Un-Official Raise The Titanic! Movie Review (IMDB) Page

These movie reviews are from the Internet Movie Database. Some are negative and some are good. Out of ten stars and with 520 user votes on the site, "Raise The Titanic!" only averaged a 4.4. To check on a more up-to-date rating scale click here.

Date: 23 August 2004
Summary: I really thought this was a great film – until I read the book!
It was when I read the excellent novel, my mind changed. I used to think this was a wonderful film, when I read the book however, it was clear that so much excellent plotline and dialogue had been missed out that the film story was ruined. Plot lines about the Russians, spies, espionage, tracing the history of the miners and their efforts, what happened after the Titanic was raised but before it reached New York, all this would have made for a more in depth and excellent adaptation, instead the producers went for the big bucks spectacle and just concentrated on the Titanic itself which really is only a small part of the original novel.

It would have been better being properly done as a three part mini series or similar instead of this badly edited rushed nonsense.

There are good points about the film, some of the model work for the wrecked Titanic is excellent, especially when you consider when it was made but then again considering how much they spent on it, it should have been, however the seemingly cardboard cut out super imposed on the New York skyline at the end is terrible beyond description and oddly seems to be worse in the DVD version over the VHS version.

Thankfully saving this film from sinking completely was probably one of John Barry's finest non-Bond soundtracks, without that, this really would have become unbearable.

Sadly fact (the discovery of the Titanic for real) precludes any possibility of a decent remake which with good CGI could have been spectacular.
Date: 17 July 2004
Summary: Opinion on this Nauseating Movie
Let me state emphatically that I loved and thoroughly enjoyed the 1976 novel "RAISE THE TITANIC" by author and deep-sea discoverer Clive Cussler, it was one of the greatest and most spellbinding books of the 2oth century. But this 1980 movie that carried the title totally destroyed this great work of fiction. Admittedly Dr. Bob Ballard's 1985 discovery of the actual wreck of the giant liner has made this the most dated version in history, considering that people in 1912 ignored some of the survivors who said she didn't sink in one piece, but broke up just before sinking. Ballard's discovery has authenticated these statements. I have been a history buff on the sinking of the RMS TITANIC ever since September of 1966 with the opening episode of the ABC-TV IRWIN ALLEN SCI-FI SHOW "THE TIME TUNNEL" where time travelers Tony Newman and Doug Philllps (Jimmy Darren & Robert Colbert) went on the first of many journeys to this ship just hours before she struck the iceberg sinking carrying 1,502 men, women and children to their untimely death's in 28 degree water. How anyone survived the water for over 10 minutes no one knows, but it is true that at least 6 person's were pulled alive and stayed alive, after this time though originally 150 were pulled out still alive but died and were buried at sea by the rescue ship Carparthia. Incidentally the Carparthia was torpedoed in WW I in 1918, and was it's wreck was found by Dr. Cussler in 2001. The main note of a person surviving the water was Bakker Charles Jorgen (1888-1977) who was kept alive for more than 2 1/2 hours in the water before being pulled onto Second Officer Charles Lighttoller's overturned Collapsable B lifeboat after 1st Wireless Operator John Jack Phillips froze to death on the boat minutes before Boat No. 12 took them all off just as it was about to submerge. This 1980 movie really isn't worth the time to even focus on in any way shape or form, it is such a total waste of the talents of such great character actor's such as the late Jason Robards. It totally wiped out the entire plot of the 1976 book. For example they have a takeover of the ship by the Russian Col. Prevlov, who is captured by the American's and turned into a good guy for us. Gene Seagram goes totally mad at the end of the book and Dana his wife is divorcing him, and has an affair on the ship with Dirk Pitt. Leaves out the start where the guy is brining the stuff over on the Titanic the night of the disaster, and locks himself in the vault. The old man that Pitt talks to is not running a pub in the book, he is the last surviving crew member in 1987, and calls Dirk Pitt away from the expedition to hear the story of a dying old LYMIE as Pitt calls him at first, but through him learns the story of the Titanic. They also leave out all about the men's expedition except finding the miners body in the mine in northern Russia, and don't mention that his widow who was a lot younger than himself in 1912 is still alive in 1987 now aged 93 and gives an interview to one of the important people. It also changes the ending of the story about at the one miners grave, where they find that the just and rocks are actually in the grave but they leave the grave untouched in the movie, which went totally contrary to the book. In the book they dug up the grave the stuff was tested at the very moment that out in the north Atlantic that old crewmember who had just died his ashes were spread over the wreck former wreck site of the Titanic. This was taken from actual history for Commander John Joseph Boxhall (1878-1967) the 4th officer of Titanic and the last surviving officer to pass away in 1967 actually had this done at his death. May it be noted that Boxhall at age 80 in 1958 was technical consultant to the B& W film "A NIGHT TO REMEMBER" an excellent film. Also anyone who read the book will also remember that in the book Gene Seagram was not in the submersible that they had to rush the Titanic up with to save the men in the sub. And when the Titanic came up in the book it came up the way they last saw TITANIC in 1012 stern first. They were afraid that it would come up so fast that it would raise too far out of the water and flip bellyup. They also left out the Hurricane that Titanic had to survive getting to New York or the 2 Russian born spies that tried to sabotage the ship drilling holes in the bottom. They did hold to some of the story but what little they did even this they destroyed. I aeiterate go out to the public library and read the book, by Clive Cussler is fantastic reading but as the main critic of this movie said "AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE". Personally I gave it a 1-STAR only because there wasn't anything less to give it. If I had my personal choice I would give it a -10 stars on a 1-10 scale it stunk so bad. Only some of the Sci-Fi movies of the 1950's were worse than this destruction of a great novel.
Date: 13 June 2004
Summary: I have written Cussler and the book is great
Raise the titanic is a great book. Clive Cussler has written to me and he likes the poems of Robert Service especially the shooting of Dan McGrew. You can almost picture the klondike good guys morphing into DIRK PITT and AL GIORDINO fighting the evil soviets on the newly raised TITANIC. Despite what you may have heard. Raise the Titanic is a good film. Jason Robards as Admiral Sandecker is an excellent choice. The special effects are pretty good for 1980 in the film. You really get a feel for the majesty of the titanic as they are raising it in the movie. The choice of actor to play DIRK PITT isn't bad. There is a camaraderie between PITT and GIORDINO that is appealing to macho men. The movie gets you to start thinking about humans staying underwater for long periods of time. Humans may have to live underwater for long periods of time if the human species is to survive. I was in a New Providence Bahamas antique map shop, Balmain antiques. I got to see the owner pointing out a shipwreck location on an antique map to an American and the shipwreck fever was in the room. There is an adrenaline rush you get when you are searching for shipwrecks, the TITANIC search is no exception. I am sure that if Clive CUSSLER could have afforded it he would like to have his name on the discovery of the TITANIC. As it is CUSSLER and NUMA have done really well in the hunt for ships and aircraft. CUSSLER and NUMA found the CSS HUNLEY submarine and others. I gave Raise the Titanic a 10 out of 10 as would most people interested in TITANIC lore. The book of course is better than the movie.
Date: 30 April 2004
Summary: "A best selling novel, but not a great movie"
I've seen this movie many times when I was young but I haven't read the the book until very recently. I've read just two other novels by Clive Cussler and I will definitely read more because Clive Cussler is one great author!

