draws us into the lives of the several characters--put together with delicacy from the text of Walter Lord's wonderful book. The tragedy is in the hopelessness of a group of people who are at the mercy of an overall antagonist--arrogance--which will destroy them. It is all dramatic irony, like so many disaster films are and we are the viewers. The movie tries to even inject an element of humor and show the totality of the human spirit, not just the incredible despair. It's what we are.

I'm sure modern viewers will criticize the pacing (although once the action starts, it is remarkably done), but this movie has more emotional clout than Mr. Cameron's also incredible film. The acting is subtle and controlled and if one is looking for heroism, there was plenty to go around on board that ship.

This movie is staggering

[cskocik · 30 June 2004]

I am nothing short of amazed by what the filmmakers pulled off. Before I saw this movie, I tried to write a script that would encompass the whole story of the Titanic. I had stacks of Titanic books scattered around me, a huge map of the Titanic spread out in front of me, and I was overwhelmed by the sheer mountain of anecdotes and facts and technical details and contradictions in survivors' accounts. Reconstructing the event seemed impossible, and finally I abandoned the project by the time I got to about 1:30. Then I saw A Night to Remember, and wouldn't you know, it was exactly what I was trying to do! Kenneth More's portrayal of Lightoller is perfect. Laurence Naismith is heartbreaking as Captain Smith. The factual, historical, and technical detail is so thorough that this may be the most meticulous historical movie ever made -- certainly that I have ever seen. Somehow the stark black-and-white cinematrography is more realistically convincing than James Cameron's full-color treatment, in which things are inexplicably blue. The thing that disappointed me the most about Cameron's film was the lack of reverence for the historical characters. Lightoller, my personal hero, came off as an cowardly twit, Captain Smith as an incompetent fool, Ismay as the force of all evil in the universe, and Benjamin Guggenheim's change into evening ware as an excuse to get drunk! A Night to Remember had that reverence that was so sorely lacking in Cameron's film. Lightoller is portrayed as the hero that he was. Captain Smith is a fine captain who is understandably ovewhelmed by the magnitude of the tragedy facing him. Ismay is irritating, but tries to help out and be a responsible president -- and when he jumps into the lifeboat, well, would any of us do different? And Guggenheim's final stand brings tears to the eyes. The drama of the Carpathia is as exciting as any fictional Hollywood action film. This is the only Titanic movie that addresses the problem of the Californian, and though Lordites will object to the rather anti-Lord portrayal of the events, the facts speak for themselves. If you want to be picky, you can complain that the movie doesn't go into the politics behind building the Olympic and Titanic, or the near-collision with the New York, or lots of the little personal stories, but let's be fair: the movie has two hours to tell the story of, as Walter Lord put it, "the death of a small town." It's simply not possible for a movie, or even a really thick book, to cover everything. I don't think it's possible for a better movie to be made about the Titanic than A Night to Remember.

The unsinkable ship

[jotix100 · 10/10 · 18 March 2006]

"A Night to Remember" is an extraordinary film that gives a magnificent account of the Titanic tragedy. The film is based on Walter Lord's book that describes what happened to the ship, that by all accounts, could not sink. The wonderful script illuminates on the facts of that fateful night in which the Titanic sank in the North Atlantic; it was written by Eric Ambler, in a fabulous adaptation for the screen.

We had seen this film years ago. On second viewing, the movie has kept its impact on us like no other. The amazing cinematography of Geoffrey Unsworth looks as crisp as when it was first released. Contributing to the enjoyment of the film, Sidney Hayers' editing is excellent, as is the music by William Alwyn. This film shot in London's Pinewood Studios seems real, given the technology of the movies in those days.

The human tragedy aboard the Titanic comes across vividly and with high intensity, as the director, Ray Ward Baker, kept everyone moving in perfect formation. One of the many achievements he was able to get from his cast and crew was this precise staging of the story. There is not a false moment in the movie. In keeping the film narrative as a documentary, Mr. Baker gets amazing results from everyone.

Among the large English cast, Kenneth More, has the most important part of the ensemble players. Some of the best English actors, working in films at that time, are seen in the movie. The more prominent faces one sees are Honor Blackman, David McCallum, Alec McCowen, Michael Bryant, among others serve the film well in roles that intermingle without making anyone shine over the rest.

"A Night to Remember" was one of the best English films of the period and it is gratifying to have seen it again after many years looking so well. This is a film to treasure.

The power and the terror

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 10/10 · 1 September 2007]

Along with "Brief Encounter", this picture epitomises perhaps the most classic genre of British film: the tearjerker that invokes the most powerful of emotions by means of understatement and restraint. It's an old favourite of the BBC, who trot it out at regular intervals... but somehow it gets me to watch it every time. And every time -- knowing the film, knowing the history, knowing the legend of hubris and disaster entwined around the very name "Titanic", until the word has lost all connotations of size and evokes only the iceberg and the deadly sea -- every time, I find myself willing hopelessly that things can change. Waiting, with heart in mouth, for the warning to be taken or help to arrive, as if any of my wishing could make it so. The iron grip of events is overwhelming.

