ÉVALUATION IMDb
5,6/10
1,7 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn 1886, a French marine biologist aboard an American warship is scouring the Atlantic Ocean in search of a sea monster that routinely attacks and sinks passing ships.In 1886, a French marine biologist aboard an American warship is scouring the Atlantic Ocean in search of a sea monster that routinely attacks and sinks passing ships.In 1886, a French marine biologist aboard an American warship is scouring the Atlantic Ocean in search of a sea monster that routinely attacks and sinks passing ships.
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis en vedette
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.
This version of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is by far the best version. Michael Caine is an excellent Captain Nemo and Brian Nelson made Pierre Arronax into an interesting and complex character. Pierre, who is constantly under the criticism of his father, searches for the sea monster and ends up on board the Nautilus. The submarine is an excellent design - it is beautiful and yet menacing and has plenty of space for its occupants. (The Model Smiths did a superior job on the models for this film.) The story follows some of the same lines as Verne, with the exception of depth to the characters and the addition of characters to add to the plot. This movie is definitely a "must see"!!
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.
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, 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"
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesSir Michael Caine loved the novel and leapt at the opportunity to play Captain Nemo.
- GaffesAs Thierry Arronax makes his speech from the ship's gangway, a woman waives a U.S. flag with the stars in the pattern that became official in 1890 or 1896. The film is set in 1886.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Making of Special: '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' (1997)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How many seasons does 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea have?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- 20.000 leguas de viaje submarino
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1997) officially released in India in English?
Répondre