I only saw the last 10 minutes of it and I thought it was Mad TV (or some sort of comedy thing) or something because the graphic was so terrible.. The water looked like it was glued on at times and the ship looked like it came out a cheap game..;; I laughed when that guy died because it didn't have any suspense or anything.. no i was more distracted by the fake water and fake looking people. Oh well.
share[deleted]
I agree with you guys, but I don't agree with the reviewer who said that the special effects "rivaled those of James Cameron's Titanic." Come on, Britannic's special effects were ridiculously obvious, and fake-looking. I found the acting dull and the film was really not exciting to see. The films is highly fictional from beginning to end.
When all is said and done, what counts is what's true, and how we all treated one another.
yes, this was made in 2000, where everyone says computer graphics are so much better than anyother comp graphics(people say this is everyone of the 2000 years) but i have to say, that the movie Titanic shot in 1996-97, has way better and more believable comp graphics than britannic, and it is 2000, start of the age of the best comp graphics ever and anything before that is crap.
shareI know, right! I totally agree. Like, people, come on now. The graphics were horrible!! The directors excuse was that they didn't have time to make it look real. If I hadn't seen Titanic and someone showed me the two movies and asked me to choose which was from 1997 and which from 2000, guess what?
Titanic-2000
Britannic-1997
[deleted]
I Agree, people say that computer made graphics of the 2000's are the best, but the graphics in this movie suck, they lookin like a cheap demo of a 1990's era game. I mean come on, Titanic was made in 1996-1997, and the graphics were way better and more realistic than this movie.
share