One of the most impressive things about this film is the almost flawless way in which large amounts of information are conveyed -- and vast numbers of characters introduced -- without any sense of strain or visible exposition. The Titanic's colossal size and provisioning requirements, her status as a national icon of pride, the proportions and variety of her passenger list, all are mentioned naturally and concisely within the first few minutes; the characters on the whole are not established by name, but only by role -- the card sharp, the Polish emigrant girl, the band leader, the man who goes down to his cabin to get drunk -- which in practice is probably a wise choice. We wouldn't remember the names if they were given (various ship's officers get addressed by name, and frankly I didn't remember most of those).

Another very powerful choice is the decision not to manufacture villains. It would have been easy to demonise characters individually or collectively in order to create an easy hate target for the audience: but it would have been a cheap gesture. People were stupid or hidebound that night; people panicked, or failed to understand. But there was no deliberate malice, and that is the tragedy of it. There were individual moments of nobility and unbearable courage, just as there were acts of blindness and seeming petty motivation, and none of them were the perquisite of any particular group.

As a piece of documentary representation, this is in fact remarkably accurate. The central linking role of Second Officer Lightoller has been deliberately amalgamated out of incidents involving several different officers, and other details -- including the launching ceremony -- invented for the purposes of the film, while the depiction of the ship's final plunge is now known to have been erroneous: but a large proportion of events incorporated into the screenplay are based on meticulous research.

But the great art of this film lies in its use of tiny, effective details to conjure atmosphere or to make a point. A toy pig grabbed: a jewellery-box abandoned. A wry line of dialogue: "Anyone who feels like it can pray -- or you can all come and have a cup of tea". A lapping rim of black-scummed water at the foot of the companionway. A hand silently slipping from its death-grip on an upturned keel...

Within its emotional compass, the picture seldom or never puts a foot wrong. Every point is made quietly, by implication, not hammered into the audience, and is all the more telling for that. The mood shifts very gradually from the humour and optimistic warmth of the voyage opening to the clawing terror of the ship's last moments and the icy drained dark of the night; the pacing is almost perfect. The film need not be a moment longer, and could scarcely last a moment less. It draws upon the greatest traditions of British cinema -- the documentary, the intelligent script, the ensemble cast, the emotional intensity -- and in many ways encapsulates them all.

Definitive retelling

[Leofwine_draca · 10/10 · 22 June 2012]

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is a classic of British cinema: the definitive retelling of the sinking of the Titanic, told as it was and without embellishment. In the more than capable hands of director Roy Ward Baker, this is a taught, tragic and thoroughly compelling disaster movie that beats most of the competition hands down.

One of the reasons that this film works so well is that it's focused throughout on the sinking of the ship. There are no romantic sub-plots to get in the way, no needless conflict between protagonists and antagonists. The iceberg is the only antagonist here. The emphasis is on realism, a careful recreation of the sinking as described in the then-recently released book by Walter Lord.

I especially liked the way that the movie avoids cliché to get the point across. There's little in the way of dramatic music or outright destruction; in fact, everything plays out rather stately, with the minimum of fuss. It may be the British stiff upper lip effect, or the realisation that you don't need to outwardly dramatise such a dramatic story to begin with.

Kenneth More is excellent as the even-handed Lightoller, and he's supported by a familiar cast giving solid turns, even those in minor roles. Particularly good is Michael Goodliffe as the ship's architect, and watch out for a youthful David McCallum too. Altogether this fine movie shows that you don't need CGI spectacle or shoehorned-in love scenes to tell the story; take note, Mr Cameron!

easy solutions

[twoot · 10/10 · 3 December 2004]

Roy Ward Baker's masterly docudrama still holds up well even after nearly a half century. It is a far more historically accurate, and broader-scoped version than the James Cameron 1998 epic. Although I thoroughly enjoyed the latter, the former still wins the prize for historical veracity as well as for dramatic impact.

Les from Brighton asks a couple of questions and poses a few comments meriting response:

Q: With a huge iceberg nearby would it not have been obvious to run the Titanic aground upon it?

A: Obvious, perhaps, but hardly practical. Icebergs are harder than steel and any attempt to beach an ocean liner on a berg (particularly with nearly perpendicular slopes) would only invite more damage to the vessel. There is some speculation that Titanic might have survived if the lookouts had detected the berg only one minute later than they did. The deck officer would have had no time to attempt evasion and Titanic would have rammed the berg-head on instead of sustaining a glancing blow, which peppered the hull with breaches to sea along her port bow three hundred feet aft. Conceivably, for a head on blow the damage might have been restricted to the first two or so of the first four watertight compartments, which might have allowed Titanic to remain afloat.

