20,000 lieues sous les mers

1997 saw two TV versions of Jules Verne's classic and I suppose which ever a viewer saw first would forever tarnish their view of the second (Warning: I saw the other version first.) This means neither film was all that bad, neither all that great, and neither threw the Disney version off it's pedestal as being the true film classic (James Mason, Kirk Douglas, and Peter Lorre are a tough act to follow). Personally, I will watch ANYTHING remotely associated with Jules Verne so don't get too upset at my review, I did purchase it for my collection. Yet, compared to the other TV version, this version which features Michael Caine as Captain Nemo is overlong and without style. It boasts a great cast (well cast and decent performances), nice sets, and sufficient special effects, but little imagination. While it lights up like a Christmas tree in production values, it pales in making anything seem interesting. I expect remakes to show me something a little different than what I've seen or read and this whole film tries to base itself on things all too familiar. Dig deeper! Please read my review of 1997's other "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" for that film had style and some original additions. In previous versions we were awed by James Mason behind his pipe organ like the Phantom of the Nautilus, and Ben Cross chilled us as he stood atop his submarine like a Russian commander with American gun fire bursting around him. In this version Michael Caine's bags under his eyes suggested he was quite tired and made me feel very sleepy as well. 1969's "Captain Nemo and the Underwater City" with a nothing budget and a bland cast (Robert Ryan, Chuck Conners!!!) was more interesting! But it is Jules Verne and can be proud to be the second best made-for-TV version of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" to be aired in 1997. I may have been a little harsh, but I think Captain Nemo would have it no other way.

Could this film have been made in the 50s? Was the black guy in Jules Vernes novel? I don't think so, but then it's been a while since I read the Classics Illustrated version of this one. The special effects are outstanding, in fact gives me even more incentive to go for that big screen TV I keep trying to buy. This one is movie theater material.....the romantic interests are there--still going white on white, colored on colored...but we can't have everything at once. The ugly father's mistress plants one on his son, but that's all in the background.

The primary star here is the submarine and Nemo, looking just like the funny book. We never find out why he is the 'man without a country', self-exiled, but it seems to have cost him his wife. The fellow obsessed with freedom and his redundant escape attempts is a hunk, and his brainlessness is well acted.

I don't think he is of the same cut as the brutal, humiliating father though. Verne must have had some parental issues, as they say. The father hates the son cause he lost his wife in childbirth.

There was some attempt to bring in Civil War issues as well, but they are cloudy. The suspense is wonderful, as Nemo and crew attempt to bring the sub up from under the ice. As I watched the diving bells (so up to date, yet written in 1899) and the divers fighting the giant squid (in the same costume practically as I saw in today's Boston Globe), I couldn't help but think of the brave divers who are about to risk their lives down in that murky, human-hostile area south of Nantucket....seeking to answer the question of why yet another jet went down.

The age-old but new questions are well demonstrated in this movie: What price glory...as the pseudo-scientist/father steals the sub in order to board the submarine first? How strong is the drive for freedom in men's souls? Of course, some of us have to have the bars clang shut and the leg-irons on before we understand how much freedom we've lost.

But the REAL question: Who was that hunky black guy and why haven't we seen him in other movies since? He was a good actor and beautiful!!!

And great going, Michael the acting is right on!!!

WHY?

Disney already made the definitive cinematic adaptation of Jules Verne's novel in 1954 (needs DVD reissue badly;) there was no reason at all for Hollywood to crank out this awful piece of television fluff. There are so many things wrong with it, one does not know where to begin. A review is hardly even necessary, a rock-bottom vote should speak plenty:

During the shameless 'creative reimagineering' process they stripped away pretty much everything from the novel save for the basic premise of a rogue skipper named Nemo who has a submarine. Oh, and Nemo is now a cyborg with a metal hand and is "portrayed" by the formerly respectable Michael Caine. A standard multi-ethnic sample of modern teenagers or twentysomethings get on board and there's much Angst and Father/Son conflict and everything goes kablooie in the end with a bunch of cheap video effects. The production design is flat and dull and totally undercooked, but things of course happens very fast. The skewed camera angles, MTV paced cuts and the aforementioned cast of bratty young people all add up to a pre-chewed microwave fluff pastry of a TV movie for the types of young people who were very happy to learn there really was a J. Dawson on board the real Titanic. ("OMG!")

rating : 1 of 10

I recently purchased this movie on DVD from Brazil. As for the DVD, the Portuguese subtitles can not be removed, and the opening titles and end credits have been cut off. The movie (2 part TV mini series) has some really nice aspects to it. For one, Ned Land (Kirk Douglas in the Disney Version) is not the hero. Really Not the Hero! In the Australian cartoon from 1980, Ned Land is an also ran. In this version he is one of several villains. This version also has 2 women on the Nautilus, which is 2 more than in Disney's take. And one is the Daughter of Nemo. Very cool. This version also includes Atlantis, although Atlantis could be more fantastic. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is great in this. Usually he plays villains or heavies, but this time he is searching for an opportunity to be a hero. There is also a whole running back story for Pierre Arronax with family issues reminiscent of Edward Malone in The Lost World. It does have its weak moments, but I was impressed with its different take.

Why, why, why!!! Can anyone please explain to me why in gods name screen writers always think that they can write a better story than the original author??? I mean, i might accept that you throw in a love story, although the original story were completely minus women, but why rewrite the whole story? About all that was left was the title and the names of the characters, and a very thin plot outline. Why involve the story of Oedipus(ancient Greek story about a young man who kills his father and makes love to his mother)? Why involve Moby Dick? (the admiral was clearly based on Captain Ahab). Why indeed? The most annoying thing about the whole mess is that it is a great opportunity wasted. The film has the right actors, (Michael Caine is great as Nemo) the right special effects, e.t.c.- everything you needed to make a good adaptation of Jules Verne's novel. But the screen writer decided that he could write a much better story than Jules Verne, although he wanted to borrow the title. Sorry. Not good enough. You must rename this movie to something like "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, very loosely based on the original story"