I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with all the previous commentators! Unlike "airport"-style movies, this one is not overly dramatic. And for that reason it is interesting and realistic, and (possibly paradoxically) slightly "undramatic".
Compare this with "Apollo 13" (err, the movie, not the event), where certain events were "dramatized". What - an accident in space that could result in the deaths of all on board, for the first time ever, in space, on TV, is not dramatic enough????? I wonder whether "Apollo 13" would have been "better" or "worse" without this "dramatisation"? This movie certainly opens that question. This movie shows that the understated approach _can_ work.
I also agree with the comments about the "flying hair", not only of Connie Seleca, as mentioned, but of all the women involved. My recollection of stewardesses in the 1980s is that they were somewhat more professional in appearance; those who had long hair wore it up and back. Certainly in Australian airlines of the day the flowing hair was not tolerated. This is distracting from the drama. It gives a slight soft-core porn feel to the movie, which is unnecessary and inappropriate, and spoils the whole effect.
I too could think only of Trapper when looking at the pilot. He did seem to stretch the definition of "nonchalance" to the limit:-).
In summary, I agree with the sense of this group of guidelines. A very good movie. Realistic. As to the lack of surprise ending: it doesn't harm "Titanic", it doesn't harm this one, either.