Q: In a similar vein on spotting the light on the horizon (the Californian) I would have thought that setting out for it in one of the lifeboats manned by as many beefy rowers as they could cram into it might have been a good way to get its attention.

A: SS Californian was anywhere from ten to fifteen miles from RMS Titanic on the night of the sinking. An oar powered life boat (not built for speed but for capacity) with a full crew can make, perhaps, three to four knots on a flat sea. This would mean, roughly, two and a half to four hours for even a beefy lifeboat crew to reach Californian, even if Californian had been close to Titanic, and even if the boat crew had the strength and endurance to pull at maximum speed for the entire time. Titanic struck the iceberg at 11h30 on 14 April and sank at 02h20 on the 15th, slightly under two and a half hours between impact and foundering. There was not enough time to attempt a rescue effort along those lines, and the boat needed for it was better used to get passengers off Titanic.

Q: On the other hand had I been aboard I may have been running around like the rest

A: There was very little running around. The crew of Titanic were unpracticed in evacuation procedures, but they were highly disciplined. They loaded the boats and launched them as quickly and efficiently as they could, but the boats were nowhere near capacity when crew launched them. Walter Lord suggests that one of the factors contributing to the high death rate among passengers (there was room in the lifeboats for 1200 passengers and crew, but only 714 survived) was not necessarily that the large number of steerage passengers were deliberately kept from getting to the boat decks, but that few crew members took the initiative to try encouraging steerage passengers to go the boat decks. Even if a few crew members made the attempt to drive passengers to the weather decks, however, most passengers making it to the deck found it too cold and uncomfortable and simply turned around to go back to the warmth of below decks until it was too late.

Interesting British adaptation retelling the famous tour of the luxury liner

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 7 November 2008]

This notorious and gripping tale concerns about the voyage of the Titanic, it's a watchable reconstruction of what happened on the disastrous night in 1912 written by Eric Ambler and based on Walter Lord's text . The luxury liner is full of people want to flee of misery for a new life in America. At the ship appear passengers from the first and second class of different social and economic ladder and from diverse ends.The luxurious cruiser crashed in the fateful moment with an inevitable iceberg that resulted in the death of more than 1000 passengers. At the finale are told the following words: 'For their sacrifice was not in vain, today there are lifeboats for all, unceasing radio vigil and in the North Atlantic , the International Ice patrol Guards of the sea lanes making them safe for the people of the world'.

Fictional and actual characters are mingled for a detailed reenactment of the luxury liner. Picture is quite effective in conveying the calm and panic on the real sinking . There are the ordinary subplots, personal drama, heroes, cowards, comedians, and musicians. Story gets a little melodramatic but is added an exciting account of danger, risk, despair and courage. Excellent performance by Laurence Naismith as 1ª Captain, John Smith, he's properly correct as the veteran Officer making his last travel before retirement and the Second Officer, Charles Herbert, perfectly acted by Kenneth Moore. And large secondary cast formed by prestigious British actors, as David McCallum, Kenneth Griffith,Alec McCowen,Honor Blackman,Anthony Bushell,Michael Goodliffe... The special effects are impressive, a long model of big size was built for the splendid recreation. Adequate score by William Alwyn and usual musical conductor by Muir Matheson. Evocative and atmospheric black and white cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth.The motion picture is effectively directed by Roy Ward Baker who keeps the outcome of the ship tense and suspenseful, in spite of the end is well known. The story will like everybody , despite we've seen many times.

Another movies about this fateful accident are the following: Titanic(1953) Hollywoodized version by Jean Negulesco with Barbara Stanwyck,Clifton Webb, Robert Wagner and Edmund Purdom in the role of Kenneth Moore; mega-budget and Oscarized adaptation(1997) by James Cameron with Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet and Billy Zane; and TV version(1996)by Robert Lieberman with George C. Scott,Peter Gallagher and Catherine Z. Jones.

Best "Titanic" film, wonderfully produced

[WWalrus · 10/10 · 20 May 2001]

"A Night T Remember" is the BEST of the Titanic films easily superior to the more famous J. Cameron soap opera version. There is no fabricated story to get in the way of the telling of what happened that night in 1912. The ship, itself, seems to be the "star" of the film. Filmed in black and white, it has the feel of being a "docudrama". The DVD version is really the one to have. Not only is the picture excellent, but there are bonus features that are worth the price of the disk - a "making of" documentary featuring the producer of the film, William MacQuitty, and Walter Lord who wrote the book that was the basis for the film (he also wrote a second book correcting some errors in the first one, "The Night Lives On") AND an audio commentary track by two Titanic experts, Don Lynch and Ken Marschall who point out various changes in actual happenings and going into more depth about the role of the "Californian", the ship in visual distance that did not come to aid of the sinking Titanic.

