Tygerboi

1/10

I watched this by chance one evening when I was bored and flicking though the free digital film channels that came with my Virgin Media TV package. My expectations were low as it was being shown on SyFy Channel - which attracts terribly directed/scripted/acted films with silly names and ridiculous plots (the top ten worst examples undoubtedly being Mega Shark v Giant Octopus, Sharktopus, Sharknado, Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy, Frankenfish, Piranhaconda, Megapython vs. Gatoroid, Dinocroc vs. Supergator, Mega Shark v Crocosaurus, Aztec Rex , but there are so many more) in the same way that flies are attracted to a steaming pile of horse manure - and in that regard I wasn't unfortunately pleasantly surprised. Titanic II does indeed have a stupidly implausible plot, terrible acting, awful CGI that some teenaged boy could've knocked up on his Commodore Amiga using Deluxe Paint back in the 1990's, but in its defence, um, well, the title is pretty standard for a (totally unofficial) sequel movie - it could've been something true to SyFy form such as "Mega Cruiser vs Giant Iceberg" or "Tsunamitanic". It turns out that the only things that are 'Titanic' about this film, other than its name, the tsunami and the iceberg, are the amount of time and money wasted making it in the first place and the time wasted actually watching it from start to finish. I would advise you to avoid watching this abomination at all costs.

CinemaSerf

0/10

It's quite hilarious that on the day I decide to decline Amazon Prime's kind invitation to pay an additional 30%-odd for my annual ad-free subscription that this nonsense appears on my screen. It's not that they produced it, but it clearly demonstrates a compete lack of quality control assessment skills when they decided to offer it. The fact that the director or production team ever allowed this to leave the server in the first place is also quite a savage indictment on the studio too! It's a cheaply produced CGI drama that can't quite decide if it's "Titanic" or "The Poseidon Adventure" as a massive ice floe breaks free and threatens the ship. Luckily, Bruce Davison is airborne feeding his daughter Marie Westbrook sagely advice to avoid the lower decks of the ship as it heads - at 50 knots for about ten seconds - to warmer waters. Just to add to the already impressive array of (n)on-screen talent, Shane van Dyke takes the helm of the adventure as you get that, well, sinking feeling. It must have been a real pain in the neck if you were trying to make a living from one of the gift shops on board as the passengers quickly have other things on their mind, and... well you can just guess the rest of this as it hysterically and quite literally see-saws from bad to worse. Ninety minutes you will never get back, and adios Amazon Prime.

someonestolemyoreo

1/10

Spoilers

I promised I'd watch this movie because of how bad it was and it did not disappoint in terribleness. I've never actually watched Titanic but after seeing Titanic 2 it must be 100000 times better. In a way it's nice to watch bad movies because they make you appreciate good movies more. So, what was wrong with this movie? First of all the idea of a second Titanic, cause we know no one would want to go on that ship. Second of all, the terrible CGI. It looked so fake, it was hilarious. Thirdly, the fact that I did not give a shit about anyone dying cause all the characters barely had any background story and the small things we knew about them were just kind of stupid. I felt mostly sorry for the crew of the ship to be honest, warning that things would go wrong but having to listen to that dumbass. Another dumb thing was that the girls still wore heels while running and being on a sinking ship. Girl, what are you doing? Climbing stairs on fucking heels. There were some other dumb things like them constantly being trapped - which gets kind of boring and repetitive; the fact that I've literally never in my life actually seen a man walk with 3 womans draped around him; the whole electricity thing just looked dumb as well. And honestly, their acting kind of sucked. Maybe they would have been okay in literally any other movie but this one was just ridiculous. Very painful to watch. So bad it might have been funny, but it's mostly just painful knowing money was spend on this.

JPRetana

0/10

Titanic II is not a sequel to Titanic, but a movie about a second ship with that name. That's just asking for trouble. It's like being pope and calling oneself John Paul II (considering that John Paul I died on the thirty-third day of his papacy under mysterious circumstances. What? Too esoteric?). How many people would board a ship called Titanic II? Not many, despite the fact that a ship by that name would be no more or less likely to be in an accident than any ship by any other name – in real life, that is. In a movie, on the other hand, it's another story – or rather, it's the same story. We already know exactly what is going to happen. We know with a certainty approaching dread that the titular ship is going to hit an iceberg sooner or later – and the sooner the better, because until that point we'll just be waiting for the other shoe to drop. For some inexplicable reason, however, writer-director Shane Van Dyke waits 40 minutes to finally get to where we all knew he was headed all along. Actually, there are several inexplicable moments in this movie. For example, Captain James Maine (Bruce Davison in yet another thankless role), a US Coast Guard helicopter commander, warns the captain of the Titanic II about a tsunami that will sweep huge blocks of ice in its wake. Soon after, Maine calls her daughter Amy (Marie Westbrook), a nurse on the ship, on her cellphone, and gets the answering machine; he then leaves a message about a “second wave” of the tsunami. This sounds like too important information to be entrusted to voicemail. Why didn't Maine tell the captain this when they spoke earlier? (another head-scratching scene involves a wound being bandaged with a credit card. Really). Speaking of the Captain, he has the following exchange with one of his men: “Water reading at 31 degrees. Ironic, right?;” “Why?;” “The same reading as 100 years ago.” That the temperature of the water through which the Titanic II sails is the same as during The Voyage of the Original Titanic (that’s the name, by the way, of the book a character is seen reading, which must have been written and published to coincide with Titanic II’s maiden voyage, since that would be the only way the title would make sense) is a huge coincidence, but it’s not ironic. Who knows? They say history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce; perhaps Van Dyke wants to repeat history as “irony”. What’s more, maybe Titanic II is so un-ironic it’s actually ultra-ironic – like an Alanis Morissette song. You know, like rain on your wedding day, or an iceberg in your transatlantic cruise.