I'll admit to most people the film would be rather boring, simply because the movie has no action and no suspense. Not much except discussion about finding the mineral called "byzanium" and then trying to raise the Titanic from the ocean floor. There wasn't a very good cast of actors either.

'Raise The Titanic' was Cussler's first best selling novel published just a few years before the movie was released. Since then Cussler has written far better novels with even more action and adventure. In most of Cussler's novels he uses a character called "Dirk Pitt". Pitt is basically Cussler's fictional counterpart., his adventurous career parallels to that of Cussler. Like Cussler, Pitt works for a company called N.U.M.A. National Underwater Marine Agency, and travels around searching for lost shipwrecks and airplanes.

In the film of 'Raise The Titanic' Pitt (Richard Jordon) didn't look much like the way Pitt has been described in the novels. In the novels Pitt does have short dark hair but he doesn't have a beard. So the film didn't really present Pitt as much of character.

Another movie based on one of Cussler's novels will be released later this year called 'Sahara'. I've read the novel and it is incredible! So hopefully this movie be incredible as well. Pitt will be played by Mathew McConaughey and hopefully he will be a much better Dirk Pitt than Richard Jordon.
Date: 28 April 2004
Summary: "The movie equivalent of the Millennium Dome!"
US Naval Intelligence attempts to raise the Titanic, the ocean-liner that sank on her maiden voyage in 1912. It is believed that her cargo contains rare minerals that will enable the Americans to perfect a defense system completely resistant to enemy missiles.

A film which cost $40,000,000 to make, was hyped as a blockbuster and then tripped the flop fantastic when it took a lousy $7,000,000 at the box-office. Hardly surprising because it is very thinly plotted (there's barely enough plot to make a b-movie), the acting is indifferent and above all it's just an unbearably tedious way of passing the time. I would place this on my list of movies that I love to hate when I call it the movie equivalent of the Millenium Dome, and just to add to the insult, they should have put sprocket holes on all the hype and thrown the picture away.
Date: 20 January 2004
Summary: Great book, poor film.
I bought Raise The Titanic on DVD for one of my mates for Christmas 2003, mainly because we've read all of Cusslers books and thought them very very good. I knew the film was pretty poor before I bought it, that was another reason to get it though, some poor films can be quite entertaining.

It follows the book very poorly, missing out huge chunks, the actors are all poorly cast (with exception of Alec Guinness), as non of them appear as described in the books, where's Sandeckers fiery beard?

Anyhoos, the best bit that made me laugh was the US Huey helicopter with a nice Russian red star on it. Why they couldn't have found a Russian heli from somewhere, there are enough budget films that dress random Russian Mil helis up as American ones. :)

Best part I thought was the internal set of the Titanic, looked genuinely like a rusted up old ship.
Date: 14 November 2003
Summary: Snoozer!
Words simply cannot describe how boring this film is! Forgive me if I offended anyone whose a big fan of the film, but I just can't help but sleep through it!.

I loved it as a little boy, but as I grew up, I began to greatly dislike it. The pacing for it was terribly slow, it could put someone, ANYONE to sleep! The plot ALMOST has nothing to do with the ship, or the event. Characters are bland and unlikeable. It's praticaly unbearable! However, I may be being a little hard on ''RAISE THE TITANIC''. But still! I just can't sit through it without sleeping. #1 million budget wasted. Again, I'm sorry for sounding so harsh, I just can't help it. I do my best to get interested in it, but it seems to drag every moment. The only good part that came out of it was the ship rising out of the sea and the soundtrack, but we all know that it's impossible to raise the that's 2 1/2 beneath the sea.

