Q: The story line was very straight forward and easy to follow and contained a lot of no-brainer comedy to a point where it just got boring. Some of the audience seemed to find it funny but I like more intelligent humor.

There were several known Swedish actors in the movie and their performance were decent considering the script. Lena Endre was good looking as always.

I don't remember the original movie so I can't say if it's better or worse.

If you enjoy movies like Sallskapsresan this movie might be worth taking a look at.
A: negative
Q: He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.
A: negative
Q: 1st watched 5/17/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Ewald Andre Dupont): Fairly lame account of the Titanic disaster is the first filmed version of this much-heralded event. The replication of the disaster is not bad, but the drama around it is at some times silly, badly acted and way-too soap opera-like. The story is very much the same as the most recent Oscar-winning one except that we are shown how the crew tried to hide the actual disaster that was occurring until almost too late. Good for nostalgia purposes only and to get a feel for what James Cameron was competing against(barely) in his recreation.
A: negative
Q: I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I also work in an acute care medical facility. Over the years I have seen people die from hemolytic reactions to blood transfusions, have attended numerous conferences on blood born pathogens, and have seen several patients become seriously ill from pathogens induced by transfused blood. I have also heard several Jehovah's Witnesses being told that they will die if they refuse blood and after 26 years in the field I have never actually seen it happen, leaving the question, "is it really unreasonable to refuse blood transfusions or is the community at large benefiting from the battle on this issue?" The issue for Jehovah's Witnesses is a moral one. "You must abstain from blood" is not an ambiguous statement. Thank you for this movie and allowing comments on it.
A: positive