Considering that this film was made in 1958, it is a technical marvel. Yes, there are models used for parts of the film, but they are excellently done. If someone is expecting the computer generated special effects of today, they might be disappointed, but that is nit-picking as you become drawn into the happenings and forget such minor things.

With a predominately British cast or unfamiliar faces, the characters become more real than seeing some familiar Hollywood player in a roll. The performances are excellent and many of the actors have a striking resemblance to photos of the actual people.

There are some things that have now been proven to be incorrect - the ship is shown sinking in one piece and not breaking half - but this was the opinion of the time that is did not break apart. Since the finding of the Titanic on the ocean floor, we now know it did break up. But these things can not take away from a truly excellent film.

Anyone who is fascinated by the Titanic and wants to view a film with a "you are there" feeling should have this excellent production, especially on DVD.

Better Than The Cameron Version

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 12 January 2005]

Everyone knows what happened to the Titanic ( So no spoiler alerts needed ) and the opening credits alone are far bleaker than the entire James Cameron epic of 1997 . In fact you can't help thinking Cameron based much of his overrated romantic fantasy on this far superior movie . In A NIGHT TO REMEMBER we see the little Englander mentality , the somewhat xenophobic attitude and the rigid class structure and of course the hubristic lofty ideals of the British ruling class . Cameron used these threads in his own screenplay but for some reason injected romance , action , adventure and a storyline similar to a James Bond role reversal all set during 1912 A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is different , it's not a melodrama produced to make profits for the staggering cost of its production , it's a historical drama featuring the sinking of The Titianic .

While not being entirely accurate ( It's far more accurate than that other movie ) it is rather understated and rather bleak and Roy Ward Baker directs in an effective documentary style without resorting to an artificial Hollywood blockbuster style or having to change the laws of physics since throughout the disaster characters are reminded that the sinking ship's weight will pull down everything floating nearby , something a later film ridiculously ignored . If I have one criticism about the directing it's once the survivors are in the sea you don't really get the sense of how cold the environment is and we even see at least one character rowing about with the sleeves of his thin shirt rolled up

Far superior to the 1997 mega blockbuster A NIGHT TO REMEMBER shows that a disaster movie / historical drama can be quite effective without being massively expensive . Seven out of Ten

Vividly Effective Docudrama-Style Handling of the Legendary Sinking

[EUyeshima · 8/10 · 26 September 2006]

Sixty-four survivors from the actual Titanic were interviewed extensively by author Walter Lord for his meticulously researched 1955 book, "A Night to Remember", the basis of this still-remarkable 1958 dramatic reenactment of the momentous sinking. Obviously this lends great authenticity to this production, which feels very much like a docudrama offering a diverse gallery of characters to track instead of a main protagonist. While there are inarguably impressive elements in James Cameron's über-successful 1997 epic version of the same tragedy, most specifically the technical details and mind-bending CGI images and effects, this much lower-budget British film manages to feel more dramatically resonant simply because the superficial Hollywoodization of the event is not evident here, i.e., the forced melodrama, heightened romance and stereotypical characters.

Director Roy Baker and screenwriter Eric Ambler draw upon a much broader canvas by having the camera roam through the ship and capture the essence of the various people on board from the boiler room workers to the first class passengers. This compelling approach doesn't change as the ship sinks as we continue to recognize a full emotional range between heroism and cowardice through these characters. The other aspects that this version handles well are the specific construction-related reasons for the ultimate sinking and the roles played by two other ships during the tragedy. Not only was there the Carpathia, too far away to get to the Titanic on time yet there to pick up survivors, but also the Californian, a steamship only ten miles away and within sight. As vividly portrayed in the movie, the officers of the Californian misinterpreted the distress signals and did nothing to come to the Titanic's aid. You will likely recognize several scenes here that were repeated almost verbatim in Cameron's film, in particular, the lifeboat-boarding scenes and the aftermath of the sinking. What doesn't sync up is the ship dramatically breaking in two, a fact not depicted in the film since it was not verified until years afterward.

The primitive nature of the special effects may frustrate younger viewers, even though the then-standard use of small models is still pretty impressive on its own. The film also spends a bit too much time with incidental characters such as the drunken baker and the dedicated string musicians. There are a few familiar faces in the large cast, chief among them Kenneth More as the heroic second officer whose forward-moving calm saved many lives, Honor Blackman (later Bond girl Pussy Galore in "Goldfinger") as the young newlywed determined to stay with her husband, and David McCallum (Ilya Kuryakan on TV's "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.") as an assistant wire operator. Geoffrey Unsworth is responsible for the striking black-and-white cinematography. The 1998 Criterion Collection DVD has an excellent hour-long making-of feature, as well as an interesting commentary track by Titanic experts Don Lynch and Ken Marshall. Two trailers round out the extras.

