20,000 lieues sous les mers

I have nothing against fun and fantasy. But this piece has so little to do with Verne's story that I wonder why the writers didn't just dispense with their token analogies to it and create new characters!

Yes, Caine's performance is "intense", but also utterly meaningless: his Nemo has none of the subtlety, the pensiveness, the drivenness of James Mason's; the two can no more be compared than Kevin Costner's Robin Hood can be compared to Errol Flynn's, or Marlon Brando's performance as Bligh in Mutiny on the Bounty to Charles Laughton's. The ballyhooed "intensity" of Caine's portrayal resolves itself into very little more than hypermanic nuttiness. (Maybe Caine was trying so hard to avoid being compared to Mason that he couldn't figure any other way to do the role than to toss all subtlety overboard?)

The character of Attucks, of course, is the "man of action" that the plot needs, thus totally eclipsing Ned Land and making the latter's presence gratuitous. So if the writers were so obsessed with political correctness that they needed to add a nonwhite character, why in the world not just make Ned himself nonwhite?

And haven't we had enough of upstarts trying to improve on Verne by adding a love interest? Apparently not: this version gives Nemo a daughter, who sails with him on the Nautilus and with whom Aronnax (here depicted as a young sexpot) has an affair.

Of course, the fact that this Nautilus has a multi-ethnic crew (an idea hinted at, but not developed by, Verne himself) is a nice touch, but one that doesn't take us very far because this version tells us so little about Nemo's and the crew's background. In conclusion, a lot of fine acting talent is wasted on this philosophically confused piece of work.

Verne has suffered a bewildering number of bad adaptations, but this is ridiculous.

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, 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"

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?

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