20,000 lieues sous les mers

I was in the seventh grade when I saw this movie and going through a Jules Verne/Robert Louis Stevenson phase. I loved the original movie and when I found out the cast for the remake my face must have just lit up because my parents gave me a blank tape for when it came on. I didn't have a chance to watch it the night it was on, so I saved the movie for a rainy day. What a waste of a rainy day. It started off well, the acting was great and they were trying to hold onto the original message. Then, it kept going and going and soon I wasn't sure what the point was anymore. The ending was the worst part and I found myself taping over it a year later. Oh well, another remake that fell short of the theme.

jules verne makes imaginative books, but let's face it, the attempts to move them to the big screen are destined to fail. especially if you're lacking money. jules had such wild ideas that they cannot be produced anywhere but inside the readers mind.

this particular one has a great cast, but the mini way too long compared to the boredom it arouses. i had to use three days to watch it because i kept falling asleep.

the special effects look amateurish, and all the intensity from the book has vanished somewhere in the production. all i felt about it was a little claustrophobia.

a tip to the crew: you should have asked the champ, kevin costner, he could have probably told that it's not automatically an epic if you make it long. you need some events, too, you know.

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 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.

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