That sinking feeling.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 9 May 2006]

There are two crummy movies about the sinking of the Titanic and one good movie. This is the good one. (I'm not counting a German propaganda feature which was actually pretty good.)

Oh, it's oooold. And it's black and white. And the sound is monaural and nobody under the age of thirty has heard of any of the actors, but it's an unpretentious if somewhat fictionalized story of a real tragedy. The other two movies, which shall go nameless here, are soap operas wrapped around a multitude of historically accurate period details. The most recent "Titanic" used silverware manufactured by the original silverware maker of the original Titanic. The shoes of the actors were made of the same leather. The wigs were made of exact duplicates of the hair worn by Titanic's passengers. Even some of the passengers themselves, dead lo these ninety-some years were exhumed and electronically animated sufficiently to walk through their parts. Alas, speech organs being more frangible, the animatronic marvels could only gurgle instead of speak, but the Foley artists took care of that.

I made that all up, but the point is that historical accuracy is no substitute for decent film making.

Does it really matter much if the Titanic's hull broke in two before (or during) its sinking? Does it matter if the little band didn't play "Nearer My God To Thee"? Nope. Because this isn't the simple story of a ship sinking. It's a story of hubris, of man's attempt to defy luck and -- how does one character put it? -- "conquer nature"? The problem is that nature isn't an enemy to be conquered. It's completely indifferent to our fate. The sea, that rich broth we rose from, will continue to swallow our follies until we incapacitate it. When it ends, we end too.

There isn't much acting in this movie because not much is called for. Kenneth More is a suitable hero. But I also approved of the way the wireless operators were dealt with, possibly because I was one for a few years. The direction is functional without being in the least splashy. I mean splashy in the stylistic sense.

It's a decent movie, made for adults, a story of a shipwreck in which roughly 1500 people died, not the story of a dysfunctional relationship whose problems are solved by an iceberg. Well worth watching.

Lifeless Characters, and that empty TV feel ...

[thespeos · 4/10 · 22 February 2022]

Maybe as a dramatic documentary ... but as a story based on history ... no. It falls flat.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Most know the general story so I won't belabor that. But this telling of the history has some problems as to storytelling and film-making:

1. There are no characters here who we get to know. It's as if the characters were without personalities, like robots.

This is not supposed to be a documentary; so how can are we supposed to be emotionally invested in human props???

It left me with a cold, sinking feeling the whole film --- yes, like being out on icy waters.

2. It jumps around trying to give us a sense of the diversity of passengers, and also convey the timeline. The problem is that in doing so we get a very superficial view of people, and the timeline feels horribly crooked. It's frayed.

3. The absurdity in human behavior here is either magnificent incompetence or errors in capturing the facts. Dunno.

4. The constant introduction of new characters that are seemingly important nearing the end makes absolutely no sense!

ACTING: Yes, as I've stressed so many times, the Brits acting skill has no parallel. However, here they are at there most stiff, which undermines the film. Yes, things run amok near the end, but still, it's too late (the film was already sinking).

TEMPO: The pace is OK, but the film jumps around unnecessarily and introduces useless side plots that make it feel jumbled.

CINEMATOGRAPHY: OK considering the story

DIRECTING / WRITING: There's a reason this feels like its directed by someone with a myopic brain, Baker shifted to TV just four years after this. That tells me he couldn't produce good feature-length film. As to the writers ... as per usual, they were "TV-people" and obviously this was an attempt that proved they should have stuck to TV.

Is it a good film? No, unless you just want to watch a massive ship sink

Should you watch this once? Yes. You will see a potentially good film ruined by its stewards.

Rating: 4.0.

Emotionally impacting, factually informative and surprisingly involving and fast paced

[bob the moo · 17 January 2005]

The Titanic was to be the greatest ship ever made, a veritable city on the sea moving between England and New York. Made in Belfast, the ship travels to England before its maiden voyage, which it makes loaded with over 2,100 people ranging from the richest gentlemen in first class down to those in stowage seeking a new life in America. However, a series of errors and oversights result in the Titanic striking an iceberg and ripping a gash along the side below the water level. As the "unsinkable" ship starts to fill with water the shortcomings of having only 1200 lifeboat spaces sinks in.

It has become very fashionable now to hate James Cameron's Titanic and it is the norm now, not only to prefer this film but to actively hate the 97 film in any review of other versions! I'm not a fan of the rather bloating modern film but I will refrain from making this review about that film and will focus on the one I've just seen. The first thing you notice here is how quickly the film moves and, after only a very brief introduction to the characters we are underway and hitting the ice. Shorn of romantic subplots and heart-tugging sweeping scores this is a very good approach and it simply lets the facts of the event and the real horror speak for themselves. In the remake we were supposed to get our emotional attachment to one or two characters based on their love for one another; here the film respects our humanity enough to know that we will be touched by the sheer number who died and the manner of their death. This works much better and it is genuinely eerie to see that large ship slip below the surface to a barrage of screams from unseen thousands – that the effects are not as good doesn't matter because they are good enough and the emotional impact more than covers for them.