I guess that's about it, however, if your a huge Titanic fan, I pretty much suggest that you add this film into your inventory. May not be a great film, but it should be in everyone's collection.

1.5 out of 4: Boring, I can't say anything else.
Date: 12 November 2003
Summary: How could you raise the Titanic? Its impossible regardless

The movie deals with a fictitious plot involving a precious mineral supposedly stowed away in the past aboard the now sunken Titanic. So now they want to raise the ship to retrieve it (even though this movie was made before the Titanic was discovered ,it seems so ridiculous to me that the makers of the movie and the author of the book would hypothesize that the ship would be in one piece after it sank 2 1/2 miles below the surface ,the force the impact would have made when it hit bottom would have been like an atom bomb going off and of course that was proved when it was found ,it was broke in two pieces ,heavy damage to bow and stern and debris scattered everywhere.) In the movie ,its raised intact and looks no more the worse for wear. Also ,how the heck would you have raised it ,(even with our technology now it would have been simply impossible ,lifting something that massive 2 1/2 miles below the ocean ,it would weigh 10 times as much and snap like a twig from the pressure). The rest of the movie involves spys , a project and at the end the material isn't even onboard the ship. I do admit that the scene of the ship breaking the surface was eerie and I did feel something weird about it ,after all over 1000 people died. Overall not a good movie, based on the novel of the same name.
Date: 11 October 2003
Summary: A Terrible Movie

The Titanic was a ship that ran into a huge disaster. In this movie they raise that ship where over 1500 people froze to death in the cold Atlantic. This movie should have been named Raise the Grave because they are not taking up just a ship, they took up a place where 1500 people died. A very bad movie.
Date: 27 September 2003
Summary: similar to the space race of the sixties

I was deeply touched by this movie as it has an enchanting affect on me that I have difficulties expressing in words. Lets recall that the real Titanic was not found until some six or seven years after this movie was released. Back then it would have been difficult to display what the Titanic would have really looked like even when bearing in mind that it had been in it's watery grave for some sixty years. What the Titanic would have looked like is really missing the point behind the novel and the movie. This movie is an adaptation of Cussler's novel however, my impression behind the idea of raising the Titanic acts as a slogan to the theme, even though it serves the whole plot very well.. The Titanic is enormous and so is the mission behind achieving the aimed target. The theme and agenda would be closely relate to the incredible difficulties and desperation associated with trying to achieve a goal or a discovery that takes those persevering to new horizons with the pressures from competition that resulted from the cold war. This, however can be impressing as it would be an absolute adventure in reality to actually raise the Titanic, if only it were not so fragile and still in one piece on the ocean floor.

While there are those that are totally untouched by this, wanting to get to the Titanic first represents the typical effects from the cold war, no different from the space race of the 1960's as to who was going to be the first to land man on the moon. It is far easier by today's standards to see a movie such as this one with a critical eye, because these types of movies are less attracting to newer generations, resulting from the cold war no longer being the main headline in today's media. This is sad in a way, as it does not give these movies their deserved recognition.

The color and filming make this movie even more special as it has a sort of foggy but clear setting. The risen Titanic is not badly represented either when compared to what it really looked like below the sea when it was actually discovered. I also enjoyed the soundtrack and score to it giving it that extra edge. You really have to be open minded to appreciate this movie and being an 1980 release would make it of excellent quality.
Date: 8 May 2003
Summary: Thank God for Southby, Thanks but no thanks for this...

A folly worthy of its namesake, Lord Grade, its liner sized producer famously remarked that it would have "been cheaper to lower the Atlantic", although you'd have to say not as much fun to watch.

Raise the Titanic(!)is an adaptation of the novel by Clive Cussler. In its transition to the big screen however, most of the intricate cold war plotting is lost in addition to the prologue on the liner itself as she's sinking. The dense plotting of the novel gives way here to the bare bones of a cold war thriller retaining the basic story and of course the bank breaking poster promise of the doomed liner rising from her watery grave. It might have worked too had the source material been handled a little better. The screenplay is pretty talky and never really succeeds in building the necessary tension but what really sinks (sorry) the whole enterprise is direction from Jerry Jameson so moribund and lifeless, you'd think he was helming a movie for cable television. Its a mark of this that although it doesn't take very long to find the ship itself on screen it SEEMS like an eternity. Also RTT! has, for the most part a cut price look that undermines the epic scale of the story and its subject matter. When the ship does eventually see the light of day its via some model work and camera over cranking that fails in producing that all important wow factor. To be fair though there are some very good shots of the ship entering New York harbor that do pack a punch, aided enormously by one of John Barry's best ever scores - a wonderful bombastic orchestral suite that is as good as he's ever produced. Were this a better film, and had anyone gone to see it Barry may have been in line for an Oscar (which he got when he plagiarized parts of the score for Out of Africa). In fact, its fair to say that Barry is the only person behind the camera who does the story any justice.

