Rate the three Titanic films

A Night to Remember is nicely played, more natural and understated, and so more tragic in my opinion, Titanic (1953) is more melodramatic but very moving at the end...I found Cameron's Titanic quite a boring and uninvolving soap opera, despite the 'better' special effects.
If I had to pick one I would recommend Kenneth More (whose character in real life had an incredible life and career) and a Night to Remember.

"I was playing the RIGHT notes...just not necessarily in the right order"

This. 1997 was by far the worst. It also serves as a sad commentary on what passes today for an exceptional film.

Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

Rating the 3 of them depends on whether one is more interested in an account of the Titanic's final hours, or whether a story is created with the Titanic tragedy as a backdrop. I am the of the former.

A Night to Remember is definitely the best moment-by-moment account of what happened for those of us who are interested in that aspect. Sure, details are changed from Walter Lord's book, but it's hard to see any that really matter. Most changes are an unwillingness to say certain parties' names involved, and to change some of those names. I am glad it includes the role of the Californian in its story (unlike the other 2); though Cpn. Stanley Lord is one name no one will say; he was still trying to get his name cleared as late as the early 60's, and that made things more tedious. And, of course, the role of 2nd Ofc. Lightoller is magnified, as he was played by the biggest name in British cinema of that era. And who would make a movie about the Titanic without the legend of the band playing "Nearer, My God to Thee" just before being swamped? But at least A Night to Remember plays the right version that the band would have played, if they played it at all. I am inclined to believe this is just an added 'condiment' to the story after surivivors reached New York; but the last survivor who could remember and was willing to talk about it (Eva Hart, who died in 1996) was one who claimed that hymn-- the version played in the Anglican Church-- was played near the end, just not 'as they were going down.'

So of the other 2 movies, to me they are about even in dramatic quality, so I am more likely to want to watch 1997, with its color and effects. It's flaws are that that it's too drawn out and some incidents are too fantastic, and Rose and/or Jack often assumes temporarily the role of a true person involved; as when she sees Thomas Andrews standing alone in front of the painting, oblivious, and she says "Aren't you going to try for it, Mr. Andrews?" Actually it was a steward on a final check who saw him and said that.

I have just recently seen the 1953 version for the first time, and I was surprised that it has a lot of parallels with 1997. A fictional soap opera -like story; facts that are hard to deal with that become trivial at the time of great danger, new lovers that end up being star-crossed with the guy's death, even something of the class snobbery problem, more emphasized in 1997. But 1953 ends poorly, implying that all those in the lifeboats lived and all those left on the ship died, and that's it-- over.

Alright, I took the long to just saying: (1)A Night to Remember, (2)Titanic (1997), and (3)Titanic (1953).

***retro_junkie23 said: ok you people have no idea what ur talking about! Titanic 1997 best one ever!!!***

No, jsmmov hits the nail on the head - A Night to Remember, Titanic (1953) and Titanic (1997). I couldn't have said it better.

Now don't get me wrong, the 1997 version is great, I saw it seven times in the theater, more times than I have gone to see any movie. The special effects are astounding, but the Molly Brown scene infuriates me no end. I'm tempted to throw things at the screen when I see it. Come on, James! If you were so concerned with realism, even to going down to the Titanic itself, why couldn't you get this scene (and the other ones noted by jsmmov) right?

If you want pure fantasy, sure, it's ok. However, if you want the REAL story, "A Night to Remember" is what you want to see.

1. 1953 Titanic only because I've seen it more and I love Clifton Webb!
2. A Night to Remember - saw it a long time ago, I know I liked it, but I can't remember much about it. I guess I better find it and watch it again. It sounds great.

The 1997 Titanic doesn't even make the list because I disliked it so much. It was not as factual, there's nothing exciting about Leo and Kate's relationship (boring), and the special effects were just as good as the 1953 version. They did great things for having such limited technology way back when. The 1997 version was too graphic. We didn't need to see everyone dying and bodies floating around or the moms reading to their children as the ship was going down. It was very disturbing and not needed at all. They left nothing to the imagination as the older ones did. Those scenes were totally gratuitous. I'm sorry it received so many awards. It was really sick.

Among the OP's original trio --

A Night to Remember (1958) is by far the most accurate as to its depiction of the story and characters, the best acted, and unquestionably the saddest and most emotionally involving. Still the best Titanic film, despite some flaws.

Titanic (1953) is good melodrama, highly inaccurate historically, with a great cast, but too many two-dimensional characters and an unrealistic and even insulting view of class distinctions (or, in the film, lack thereof) of the era. Plus they don't even have the correct side of the ship hit by the berg (the inexplicable underwater shot). Very enjoyable, but nowhere near ANTR.

Titanic (1997) -- I agree with the posters above who find this the least good. A stupid script and one-dimensional, dopey characters sink what could otherwise have been a very engrossing movie. It does have its gut-wrenching moments and besides the quality of its effects easily is the most accurate and realistic depiction of the sinking, all in its favor. But as drama it's on a 13-year-old's level.

I don't much care for the TV movies, SOS Titanic (1979) and the George C. Scott Titanic (1996), which suffer from the usual TV cheapness and hurried production, despite good actors. The former takes most of its effects from ANTR.

But there are other films touching on the subject, notably the wartime German propaganda film Titanic from 1943 (mentioned by others above), which is wholly unrealistic but fascinating as a piece of anti-British propaganda from the Nazi perspective.

When Alfred Hitchcock was brought to America by David O. Selznick in 1939, his first project was to have been a massive film on the disaster to be called (what else?) "Titanic". But Selznick decided the film would be too expensive and cancelled it. (Supposedly the 1953 film was broadly along the lines of what Selznick had had in mind as to basic story, mixing fact with fiction.) But imagine what a Hitchcock-directed film on the subject could have been like!

[deleted]

I like the Barbara Stanwyck version the best; all of the actors were great. "A Night to Remember" was very good, but I didn't care for the Kate Winslet movie, even though she is a very good actress; I didn't care for Leo. He seemed a lot younger than her for some reason. I think if River Phoenix had lived he would have done a better job.