This is not to say that the film lacks characters because you do tend to care for everyone and the film did very well in delivering little things without getting in the way of the rather documentary style form. The horror of the death is as well told as the horror of those watching it occur from the lifeboats; I liked the guilt of the designer and the guilt of the men who climbed into the lifeboats etc, these little touches work much better than inserting large fictional sections. With this sort of performance the actors do well – all realistic with none really upstaging the film with ham. Moore is a good lead and only at the end is his delivery a bit flat – but that is more the fault of a wordy conclusion. The rest of the cast do very well with realistic performances of fear even if they are being directed into generic class groups – simple but, with the delivery of the material, it works.

Overall, to me this is the best telling of the Titanic disaster that I have seen. The factual approach is consistently interesting and, without our attentions being directed to one or two people, the emotional impact is greater than I expected and I was quite chilled by the whole thing. For those irritated and put off by the sweeping sentimentality of the modern version, this film is the one for you.

They can't make them like they used to

[screenman · 10/10 · 26 March 2006]

The excellence of this movie just cannot be overstated. Nothing is missing. Nothing is out of place.

Titanic was a microcosm of social class stricture. This point is made very clear at the outset, when we see wealthy, landed gentry (upper), the educated but comfortable (middle) and the Irish rustic (lower) classes, each making their separate rendezvous with the doomed vessel. Lightoller (perfectly played by Kenneth Moore) and his wife, represent our middle-class, arriving by train. There is an interesting comedy of manners concerning personal hygiene, played out in the railway carriage.

This film is based upon John Lord's original heavily-researched book, a factual account which has not been compromised with additional drama. As if any were needed. Seen today, it has the appearance of a documentary, an impression reinforced by filming in black & white. Furthermore, because the film is about as long as the Titanic actually lasted after the collision, events unfold in what might be called 'real-time'.

The gradual shift from humour and indifference to one of concern and fear, as the realisation slowly begins to gel that this ship is in serious trouble, is astonishingly well done. The camera cuts and cuts again, presenting brief but graphic vignettes of individuals on board, and how their circumstances and attitude alter with time. The captain stares in disbelief at the lights of the nearby Californian. A lost child is picked up by an ageing steward. The baker elects for drunkenness. We hear garbled conversation, often in a foreign language. Millionaires disintegrate, other remain steadfast until the end. The band never falters.

In its time, this was the most expensive movie ever filmed in Britain. And it shows in the lavish and authentic set-pieces. Today it is possible to tell that the long-shots of the ship at sea are actually those of a model; though I'm blowed if I know quite how. That model was some 22 feet long and painstakingly copied. Many of the scenes were also filmed during a very cold late-Autumn, so the steaming breath and shivering depicted later were unintentionally authentic.

The 'epilogue' on the Carpathia now seems rather needless and trite, but it would have been entirely appropriate in 1912. I think the almost endless cycle of disaster/horror movies of the last half-century have hardened our hearts somewhat. It's all so easy to forget, in a world of celluloid fiction; that this actually happened, and pretty-well just as you see it.

Today, perhaps the saddest element of this movie is that it can never be made again. The characters and mannerisms, the sense of honour and stoicism arising from an unflinching belief in ideals, have quietly passed away with their very last representatives that the 1950's encapsulated. There'll be no more fine fellows, no more old beans, no more stiff upper-lips. And hopefully - in an emancipated society - no more 'women and children first'.

Get a hold of this movie, and cherish it. Both it and the ship are gone forever.

A film that displays tragedy so well.....

[matthew-scrutton · 10/10 · 18 December 2005]

Well what can I say? What can you say? I know what my 16 year old cohorts would say; "it's rubbish, there's no sex and drugs etc". Well to them I say grow up, there's more to film than that. A red-headed friend at school is talking with Channel 4 about doing a documentary on ginger people, and while everyone else says "oh god not another awful waste of disk space", I say good luck. Back to the film, It is brilliant. It puts a lot more emphasis on the crews actions to save that wonderful ship than Camerons and the actor who played Molly "unsinkable" Brown was credible, believable and so what if the designer, Thomas Andrews, had somehow lost his Irish accent. It was awful for me having to watch as he lent so casually by the fireplace, and adjusted the clock to time, only for it to be frozen in that position for all time. And when E J Smith calls for everyman for himself, and the sense of the ship plunging into the abyss beneath everyone, the atmosphere is tense, and you really start siding with characters, I personally sided with Lightoller, who was portrayed as the brave, professional seaman that he was. Cameron's Lightoller; "GET BACK OR I'LL SHOOT YOU ALL LIKE DOGS", was awful and I personally resented that cowardice portray-el of the real hero of the Titanic story. The model is pretty good for its day, and although the smoke stacks are a bit too tall the ship is still identifiable as Titanic, so no need for computer graphics there. The sinking was very well executed and although films don't upset me much, when the old boy with the little kid on the ships fantail are huddled together, with the old man reassuring that he will see his mother in a couple of minutes, that sent a chill through a my body, and I feel really upset as I write this.