Richard Jordan gives a good performance as Cussler's hero Dirk Pitt and there's a nice Cornish Cameo for Alec Guinness but everyone else is really just waiting to die here. The twist is a good one but is handled poorly and you're left wondering what a director like John McTernian who did such good work with Clancy's Hunt for Red October may have made of the same material. Sadly the discovery of the real ship in two pieces has succupered any remake possibilities so this is it. Raise the Bismarck anyone?
Date: 4 May 2003
Summary: Nowhere near as bad as most reviewers have said

While it does not rank as a spectacular film, it is very faithful to the book, which is more than can be said for most Hollywood adaptations of the last 20 years or so. The premise is not that all unbelievable, either. Even though subsequent history has proved the fact that the ship is not all in one piece, Cussler's then innovative idea has proved to be a viable method of raising ancient wrecks.
Date: 21 April 2003
Summary: Worth seeing if you've read the book

This is the book that got me started on Clive Cussler, and although it is quite dated (published 1976) it is still a great book. After searching for years for a video store that had the movie available for rent, I finally got around to watching it. Let me say that if you have not read the book, this movie will seem like another one of those standard 1970's (yes, I know it was made in 1980, but that doesn't matter). These movies have a decent plot, but it gets ruined by dated references, cheesy soundtracks, bad haircuts, and lackluster endings. (c.f. Taking of Pelham One Two Three, The (1978)) Richard Jordan is an excellent characterization of Dirk Pitt. Jason Robards is a decent Sandecker, although his character bears little resemblance to the one Cussler describes in his novels. Naturally, Alec Guinness is superb as Bigalow (who else could play that role?). Oh, and Cussler has a cameo. See if you can recognize him from the pictures on the inside jacket of his novels. It was fairly easy.

In addition, the special effects sequences involving the ship and its rise to the surface were excellent. They were just as good as any sequences in Titanic (1997) and not nearly as expensive, I'll bet.

If you've read this book, my advice is to shell out a couple of bucks for a rental and see how your visualization of Cussler's story matches up against that of the directors. If you haven't read the book, you may still enjoy the movie, but keep in mind the book was written in 1976, when the Cold War was in full force and the Titanic was still undiscovered and would remain that way for another 10 years.

*SPOILERS BELOW* *SPOILERS BELOW*

I'll now go on to describe the primary differences between the book and the movie, in case that's what you're concerned with (that was my primary reason for renting it):

The opening scene in the book (April 1912, where the "mystery man" demands that Bigalow take him to the cargo hold and then locks himself in the vault) is not in the movie. I presume this is due to the large expense a scene such as that would require. Instead, we are presented with a montage of sepia-toned photographs of the Titanic through its construction and on its maiden voyage. The "Thank god for Southby" quote is instead found in a letter that Hobart sent to the U.S. Army the day before Titanic sailed.

The movie begins with the scene on Novaya Zemlya (except it's called something else in the movie, despite the fact that Novaya Zemlya is a real place), with the mining engineer discovering the abandoned Byzanium mine. The plaque identifying Hobart's grave explicitly says "Jake Hobart, U.S. Army", which clears up that little mystery and eliminates the scenes where they visit the mining machinery company in Colorado and Hobart's widow in CA.

For some reason, Pitt is a Captain in the U.S. Navy, not the Air Force, but whatever. Oh, and Sandecker is in on the project from the start, for some unknown reason. Arthur Brewster is referred to as a "con man" instead of a respected mining engineer. There is no mention of the Little Angel mining disaster.

The original mining crew board a Norwegian whaler to get to Novaya Zemlya, and on the way back it's the Russians (who are portrayed as Communists back then, despite the fact that the Czar was still ruling in 1912, 5 years before Trotsky and the revolution), not the French, who chaise them and the Byzanium from Aberdeen to Southampton.

Mel Donner does not exist in the movie, and Gene and Dana are not married, but appear to be dating. Dana appears to be a newspaper reporter or something in the movie (instead of working for NUMA), and its implied that she and Pitt had a prior relationship.

The Lorelei Current expedition does not exist. First, they're looking in the wrong place for the Titanic. Then they do the experiment with the tank, and discover where they should be looking, and only THEN do they find Graham Farley's cornet. And for some reason, they claim that Farley previously served on the Olympic instead of the Oceanic.

Pitt's meeting with Bigalow is pretty much the same as in the book - Alec Guinness is of course excellent - and he presents Pitt with the pennant.

Prevlov (the Russian officer) actually comes on board the ship to meet with the NUMA folks - there is no spying, no Silver and Gold, no fight scenes, no snapped towing cable, and no harsh North Atlantic Storm. Which is unfortunate. As I mentioned, however, the shots of the Titanic coming up are quite well done.

The ending was rather dismal, but I suppose in 1980, Cussler's 1976 ending wasn't acceptable. The movie ends with the discovery of Hobart's grave in Southby, however Seagram balks at the last minute, and refuses to dig up the Byzanium. Ah well, such is life.
Date: 29 January 2003
Summary: Movie may be a little long and humdrum, but music is GREAT!

