I taped this some time back and watched it yesterday on my day off.I was really impressed by the CGI,the historical accuracy,and acting,and knowing that there are a number of history buffs on these boards I'm surprised there's very little discussion.
shareI thought it great too - the CGI were terrififc for just a tv movie, and the acting was top-notch.
shareWho got the blame for the sinking?
shareSpoiler Alert!!!
shareCall me silly, but those pesky Germans are who fired the torpedo. To blame anyone else for the sinking would be ludicrous. The Admiralty would you could blame for their altering the truth or not giving better orders, but in the end the Germans were targeting the ship, and the Germans fired the torpedo.
Imagine if a guy broke into your house, robbed you, but sprained his ankle on the way out because your child left a toy out instead of putting it away. One could blame the kid for not being careful to keep the floor clear, but in the end the burglar hurt himself because the burglar burgled the house which is something he shouldn't have done to start with. I know this isn't the same complexity as the matter at hand, but the underlying principal remains pretty much true to both situations.
The way juries are these days, you could end up paying his medical bills.
-----------------------------------
I could care less, but I don’t care enough to bother.
Don't laugh, this actually happens. It happened to my cousin. A buurglar broke into his auto body shop to steal car parts; the guard dog bit him and my cousin was liable for the medical bills!
shareI disagree with the term "acurate".
The story was so made up they even had a message at the end to say there was no evidence for much of what they say occured.
I think their is little discussion on this because its not history. It simply an anti Iraq war film.
"It simply an anti Iraq war film."
Your whole review is tainted by you letting your pro-Iraq stance biasing your judgment. But fact is, Iraq isn't mentioned at all in the movie, and there's no evidence that the filmmakers ever meant to draw this analogy. Imho it's toally inappropriate to artificially construe a connection and then give the movie a ridiculously low rating because of it (I checked your other ratings, you didn't like "Aces High", too, and still gave 6 points).
As for the allegedly omitted facts you cite: You seem to confuse the role of the Admiralty, and of Admiral Coke, who was the commanding officer at Queenstown. Coke indeed ordered warships into the area, using his leeway as the responsible commander, circumventing Admiralty orders not to send an escort to Lusitania. Coke isn't shown in the movie at all, but his role in the tragedy is peripheral, so this isn't a serious omission.
Btw, if you did use Wikipedia as the source for the "escoret" information: Pls explain how Oliver, an intelligence officer, could have given orders to Navy ships. This doesn't sound like the normal, or even a possible chain of command at all. Imho this isn't correctly cited.
Contrary to what you write, the movie never stated an ammunition explosion happened. Instead, it cites German newspaper reports presenting this as an explanation, without a doubt for propaganda reasons. This is factually correct, this was in the German press at that time. Pls note also that the German Admiralty isn't shown in a positive light too.
Oh, and ammunition has been found, and photographed, by recent explorations of the wreck. .303 caliber military rounds. Those aren't responsible for the explosion, of course (probably it was the boiler), but, again, the movie never showed what caused the second explosion. Watch that scene again.
I could go on and don. No, the movie never said the Admiralty deliberately ordered the course, yes, there was evidence at the trial that Whitehall had falsified the wireless logs, no, U20 wasn't the only sub in the northsea and the movie never said so, but the only sub in taht area at that time...
But what's the most dire problem with your review still is that there's no connection to the Iraq war. It's not that the movie has any problem with Iraq, obviously you have.
Well opinions do differ, but because I didn’t like the production values of Aces High or the poor historical accuracy of this movie I am now labelled a fully fledged supporter of the Iraq war! How pathetic you arrogant little man.
You haven’t repudiated ANY of my points just insulted me because I don’t share your warped view of history. Despite your insistence no evidence of armaments have been found on the wreck and the suggestion that she was armed as a merchant cruiser is so far fetched that even the German government at the time knew that was propaganda then no one would believe.
Please let me inform you of a more current situation. The BBC in 2004 claimed the UK government lied over its reasons to go to war in Iraq. It was found to have falsified evidence and was given a mauling. The top man even resigned. Since then its has used comedy and drama to press its on its view.
I guess you watch MASH to understand the Korean War or Soldier Blue to understand how Native Americans were treated by an invading force. No allusions to the Vietnam War in anyway for you. You would have also noted if you could research properly that anti war films such as Das Boot, The Killing Fields and All Quiet on the Western Front are all 10s on my marks.
The BBC made up “facts” and omitted others in order to portray its politics. You also made up facts and omitted others in your personal attack. At least the BBC had the dignity to state at the end that it was not an accurate story.
Obviously dignity along with accuracy, research and history are not things you are familiar with.
Interesting, WILLOWSYKES, that two of the "anti war" films you cite show how the Germans suffered. And you seem to have an anti-British bias.
So...wo sich Ihre Sympathien liegen?
[deleted]
I guess I never realized that Vanderbilt was a dickhead and Dorothy Taylor was a total whore.
shareUnfortunate. I really wanted to enjoy this film, but 20 minutes in, a character reported she saw that the cargo hold was full of ammunition. This is speculation and hardly supported by the facts, much like the Soviets claim that South Korean flight 007 was on an American spy mission, or that the U.S. did 9/11. The entire film slants all the facts to achieve whatever purpose they intended - I quit watching after 25 minutes, to forget what I watched and reboot my brain. People who believe this junk may enjoy this film. Try to catch the A&E documentary and skip this British rubbish. I think there should have been a warning at the start of the film.
To be honest I just watched it like it was a normal drama instead of a docu-drama. If you don't expect complete historical accuracy (come on it's the BBC) and just watch it as the fiction it mostly turned out to be then it is quite powerful and well made.
I personally found the images of sinking terrifying, the use of camera angles, placing the camera so that it was half submerged in water gave the point of view of being in the water, scary as I have a phobia of open water.
Also the use of music over the sinking, calm music contradicting the awful scenes taking place.
[deleted]
"a character reported she saw that the cargo hold was full of ammunition."
Firstly, the cargo hold wasn't full of it, it was only shown that some crates were transported unto the ship, allegedly of ammunition. That ammunition was loaded is an undisputed fact. Cargo papers show this item, labelled as rounds for hunting purposes.
But do some googling. Not long ago, .303 military rounds have been found at the wreck.
So, actually, you had the facts wrong, not the BBC. You should have watched the movie, it really was a good docudrama.
Some dodgy bits like the people trapped in the lift and the final plunge.
Toward the end the stern rose up to expose the props and the settled back into the water and sank at a shallow angle. Only 6 boats got away loaded.
Kiwiboy62