In short, its a very good film, and does not resort to stupid love stories, and really is quintessentially British!!!!!!

A dramatized documentary

[AlsExGal · 9/10 · 12 June 2021]

You need to suspend your knowledge of technology, CGI, and the loud, bright, violent movies of today to appreciate this. With no score and few dramatic frills but excellent technical detail for what was known at the time, it tells the story of the sinking of the Titanic, remembered because of how many people died, and at the time how so many extremely wealthy people died, and how many things went wrong. This is a mid 20th century British made film in spartan black and white. And yet it ties the important pieces of the story of the sinking together with a well crafted delivery. It is moving without being emotionally manipulative via fictional characters in contrived dilemmas.

You can see where Cameron's 1997 film and this film intersect in certain details that were known at the time. In 1958 they didn't know that the Titanic broke in pieces, so they get that wrong. In 1997 nobody knew that the Titanic broke into three pieces, so Cameron got that wrong.

Cameron's later film probably has the advantage in capturing just how crazy things got when people knew that the ship was going down and fast. No matter how stiff an upper lip you've been taught to have, there is going to be chaos in such a situation.

It's an odd film in that there is not really a lead that the film follows around. If it is anybody it is Kenneth More as Second Officer Charles Herbert Lightoller, the highest ranking member of the crew to survive. The guy's real life story reads like a piece of adventure fiction, and he was even involved in the Dunkirk evacuation at age 66.

The Official Titanic Movie

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 2 November 2009]

Although James Cameron's epic Titanic film is now considered the version of the most famous ship disaster in history, this film should never be eclipsed overlooked. A Night To Remember is a straightforward documentary style drama of what went wrong. I'm sure with all the folks in steerage in Titanic there must have been an Irishman named Murphy and his law was working in full force in April of 1912.

The leading cast member of A Night To Remember is Kenneth More as Charles Herbert Lightoller who has been cited in most accounts as showing exceptional leadership and bravery during that night. You won't forget easily what More does in saving a number of people who are in the water as the ship is in its final agonies. Lightoller was the highest ranking ship's officer to survive that night.

The famous Denver millionairess Molly Brown who gets her own story in The Unsinkable Molly Brown is played by Tucker McGuire and she and the more famous passengers on the Titanic are reduced to the background. Still enough of her irreverent and feisty character shines through.

Although he does have a speaking part I looked in vain in the credits for who played Captain Archibald Butt, military aide to both Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft in the White House. By April 14, 1912 he was one of the few people who was on speaking terms with both men. It's long been a source of interesting speculation that he might have brokered some kind of truce between them. But that was not to be and Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket for president later that year.

Laurence Naismith is the gallant and intrepid Captain Smith of the Titanic. In the true traditions of the sea, Smith went down with his ship. It was hardly his fault that not enough lifeboats were provided, sacrificed for frills for the very first class passengers. It was Smith and a thousand others who paid, interestingly enough not J. Bruce Ismay head of the White Star Lines who is played by Frank Lawton and who survived the disaster. If the Titanic story has a villain he was it.

Unlike James Cameron's Titanic, this film had the advantage of several Titanic survivors still alive who remembered and were technical advisers on the film. It doesn't have a romance with attractive young people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, but if want to know the real story, A Night To Remember is THE Titanic movie.

Best "Motion Picture" about the 1912 event.

[yenlo · 7/10 · 2 December 1999]

If a viewer is interested in a historically accurate movie about the Titanic sinking than this 1958 British film is about as close as you'll get. The film continues to hold up well forty odd years after it was made. Other films about the ill fated vessel followed including the James Cameron version which had very little to do with historical accuracy. This picture has no per se big name star in it but it's depiction of the event is what makes it the fine film it is. A pre Avengers and Goldfinger Honor Blackman is featured in the cast.

A definite Night to Remember...

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 22 May 2010]

For the first time today, a shameful admission in itself, I saw this movie and I was so impressed, it could very well be my favourite film version of the disaster. I do think it is better than James Cameron's Titanic, which I actually liked, but this film is much more compelling and moving. Something I did prefer here than in the Cameron version was the music score, the score here is superb, whereas the music in the 1997 film is a score I am still not sure whether I love or hate.