Being a Clive Cussler fan, I treasure his books and also this movie. The movie is long, slow, and lacks thrills of current action packed flicks, but one cannot beat the music of John Barry that strikes one right to the soul. That alone makes this a great film, and I was thrilled when after 3 years I finally found the sound track on CD.
Date: 2 July 2002
Summary: pretty good

Special effects in 1980 weren't what they are in 2002 obviously. This film is rather laughable in terms of pyrotechnics when you compare it to, let us say James Cameron's film (by the way this film was made five years before they found the real Titanic so they had no way of knowing the ship broke in two before it went down). I saw this film as a kid and enjoyed it (I enjoy anything having to do with the Titanic). I remember that summer of 1980 there was a big ad build up for it, the last great human adventure is about to begin. This is a good suspense film, although they would have been better off following Cussler's novel more closely especially in character development. Cussler was reportedly so angry at this film he forbid them to make anymore from his novels which is a damn shame. Dirk Pitt is a fine hero in the James Bond mold. The scene where the ship is "raised" is handled rather well. I read something that was kind of funny, the producers spent a fortune building an elaborate studio tank for the model they "raised" then found out they didn't make it big enough. Anne Archer is rather wasted in this film, she's a fine actress who deserved better. The great Alec Guinness has an amusing cameo. He was always such a loveable old ham.
Date: 19 June 2002
Summary: Very Disappointing

I highly anticipated this movie, having enjoyed the book. Was very disappointed, as the movie either left out most of the exciting parts of the book or completely changed them. If you have an interest in the Titanic or in spy/action novels I highly recommend the book, but not the movie. Might be watch able if you haven't read the novel.
Date: 14 April 2002
Summary: Ship of Fools

I find it interesting that I am writing this review 90 years to the day of the sinking of the Titanic. I actually saw this movie not too long ago for the second time, and decided to read the book once the movie was finished. Sadly, as it is with most book adaptations, the novel was a WHOLE lot better than the movie. It seems everyone believes that the rousing musical score of the movie was the best part, and I am inclined to agree. Too much was cut out of Mr. Cussler's novel that it doesn't even resemble a Dirk Pitt adventure any more. The movie counterparts do not even remotely resemble their characters in the books (Al Giordino is on screen for a few minutes at best), the dialogue seems forced and uninspired, and the whole ending just plain silly. However, after watching the depressing sinking of Mr. Cameron's Titanic, I felt it as a breath of fresh air to see the ship rising from the depths. Overall, 7 out of 10.
Date: 10 March 2002
Summary: Definitely fails...

After this movie released, Cussler himself called it "terrible from beginning to end." It looked as if the Dirk Pitt franchise was dead before it even got started. Badly casted characters, no charisma, and no interest. This movie was a complete failure in the eyes of anyone...even fans of the novels.

However, Cussler will give it another go with "Sahara" in 2003. Let's hope this one succeeds!
Date: 25 December 2001
Summary: disagreement with previous spoiler(s)

For the time, this was an adequate workout of a possible fate of the giant ship (inaccessible but structurally sound); obviously choosing a different ship would have been fortunate since others could withstand raising. But recall that the ship is a side issue for much of the plot, since this is a cold war spy thriller about the race to construct a pre-SDI missile defense system. Locating the ship will provide clues to the previous discovery of a rare mineral that could provide the power for the space systems, one of which a small amount was located by a mining company out of business for almost a century. The Soviets are following the mineral location efforts due to a (convenient) territorial dispute with the area of its discovery.

Robards is great as a military man (probably not to the liking of fans of his other roles) and casting is adequate elsewhere. A 'peacenik' ending in the film reverses the book, which ends with the establishment of the defensive beams.
Date: 8 December 2001
Summary: Lousy story, but some good scenes of the mighty shipwreck.

I rented this movie because of my fascination for the Titanic, and not for the story itself. And the story turned out to what I had expected it to be; uninteresting. However, the scenes of the aging old ship were good; it looked old, powerful and majestic. Even though they apparently made this movie before it was discovered that the Titanic broke into two parts when sinking.

Not a film to rent if you want to see a good movie. If you need to kill a couple of hours and have a great interest of anything that's Titanic, it might be worthwhile. Otherwise, skip it.
Date: 10 November 2001
Summary: It was a dream - they raised it! See it for what it is!

I have never understood the degree of ire, dislike, contempt and scorn heaped upon this movie. A multi million dollar turkey at the box office which virtually sank Lord Lew Grade and one that has provided film critics with cheap laughs ever since. I sit here this morning, having sat through ZOO LANDER last night, watching a complacent, pre-programmed brain-dead audience guffaw itself senseless, contributing another truck load of dollars to Ben Stiller's superannuation fund and you know, I wonder about RAISE THE TITANIC. What has happened to sentiment, simplicity, the ultimately simple values in life?

Sure, RAISE THE TITANIC captures none of the power of Cussler's novel, but I don't really care! Yeah, they got the funnel configuration shot to hell, the underwater model as it surfaces looks much like the little rubber boat I used to play with in the bath as a child, and David Selby has the animal magnetism of Osama bin Laden, but I'd like to tell you something. Perhaps because I maintained a fascination with the TITANIC ever since I was a child and dreamed of just how it must have been that night, when watching that absolutely awesome scene in RAISE THE TITANIC as the great ship broke the surface I have never in my life been so emotionally moved. Tears just ran down my face and I cried like a child. When I got home that night my wife asked me what was wrong. I couldn't talk about it and was never able to explain, and you people reading this want to believe it, I am the absolute last guy you would consider to be a wuss! How anyone could have witnessed that scene in the theater and NOT been moved I could never understand.

