One of the greatest human tragedies/dramas of the 20th Century is wasted in this clichéd, poorly acted mini-series. Why do writers (and directors, mentioning no names, but with the initials James Cameron) think they can do better than re-enacting the truth? Presumably Julian Fellowes was considered a suitable writer on the back of the success of 'Downton Abbey' set in the same era (of which I have seen not one second). If he had any interest or knowledge at all about Titanic it can only have been very basic (big ship, people on it, it sinks, people die). At least Cameron had genuine passion for his subject, Fellowes just gives us a by-the-numbers approach: snooty aristo's? check; plucky steerage passengers? check; immigrants, so we have an ethnic angle? check; doomed lovers... you get the idea.Even worse are the fictitious elements. Italian waiters locked in a cupboard? There were people who couldn't reach the boats, and the first boat was not launched until an hour after the collision, because the ship was badly organised and managed - that is the *real* tragedy of Titanic.The sinking itself is completely mishandled, a confusing mish-mash of scenes with no sense of increasing danger, just a desperate effort to tie-up all the plots which started in the first three episodes. The final scenes in the lifeboats are simply anti-climactic and fill out the running time.Watch this once if you're determined to be a Titanic completist, but otherwise forget it.

Is this the best movie or miniseries about Titanic? no. Is it decent and interesting enough to watch though? yes, definitely. This miniseries is not at all like James Cameron's movie (in fact, I do like this miniseries more than that movie) because this is set around a whole group of people and not just a fictional love story. with it being four parts, the way I see this miniseries, it's like the TV show "Lost" because in one part we see one incident through one person's viewpoint and then in another part we see that exact same incident through another person's viewpoint, making sense of what's actually happening. I know that's a pretty unique comparison but if you watch it, I'm sure you'll see what I mean. yes, the first part was a bit rushed, but the next 3 episodes were much more improved.and to the people criticizing this because this has inaccuracies, yes it does, but newsflash: EVERY movie that has been made about Titanic has inaccuracies. A Night to Remember does, even Cameron's movie does. so ignore all that, just try to watch it and try to make sense out of what's happening. all-in-all, this is a worthy 100 anniversary tribute. it does in fact honor the people who sailed on that ship, victim or survivor. and to the user that said "Julian Fellowes should watch "A Night to Remember" and weep", he already had. he said it was wonderful but was mainly about the ship's officers. he wanted this miniseries to be about a lot of people who sailed on that ship, not just the officers. that's all I have to say

I thought it was good. Not great, but good. The back and forth with all the characters/events was a bit much. It left me scratching my head towards the end of the first episode. Even when I got what they were doing I still felt it was too ambitious and confusing (see Intolerance 1916).Though I'm not an expert, the sets looked good as did the cgi. It blended well with the set elements. I thought the acting was good for the most part. Noah Reid, who played Harry Widener particularly impressed me. Let's be honest, any love arc between two young people in this show would have been invariably compared to Jack and Rose. I think Harry and Georgiana's story can stand on it's own though. Character development was pretty good despite the ill advised editing. I was glad that they finally found an actor who resembles Thomas Andrews. The man playing J. J. Astor looked the part too. However, I was embarrassed by how Jack Thayer was portrayed. They seemed to get the hammiest actor they could find. Jack Thayer, based on my reading seemed to be a sensitive, reflective lad. He's portrayed heres as an obnoxious mama's boy. Despite his small part, that probably irked me the most. The coldness of the water was not depicted realistically either. You didn't get that sense of paralyzing pain that was in the Cameron movie. You would think that they could have added cgi breath to reflect the cold at least.So all in all, not greatness but I enjoyed watching it. I think people definitely should have watched all the episodes before reviewing this.

I'll admit, I wasn't overly impressed with the first episode. It seemed like it was something and nothing, but I tuned in next week because I had faith that the storyline would start to make sense. It certainly did. Anyone who felt like the first episode made no sense needs to see it as a game as tetris. Each new episode layers on top of the previous one and fills in all the gaps. Having watched all four episodes, I can say they interlink perfectly. I read that originally, the show would be broadcast over three consecutive nights with episodes 1 & 2 shown back to back. Perhaps if this had been done people wouldn't have been so quick to switch off. I think a lot of people are comparing this to James Cameron's Titanic, but if you want a different take on the actual sinking on the ship, then do watch this. Titanic (97) was centred on a fictional love story, therefore we saw everything from Rose's point of view - it was linear. This program shows several different perspectives and we are able to see the extremely different fates that would have befallen us depending on what our sex/class would have been. It includes some really heart wrenching moments that do not cushion you from what a traumatic experience it must have been. Absolutely worth watching each episode more or less at the same time. Several people have said "We see the ship hit the berg so many times, it detracts from the poignancy of it, what can the fourth episode offer?" It offers a hell of a lot! I gave this 9 out of 10 simply because I wasn't too happy with the first episode.