I also loved how A Night To Remember was filmed. The ship is lovingly rendered, and the cinematography and costumes are lavish. In terms of scenes there are many effective scenes, but the sinking scenes here were brilliantly done, it had a sort of edge-of-your-seat feel to it. The story is very documentary-like in its approach, and this was a great idea I think as it allowed us to see the disaster at more than one character angle. Not once did the film get melodramatic, but there were some very moving parts such as the events leading up the ending. The direction is great, the pacing is brisk and the cast headed by a very impressive Kenneth More acts their roles impeccably.

Overall, a wonderful movie, the conclusion is a little too wordy, but other than that A Night To Remember is a must-watch! 9/10 Bethany Cox.

Iceberg, Dead Ahead! Don't Panic You're On The Titanic!

[strong-122-478885 · 7/10 · 3 June 2014]

If you were to ask me, I'd honestly have to say that this 1958, $1.6 million, b&w production spotlighting the tragic sinking of the famed ocean-liner, Titanic, actually scores a notch higher than does the likes of James Cameron's 1997, $200 million, colour spectacle.

I'm not kidding here.

This film is a first-rate production all the way from its involving story, to its attention to detail, to its awesome effects depicting the actual sinking of this "unsinkable" luxury-liner.

I swear you'll be absolutely amazed at this film's top-notch production values, especially on its budget of only $1.6 million.

You know, I'd actually go so far as to say that A Night To Remember puts Cameron's glittering showpiece to shame in a number of ways.

And, on top of that, I found that I actually liked a number of the characters and even sympathized with them over their dire & desperate situation, which I really didn't in the 1997 version.

This film also clearly brings to light certain crucial facts about the distress call sent out by the Titanic once the iceberg had been struck. This aspect was pretty much ignored in the Cameron version.

Yes. I recommend this film very highly.

Voyage to the bottom of the sea

[Spondonman · 9/10 · 31 August 2008]

Although Cameron's version was OK as soaps go, this unpretentious black and white British effort will remain the definitive movie of the catastrophe that night. In 2 compact hours you get to know a dizzying array of people from all walks of life and of all dispositions, some to survive and some to die, and all told with an amazing regard for the truth coupled with bald entertainment values.

Everyone knows the story of the Titanic sinking on its maiden voyage killing 1500 people – and yet this is watchable over and over again. I suppose trying to make sense of it all even at this distance is one reason along with the human fascination with disasters of all kinds, but ultimately what can be so fascinating about drowning in this world of water where even we are 98% water too? God hasn't got a sick sense of humour but none at all to let this happen - the singing by the passengers at the end of Nearer, My God, To Thee is so poignant. In these 2 hours you identify with the characters and run through so many human emotions: worry, anguish, hope, fear, resignation, humour, honour, aplomb as befitted good breeding, altruism and self-sacrifice in spades, selfishness, cowardice and calmness – it's all here. If in a similar situation which one would you and I be? Cameron made a blockbuster on the same subject (and therefore comparable) with a keen eye for cgi cartoon detail, but generally unengaging characters with soap opera tendencies and the famous Kate Winslet nude scene to sell it all – ie not in the same league as this one. There were so many good performances, but if I had to single just one out it would be 2nd Officer Kenneth More – a sterling actor playing a sterling character.

It's a grippingly sad yet rewarding classic film, of that you can be very sure.

Band keeps playing

[kevin c · 7/10 · 27 December 2018]

Movie afternoon with Iris.

B&W gem for a Christmas afternoon. All stiff upper lips, but my god how Cameron's Titanic rips it off shamelessly.

A Worthwhile Straightforward Treatment

[Snow Leopard · 20 October 2004]

The Titanic disaster has provided material for quite an assortment of films, and a number of them have at least something to offer. This is one of the more effective, with its straightforward and, based on the knowledge then available, factually accurate approach. One particularly worthwhile aspect is that it spends more time detailing the reasons for the disaster than do most movies on the subject.

Often movies that try to stay close to the facts suffer from a lack of focus, especially when there is/are no central character(s) to hold things together. In this adaptation of "A Night to Remember", they solved the problem by focusing much of the action around Second Officer Lightoller, who was involved in some way in so many different aspects of what happened. As a device it works well, and there is enough action involving the other characters to keep it balanced.

Another inherent challenge in the story is that there are so many characters, and most of them hold some interest. In this adaptation, they chose simply to depict as many brief situations as possible, often without giving much with which to identify the characters. If you are familiar with Walter Lord's book, it is often possible to identify many of them, but otherwise, it might be a little confusing to sort through so many characters.

For such a detail-heavy story, this is an effective and commendable movie. With very few frills, it tells the story believably and sometimes memorably.

It does a pretty good job of meeting the main challenges, not telling the complete story, of course, but providing a worthwhile overview of events.