So many memorable things in the film. Titanic survivor, Sir Alec Guinness' touching cameo in the pub when he gives Dirk Pitt (the late Richard Jordan) the white star flag that he removed from the stern the night the great ship foundered, and which he wanted replaced if they were ever to raise it from the bottom of the Atlantic. The inarguably realistic scene when Jordan and his crew members finally discover the wreck on the bottom, played out against John Barry's ultimately moving musical score, the best he wrote for ANY film. The external shots of the ship once it has been raised (Way better I thought than Cameron's digitized TITANIC) and the internal shots of the gymnasium still dripping with water. Finally, the wonderful scenes as it is towed into New York harbor to complete its (then) 68-year journey. True, the last twenty minutes or so were all downhill, but nothing can detract from what went before. Worst thing they ever did was to FIND the wreck! A dream died that day!

Date: 10 July 2001
Summary: Watch the Movie, then Read the Book
I've seen the movie many times but not recently. I've just picked up the book for the umpteenth time for a quick read. It's a rip-snorter of a good yarn - one of the handful of truly great stories that Cussler has written - a few of his others are a bit on the lame side. More recently he has written himself very briefly into his stories in such a way that makes me cringe, and that goes for some dialog that his male characters direct at female characters. My personal vision of Pitt and Giordino are people like Burt Lancaster and Nick Cravat (their "The Crimson Pirate" was a tour de force). If you haven't read the book Raise the Titanic, then I suggest you watch the movie first as an appetizer, then read the book for the full story. I can't really argue with the other reviewers comments. Raise The Titanic is a fact of cinema history and I like it that it WAS made. I love the old quote attributed to Lord Lew Grade about financing the film where he's supposed to have said "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic than to Raise the Titanic" - (in an interview I read a while back he perhaps modestly commented that he didn't think that up because it was too clever). On another note - if I'm correct, the model constructed to film the raised Titanic was auctioned off during the Telethon in Perth Western Australia in about 1982??. It may have been owned by the late millionaire Robert Holmes-a-Court. I was only young but it has stuck in my mind as being quite an odd occurrence to see here Down Under. The model was about 6 foot long. I wonder where it is now?
Date: 9 July 2001
Summary: Guilty Pleasure
I saw this movie in the theatre, and I remember enjoying it. I knew it was a financial failure, but over the years since I've been surprise by the hatred it has generated. Long before Robert Ballard, finding the Titanic and possibly raising it was a dream I shared with a lot of Titanic fans. Clive Cussler wrote a pulpy but entertaining book on the subject, and I thought the story was made into a pulpy, but entertaining movie. I liked the cast: Richard Jordan, David Selby (I'm a Dark Shadows fan also...hoots of derision), Jason Robards and Anne Archer. Now, however, I have to watch a fading print under cover of darkness to avoid more hoots of derision! I've read that there is excised footage that might help the storyline. I'd buy a directors cut DVD, and have a "Raise the Titanic" party. It's only an entertainment, not a work of art.
Date: 17 March 2001
Summary: A Tragic Misfire
What a tragedy that such an outstanding suspense/action novel by Clive Cussler had to get translated to this lame effort on the big screen that so infuriated Cussler he vowed never to sell another of his Dirk Pitt novels to Hollywood again. The producers forgot that this is supposed to be an ACTION story, with such dramatic moments as a Russian boarding of the raised Titanic during a hurricane to get their hands on the byzanium they want, and Pitt stepping in like 007 or Indiana Jones to save the day. Instead, all the moments of action were sucked out of the story completely. Poor casting doesn't help either. Richard Jordan was a terrific character actor, but he is just not convincing as Pitt, nor is Jason Robards as Sandecker. The only inspired casting is Alec Guinness in his brief part as surviving Titanic crewman John Bigalow.

Other problems? For one thing, the scriptwriters don't even try to get their Titanic history accurate, which Cussler meticulously did in his book. They have the wrong funnel missing (at the time in 1980 it was known that the first funnel, not the second had cracked off. An intact Titanic would have had the first funnel missing), Bigalow is referred to as a "junior third officer" when there was no such designation on the Titanic, and there is no "Cargo Hold #9" on D-Deck (the novel had the vault in a real locale, Cargo Hold #1 on G-Deck). And the ending is a disgrace, because there was no hand wringing about "byzanium bombs" in Cussler's novel! He comes from the old school where the good guys represent good, and to hell with moral equivalence doctrines. That's one reason why the Pitt novels have endured in popularity over the years.

Supposedly, there was a longer initial preview cut of the film that ran 40 minutes or so longer and included among other things a 1912 prologue where we see Brewster lock himself in the vault and also see SFX of the sinking. The SFX footage of the sinking, which included the second funnel breaking off were later recycled in an episode of the 1982 sci-fi series "Voyagers" dealing with the Titanic sinking. It's possible that additional scenes may have provided a little more contextual sense to some of the sequences that just seem too underdeveloped (the Russian spy for instance, and Anne Archer's role. Check the novel to see just how different her character is in Cussler's book!) but I doubt it would have helped much in terms of salvaging the film (no pun intended).

There are two things that should be singled out for praise. One, John Barry's magnificent score which is probably the best score he ever did for a non-007 movie, and which thankfully was rerecorded on CD in 1999 (the original film music tracks are lost). Also, the special effects may seem cheap and dated today but they impressed me back in 1980 and they still offer a convincing look at an image of something that I as a Titanic enthusiast always dreamed in my wild fantasies of seeing happen before the ship was found broken in two in 1985, namely the great ship being raised and towed to New York to finish her maiden voyage. That of course can never happen, but at least this film made that fantasy image come to life for one brief moment so for that I do appreciate it on that one level.
Date: 15 March 2001
Summary: No way would this pass for a movie today
One of the runaway budgets of 1979-80, along with "1941", "The Blues Brothers", "Star Trek" and "Heaven's Gate", that ended the era of the '70s auteur and ushered in one where studio executives and producers took the creative reins back.

