I came to this two part Hallmark production with a little bit of hope and expectation. You see I'd only recently watched the 1962 Michael Rennie version, which featured in its cast of contributors such luminaries as Bernard Herrmann and Ray Harryhousen. That special effects epic sent me to the source novel which I greatly enjoyed even as it showed me the liberties Hollywood took with the text. Surely, spread over two 90 minute films and with Patrick Stewart as Captain Nemo, I might get to see a truer representation of an exciting and enjoyable, if often improbable book.Far chance! If anything, this production remakes the earlier movie, rather than the novel, but does so in an even more exaggerated manner than before. Here, Nemo is introduced early to Captain Smith (Harding in the book), not at the volcanic climax and Nemo is given a male companion to act as his conscience. The journalist Penfold is turned into a Dr Smith from "Lost In Space"-type, a feckless, selfish coward and a whole new sub-plot is given prominence involving a search for hidden treasure and an encounter with a band of pirates.We still get the original balloon escape, the presence of a mother and daughter to add love interest and, no doubt, some decoration, the gigantic creatures reappear at regular, less- threatening intervals and yes, the volcano blows up at the end. However, the whole piece is so shoddily made that I ended up persevering with it only to see his much worse it could get as it progressed.Where to start...well the acting is awful, never above Am Dram standards. Stewart gives a lifeless performance while none of his support display even a scintilla of individuality or enthusiasm. Worse yet, someone must have thought that ex-football thug Vinnie Jones would make a good pirate leader. He doesn't, spectacularly and worse, I'm sure his voice is dubbed throughout. The special effects are terrible, superimposed like poor transfers onto different backgrounds. The editing is shoddy and unsurprisingly, there's a loud, pounding electronic soundtrack to make sure your ears suffer as much as your eyes. I'll ease off now, but really the low average score here doesn't lie, this is a poorly made film of an exciting classic novel and a waste of time for director, production crew actors and viewers alike.

I think that if you didn't read the book by Verne, you'll still think this movie is 'a fun ride'. Although not very credible it's an adventurous movie that will probably appeal to many kids. It has nice landscapes and caves, it has Kyle MacLachlan, which is always good, and Patrick Stewart. It kind of looks like they sent them on a free holiday on the condition that they would show their faces to the cameras once in a while. I realise this is probably a very mild review still. And this is probably due to the fact that I'd seen Riverworld right before I watched this movie and, trust me, Riverworld was so much worse! At least, in this movie, I cared 'a bit' about 'some characters', the story 'kind of' made sense and at least had a classic beginning, middle and ending. But I hated it when Blake died. He gets a second chance and he dies in a couple of seconds in a very meaningless way. And Cyrus is like: "Leave him. He's dead." I still thought for a while he was going to come back... When Cyrus tells his love interest (what's her name anyway) that he let a little boy die during the war this scene only seems to lead to a kiss, while I would have made it more meaningful if I had had any say over the script, e.g. by making him return for Blake to save him, making up for his past mistake in a way. But now, they might as well have cut the scene. It had no (important) function. So this movie lacked a decent pay-off to begin with.I wonder whether Kyle MacLachlan's character looks so cold because the actor didn't care much about his part. This is an actor who can radiate so much warmth and passion just by watching something or someone and here he plays a character that appears to be more robot than human being, like they actually programmed his traumatising past into his brain. And I always wonder why they call movies under 5 or 6 hours miniseries. It's just a (too) long movie if you ask me. There is absolutely no need for a 'to be continued' in this movie, perhaps on television due to all the commercial breaks but not on a DVD. Two end credits are just annoying. And I do have to say this movie has insultingly bad CGI, especially for its time! I bet a toddler could draw up better spiders on a magna doodle. I'm arachnophobic and I shrugged when I saw those spiders. You could see the budget decrease reflect on the CGI. Every minute the creatures in this movie had less texture eventually looking like early storyboard prototypes. Also, hey clearly 'glued' Patrick Stewart on the screen whenever he was outside his house. And, oh, that bird was awful! Also, the costumes looked like they went shopping in H&M and came up with some clothes that - with some imagination - had something slightly in common with what people wore around that time. I haven't read the book but it's on my reading list now. I agree with the guy saying they shouldn't have added female characters to the story. Seriously, a woman can handle a movie with not a single (or few) female characters. There is this little something called imagination, you know. Playing a male character in an RPG as a woman can be really fun and it's all about relating to the 'human' aspect, right? I think it's more important to stay loyal to the characters from the book than to satisfy a couple of feminists. I enjoyed 300 very much and I would have been insulted if they had forced female characters into the battle scenes as that wouldn't even have made historical sense. It's different when there already is a strong female character present in the original source, like Eowyn in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Actually, adding these boring female characters who don't really add anything to the story (except for being the obvious mannequin displaying 'the evil amulet' and being the subject of a more important character's love) is more insulting than leaving them out.So this movie is okay if you just want to see something light and adventurous during which you'll be able to talk without someone shushing you and if you're not a real Verne fan. But you will be bothered by the script from time to time and you WILL notice the ridiculous CGI. (Oh my God, HOW fake was that smoke coming out of the volcano!!!) If you think that's cute and charming and that doesn't annoy you, you'll probably enjoy it. If you want to see something deep and meaningful that makes you ponder upon themes and characters for another week afterwards, please pick something else.

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.

I think this movie should rate at least FOUR Oscars!! OK now that the same drugs that apparently the director was on when he produced this 'stinky fish' have worn off all I can say is: "How can a good cook take such excellent ingredients for making a fine dish (film) and combine them so badly??"I am a fan of Patrick Stuart but he must have been doing some penance for past evil transgressions to actually have allowed himself to be cast in the role of Nemo so badly.I do not REALLY need to get into discussing the pirates do I?Shane