MovieChat Forums > Titanic II (2010) Discussion > It wasn't THAT Bad...

It wasn't THAT Bad...

posted 14 years ago by Slyth66
23 replies | jump to latest

Seriously, people need to stop comparing it to the James Cameron film (my favorite movie of all time). Asylum is known for what they do, remaking films on a low budget. And even though I've only seen one other film by them, this definitely seems to blow the rest out of the water. Aside from the visual effects, almost everything else in this film was solid. The acting, storyline, and characters. The only thing I hated about this movie was the ending. I feel it was rushed and not enough detail was put into the final moments of the ships and characters. But aside from that, this film at least deserves 3.5-4/10 stars.

[–] tr_s 14 years ago

You are probably right. But I thought there were serious shortcomings other than the CGI. No character personalities were introduced at all. The ships and icebergs ignore most laws of physics, as does the Tsunami.

All in all I decided to give it a 3. Not one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I didn't think it was a time waste, mostly due to the turkey-ish CGI which had comedic effects.

[–] mark-hansen11 11 years ago

Title of this thread is "It wasn't THAT Bad..." and I tend to agree. Being "THAT bad" would be an upgrade. This movie is rated at 1.8 and on a scale from 1-10, it should have 0.5. Why not a round 0? because it was just slightly more entertaining than drying paint. I must note that watching paint dry has higher rewatch value.

[–] HALs_eyeball 14 years ago

It wasn't THAT Bad...

I've just sat through it. Yes it was!!!

It's all very clear to me now. The whole thing. It's wonderful.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seanlahman 14 years ago

"Asylum is known for what they do, remaking films on a low budget."

No, what they do is make movies with plots and titles similar to current blockbusters in the hopes that they can trick folks into buying/renting their version instead.

[–] jyomtov 14 years ago

can someone spoil how it ended..i was online till the part where hayden and the girl were freezing in that diver room...someone spoil this so i dont have to find the rest of this horrible re-make

[–] HALs_eyeball 14 years ago

I did catch the last two minutes when the film recyled on SyFy. The girl is rescued. The nurse tries CPR in Hayden. He's been underwater for half an hour. They're in rubber life-raft. Guess what - the CPR didn't work. Then they ran out of film because it just cuts to the credits. No lingering shots of anguished people, no floating debris. Just credits. And no Celine Dionne, either!

It's all very clear to me now. The whole thing. It's wonderful.

[–] nebulous50-1 14 years ago

And not to mention they made a whole deal of fuss over the lifeboats being deathtraps! Yet no lifeboats were harmed in the making of the movie or pretended to be harmed during the movie. Were they lifeboats or lifesubs. I do agree though that this movie wasn't THAT bad, and the cgi I laughed a lot at.

[–] sjaool 14 years ago

Yes, it was that bad.

Come on, no second wave of the tsunami.
The warning to stay out of the lifeboats yet the films ends with them in a lifeboat.

What's with all the other people?
The rescuehelicopter crashing is just stupid.
And much more stupid things happening in this movie.

Yes, it was really that bad!

[–] BulldozerBegins 14 years ago

We're left to assume that the second wave has already hit by the time the rescue helicopter gets there, so being in a lifeboat is irrelevant at that point.

Other than the silly throwaway line to global warming, I found the film refreshing, even if it had a downer ending. None of James Cameron's politics made a cameo anywhere, so I'm thankful I didn't have to sit through historical revision about the rich getting all the good spots and the poor being left to drown or what-not.

Absence of Celine Dion or not, I also found it refreshing that nobody got naked. There were COUNTLESS opportunities for the film to get sidetracked on Hayden's sexual exploits; but the director stayed focused and on task, and I'm grateful for that.

I also like that the film lets you do at least some thinking for yourself, instead of the rhetorical questions and empty fauxlosophical meandering in defense of hedonism that littered James Cameron's work.

Characters, with the exception of that one goon, read the situations they were in and followed logic and instinct; instead of blindly following protocol when they know it wouldn't have worked in that situation.

However, their best efforts to be logical didn't matter because the entire universe was bending the laws of physics over backwards to make sure they were all screwed anyway.

I guess it comes down to the genre.

Cameron's Titanic was a lust story. It was the softest and fluffiest of softcore porn wrapped inside a plot that thinly resembled a historical drama/action disaster film.

Titanic II, by contrast, is a straight-up action-horror flick. And not the tacky "Jeepers Creeper II" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 14" and "Jason Hates Teen Orgies 54" type of horror either. More on par with Snakes on a Plane; but without Samuel L. Jackson to make it funny.

So yeah, I said it! As bad as this film's effects were, it's BETTER than Cameron's film!!!

[–] whitesheik 14 years ago

My Lord, if I want to see examples to how far people have sunk (and I don't mean the cast of either Titanic or Titanic II) all I have to do is come to the imdb. The fact that people willingly post the most inane comments here (of course, this they do anonymously - so, nothing really lost) and repeatedly show their incredible stupidity is just mind boggling.

A bad movie is a bad movie. The End.

[–] dutchchocolatecake 11 years ago

"Absence of Celine Dion or not, I also found it refreshing that nobody got naked."

I appreciated that too.

[–] koray75 14 years ago

I haven't seen worse sfx. It is like homemade. So conclusion, such a
waste of time. I haven't seen a movie worst than this. Better watch
commercials.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Brandon_HD 14 years ago

"2.0" is too high

"General Rule...

IMDB User says [Enter Movie Here] is Racist = It's Most Likely Not..."

[–] nickcluxton 11 years ago

I've seen a few Asylum movies: Titanic 2, Snakes on a Train, Transmorphers, Mega Piranha & 200mph. All have the worst CGI I've ever seen, and most are dull and uninteresting. Titanic 2 and Snakes on a train are the only 2 movies I've seen that keep you watching if only to see how ridiculous they can get. Titanic 2 would actually be a solid film if it weren't for the icebergs and waves that defy physics (like the 843mph Tsunami, that's what they say in the movie). Still, I can watch this again and surprisingly enough notice something new each time, which is a common characteristic of people's favorite movies. In the grand scheme of things, this movie deserves maybe a 4 or 5, I personally give a 9 because I genuinely enjoy it that much.

[–] dutchchocolatecake 11 years ago

I agree. If this were a made for television movie, I don't think it would have gotten such bad reviews. I've seen worse movies on SyFy and Lifetime too.

Not saying it's Oscar material, but people should already know that's not what they're going to get when they pick up a 5$ Asylum movie from the bargain bin.

[–] fibreoptic 10 years ago

The movie was OK. Not great or good but OK. It's better than some IMDb top 250 (not that that means much).

[–] CheshireCat907 10 years ago

Yes, it was that bad. I like some Asylum movies but this one didn't cut it. For me to enjoy a B movie it has to entertain and make fun of the fact that the makers know they're making one. This just sucked. Period.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]