Problem with the flick seems to be they focused entirely on the maritime hardware and underwater models. No way could a script so devoid of character development get green lit by Disney or DreamWorks today. For example, they'd have figured a way to make Anne Archer's character relevant (why she's even in this movie I have no idea).

Jordan's good as Pitt. I agree that somebody needs to wrestle the rights free and film three or four of Clive Cussler's books, but the action of this story was confined to the bottom of the Atlantic and was pretty boring.

I won't even touch on how terrible the underwater models are because, that's really a given. The scene where the Titanic is towed back into New York Harbor wasn't bad though.

Interesting example of how much filmmaking has changed in 20 years. You can just imagine the younger cast, sweeping camera movements and digital fx added if this were shot today. This one feels like something translated from book to screen in the 1960s, actually, like Alistair MacLean "Where Eagles Dare". Very epic, very corny, little or no character development.
Date: 7 December 2000
Summary: Under the sea, under the sea,,,
When I first saw this movie years ago, I thought they really had raised the Titanic just to make this movie (Hey, I was a dumb kid!), but now looking at this movie, I can realize just how bad the special effects really were. Knowing what we now know, I wonder what this movie would have been about if they had found the Titanic in half with the crushing depths and Leonardo DiCaprio's hands on Billy Zane's neck. The mere concept of raising the ship today of course is sheer lunacy since the decomposition of it would rattle it apart in bits and pieces ["Oh, we got it ! Which of it's million pieces do you want ?] Jason Robards is a little boring in his role, but I did like seeing David Selby outside of "Dark Shadows." The underwater shots were abysmal; I couldn't make out anything ! The terrorist sub-plot was a bit tagged on, but the overall images of the anti-climactic ending were just short of impressive.
Date: 31 August 2000
Summary: Yes I am that man
I am the only person in the world who thinks this is a great film. I don't know why as everything about it should make it a bummer. The sets and effects are poor, the acting mediocre, the casting, strange, but the sum of the parts is a film which works for me and I could watch it over and over again. Isn't life strange 8 out of 10 (hahahahahahahahahaha)
Date: 17 August 2000
Summary: Not bad, but a missed opportunity...
First- The book is incredible, as are all of Clive's works. There's so much story here that it must have overwhelmed the writers. Second- Richard Jordan is Dirk Pitt. He is who I picture when I read Clive's works. Third- The score is wonderful. John Barry does such great sea music. The entire soundtrack is available. Fourth- Some of the scenes do work: Dirk walking the newly-raised Titanic, Dirk talking to Alec Guinness (who did not win an Oscar for Star Wars), Dirk raising the flag on Titanic.

Now, the rest of it is pretty average. Whole sections of the book were cut, replaced with pointless exposition. Al Giordino pops up for about 5 seconds. The SFX range from decent to awful.

Now is the time to get to James Cameron and give him Clive's books. They are the franchise he is so desperate to find. He can even start with Raise the Titanic! as a semi-sequel to that dreck he cobbled together in 1997. (Justice could probably only be done to them as 8 hour mini-series. The are always possibilities.) For now, this is better than nothing. Score: 6 out of 10 for Jordan and the good points mentioned earlier.
Date: 29 April 2000
Summary: Cussler was Clancy before Clancy was cool
Ok, so Raise the Titanic isn't the greatest film ever made, but it's not the worst. Cussler was having Dirk Pitt raise the Titanic and save the world when Tom Clancy was still selling insurance. I wish the film makers had stuck closer to the book, which is part Titanic, part James Bond. It's as if they decided to take the (very) basic plot of the novel and spend about $50 million on a film that looked like about $1.99. The acting is fair considering the script Robards and Jordan had to work with. From an appearance stand point Richard Jordan is Dirk Pitt for me. I can see him in the part. It was just that the part wasn't written for one of Jordan's talent. Read the novel, rent the movie and compare the hatchet job Hollywood did on it. At least they would do better on the next major Titanic movie. Not much consolation to Clive Cussler I'm afraid, but hey that's show biz!
Date: 12 April 2000
Summary: Ugh

How the writers actually managed to write a script this bad is one thing, how the producers (why they wanted to have anything to do with the movie is beside the point) convinced these five mega stars (sort of) to accept the roles is probably on of the 80's biggest mysteries.

The only thing, absolutely ONLY thing this movie has going for it is the cast. Six time Oscar nominee/2 time winner Alec Guinness (Star Wars, Lawrence of Arabia) should have know better than to accept this trash, as should have Oscar nominee Anne Archer (Rules of Engagement, Fatal Attraction), 2 time Oscar winner Jason Robards (Magnolia), and Golden Globe winner Richard Jordan (Gettysburg, The Hunt for Red October).

The writing and direction is horrendous, same goes for the story- which we can now laugh out because of it being so AMAZINGLY DATED, and believe it or not, the acting. With an ensemble cast like that you'd expect it to be good, but it wasn't. The actors must not have had their hearts it in, not surprising considering the material/script (ha!) they had to work with.

