jptuttleb This rendition of Jules Verne's novel is, like all screen adaptations of fictional literature, definitely not accurate as far as the book plot goes. However, like just about every production, it has its bad parts and its good parts (but mostly bad in this case). The actual cinematography is good, and some of the acting is fairly well done. I found it interesting that the producers were able to get a notable actor such as Sir Patrick Stewart. But when it comes to some of the post-production, it was terrible. The computer graphics for the giant creatures are HORRIBLE! If the computerized graphics are not jerky then they are quite noticeably out of sync and do not match up well with the video clips. If you decide to watch this poor production I think you will find yourself saying, "Oh my gosh; that's so bad!" out loud and more than once.

Tom I could list all the reasons why this movie fails but honestly just watch the the trailer and you'l get a good idea of how bad this movie is. I actually enjoyed this movie when I saw it a couple of years ago but in the same way I enjoy 'the Room' and 'Cool cat saves the kids'. this movie is laughably bad particularly the scenes with the pirates, so unless your with a bunch of friends who enjoy watching bad movies than I wouldn't recommended this movie. Honestly the only reason why i'm bothering to review this mess of a movie is to complete my profile checklist.this is the kind of movie that gets given out for free with the Mail on Sunday.(that's a newspaper in England.) In fact that's actually where I found this movie so I think that tells you all you need to know. I'm going to end this review now and never think about this pirate,giant rat,praying mantis,Patrick Stewart,Volcano themed monstrosity ever again.

david-sarkies For a book that I didn't know existed until a few years ago I am surprised that there have actually been four movies made that have been based upon this book. I am not sure about two of them, but the more recent one (Journey 2) and this one are loosely based upon the story, and seem to take the story in a different direction. The original concept that Verne explored in his book was the idea that a group of castaways on a desert island could create an industrialised society with the right knowledge and resources.Obviously in the book they do have a little help, and a lot of luck (namely that the Cyrus Smith is a very knowledgeable engineer and that the island produces a lot of the things that are required), but it appears that the movies (including this one) have pushed this aside to simply turning it into a story where the heroes are trapped upon a desert island and use what they can to survive.This movie, however, has a few extra things thrown in, though they were in the original book. Firstly Nemo is introduced right at the beginning and plays a much more major role in this movie than in the book. In the book he exists mostly backstage, though his actions do allow the characters to survive. Also the pirates play a much greater role in this movie, and are also out hunting for treasure.What baffles me (and it is what put me off Journey 2, and has also put me off this one) is that the film makers have decided to put in monstrous creatures. In Journey 2 they are dinosaurs and in this one they are simply giant animals. Despite the fact that the giant insects are physically impossible (okay, it is only a movie, but at least Verne was somewhat more realistic) I felt that the addition of these creatures were simply there to make the film much more exciting. Personally, I preferred the book as I found the idea of the castaways building an industrial society was actually quite exciting.Oh yes, and the book originally had no female characters, and had a pet ape that was trained so well that it was almost human. However, in the spirit of creating a family movie with no homosexual innuendo, they ditched a couple of the male characters a threw in a couple of female characters. In a way it seemed as if this was simply just to have a couple of token characters to make us, the audience, feel good.

cudaseeker-1 Don't waste your time with this. If I had known that this was a made for TV movie, with fade outs for commercials, and a "to be continued" pause in the middle of the DVD, I would not have rented it. It was a waste of 2 hrs & 45 minutes of my time. I do believe that the special effects were supposed to be cheesy, as if to imitate the 1961 original film. If that was the case, they didn't even match up to that and that movie is 45 years old for crying out loud! But go rent the original. It was much better. Even Jason and the Argonaut movies hands down had 100 times better effects than this movie. Patrick Stewart, one of my favorite actors of today and the main reason that I rented it, was fair at best. You could tell that he was just walking through this role and suffering along with the rest of us. And he sure was not at all interested in vying for an Oscar or Emmy. Yikes!! Oh, and did I mention that this was a totally useless movie? Stay away......a galaxy far, far away!