Stay away from this at ALL cost, and do not let it tempt you, as it is a horrid mess.

Date: 16 July 1999
Summary: It really isn't that bad.
This movie really isn't that bad! I know it bombed severely at the box office but on video it's definitely worth a go.

Although I enjoy this film - I'm not saying it's great by any stretch of the imagination - there are some severely dire moments. Particularly poor are some of the special effects, but on the whole they're not bad for the early eighties.

Richard Jordan wasn't miscast at all, I feel that he and Jason Robards did incredibly good acting on this film (as always) and even Anne Archer isn't as annoying as she became later on in her career.

Anyway, it really isn't as bad as all they other comments on this page would have you believe, so if you haven't seen it give it a go.
Date: 16 February 1999
Summary: Not as exciting as the book but it does have its moments
This is not as exciting as the book but it does have its moments, like when Dirk discovers the Titanic, that was a great scene, you could feel their excitement as they are approaching it, not knowing they have found the Titanic. When the Titanic is raised to the top, when Dirk meets John Bigelow and the scene where Dirk is walking through the ballroom, the look of reference on his face when he looks up the staircase and around the room, that was the best part of the movie. To say that Richard Jordan and Jason Robards were miscast, I disagree. They did a great job with their parts. I do feel that they were capable of doing a lot more than what they were given. But as far as David Selby goes I do agree, he has to be the worst actor ever and it's a shame that he was given a part in this movie.

But I do think it should have been more exciting than it was. I also would like to know is what happened to Al Giordino? How could they make this movie without him. Also, I didn't like the part where Seagram was making fun of Dirk Pitt's name, I felt like throwing something at the screen when he kept on putting him down. Also, I like to remind the writers that Dirk Pitt was not a Captain in the Navy, he was a Major with the Air Force. You know can go so far as to saying that Richard Jordan and Jason Robards were the ones that saved this movie from becoming a total flop, because they were excellent, I just wish the movie itself had measured up to their talents. After all they are both award-winning actors, a Golden Globe winner (Jordan) and an Academy Award winner (Robards).
Date: 9 January 1999
Summary: Bad
Cussler himself can't stand this movie. After watching it for the first time, I now know why. Miscasting throughout. The only bright spots were the ending credits and the score.

Would someone in the film industry please give Clive at least some casting & creative control? His books are really good & would probably translate well on screen, but this was not the way to do it.
Date: 20 December 1998
Summary: My agreement with Gislef

I love Clive Cussler's novels. He writes incredibly wonderful stories, and I have read nearly all of them. This movie was a joke. Cussler's novels could be made into blockbuster movies, and this one was pathetic and probably ruined what could be a huge franchise. The entire cast was inappropriate (maybe...Steven Seagal...) and I was really disappointed. The fact that the movie did not follow the novel probably had a lot to do with why it sucked so bad. If anyone takes the time to make a Clive Cussler movie again (which would be nice) I would hope that they would spend enough time and money to make it the hit that it could be.

Date: 8 November 1998
Summary: phwa hahaha!!,actually, its not that bad.
This is, to put it bluntly, not the best film in the world, but then again it's not the worst, I know it didn't do very well at the box-office, and I can't say that I found it as edge-of-the-seat viewing. To give you an idea of what this film is like, one of the reasons people may want to see this film is, of course, the raising of the Titanic, then when you see that the Titanic doesn't look like it has descended 2and a half miles down and then stayed there, it just looks like nobodies cleaned for a while, I mean the masts and rigging are still intact! I know the wreck wasn't found for another five or six years, but even a TV. weather girl could work out that they might have fallen down in the sinking + descent!!! I suppose the ship being in one piece is excusable, but they could have given it some scientific thought!! But, if you're bored, nothing to do, tumble weed blowing across your social life ,then dim the lights, find a comfy chair and enjoy this tacky cheese-fest!!
Date: 27 September 1998
Summary: Someone's got to cash in!
Given the downright crazy Titanic phenomenon that is sweeping the nation in the wake of the Cameron movie, I don't understand why anyone hasn't broadcast this movie or re-released it on tape. If they can sell bad Titanic related documentaries and every other Titanic movie out there in order to cash in, why not add Raise the Titanic? Why haven't the Mystery Science Theater 3000 people discovered this movie? It's so bad it's funny. It's a gold mine. One can potentially make millions on and they are missing out! Sheesh!
Date: 31 August 1998
Summary: Why Cussler Doesn't Do Movies
Inexplicably bad adaptation of Clive Cussler's novel, the failure of this movie may be in its focus on an actual historical event. Most of Cussler's novels revolve around odd sinkings and lost-at-sea type events: perhaps this movie couldn't stand up to the scrutiny that accompanies any Titanic -based project. Richard Jordan is badly miscast (as is Jason Robards). Cussler's novels would make excellent Bond-type big budget movies in the right hands, but here Jerry Jameson and the writers managed to suck anything interesting out of Cussler's entertaining original work.

From Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide.

Long, dull adaptation of Clive Cussler's best-seller about intrigue leading to the biggest salvage job of all time. Silly plotting and laughable dialogue undermine excitement of climactic ship-raising. Cut from 122m. just prior to release. Technovision.

*½ out of 4 stars

Copyright© Leonard Maltin, 1998-2001, used by arrangement with Signet, a division of Penguin Putnam, Inc.

*½ out of 4 stars