Reviews & Ratings for
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

14 reviews in total

---

17 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Interesting & Generally Entertaining, Though Lacking Verne's Depth, 14 January 2002
Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio

This early adaptation of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is interesting, and generally entertaining, though it lacks the depth of the original story. Its strengths are the underwater effects, the settings, and the camera work, which at times are remarkable for the era. On the other hand, it makes little attempt to convey the most important themes of Verne's story, settling instead for straightforward adventure and melodrama, which are much easier to film.

One can only guess how exciting it might have been in 1916 to see some of these images and special effects. Only occasionally does it falter a bit and lose the illusion of reality for a short time; otherwise it is quite convincing. Just seeing the underwater photography alone must have been pretty impressive at the time, and they also managed to get some interesting sea creatures on film. The photography itself is pretty good throughout the movie, and some of the props and settings are nicely done.

The story draws rather freely both from "20,000 Leagues ... " and also from another Verne story, "Mysterious Island". It is a mostly entertaining yarn, full of action and with some unexpected developments. But only a small portion of Verne's scientific vision comes across, and none of the depth of the characters and of their interactions has been preserved. Captain Nemo is one of literature's more complex and thought-provoking characters, but here he becomes more of a stock melodrama figure. Professor Arronax and Ned Land are mostly spectators, rather than providing worthy foils for the mad genius Nemo.

It's by no means a bad movie, and if you are a silent film fan and/or are interested in film history, there should be enough here to make it worth watching. But otherwise, the 1950's Disney version does a much better job of filming the profound vision and philosophical conflict found in Verne's original novel.

---

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
The first submarine photoplay ever filmed!, 20 February 2008

Author: Michael DeZubiria (miked32@hotmail.com) from Luoyang, China

When I read during the opening credits of the 1916 adaptation of Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," immediately I assumed the frame of mind that I always do when watching early films, so as not to criticize it's lack of special effects or advanced film techniques. Immediately I was immensely impressed at the transfer from book to film, as the film followed the story closely and faithfully.

Unfortunately, this only lasted for about the first ten minutes of the film, which ultimately proved to take Verne's work and butcher it in every way imaginable. Probably the most jarring change to the story is that they decided to not only adapt 20,00 Leagues, but also another Verne novel, Mysterious Island, into this film. So the result is that you have two totally different stories taking place that don't at all seem to fit together, until finally they come together in the bizarre conclusion, which makes absolutely no sense in respect to the novel.

My current theory is that because so much of the original novel of 20,000 Leagues was decades beyond the reach of the filmmakers to be able to put on screen, so they probably had to look to an entirely separate novel just to have enough material to fill a full length film. Sadly, it reminds me of those terrible songs that radio stations sometimes come up with when they combine two popular songs together that have a similar beat, resulting in something that is not quite equal to but definitely less than the originals. One such bizarre hybrid comes to mind involving Closer, by Nine Inch Nails, and Garbage's #1 Crush.

The basic, basic, basic plot structure remains, but literally 95% of the story is gone. There is rumor of a massive sea monster and the crew of the Abraham Lincoln set off to capture it. Strangely enough, at one point it passes a mere few meters from their ship in broad daylight, and the crew can clearly see the steel plated sides and the rivets holding it together, even the bridge and periscope, and yet they still think it's a sea monster.

I'll attribute that to the inability to emulate the Nautilus's movements as described in the novel, but in this way we also have to sacrifice the entirety of the ship's glorious design and function, which is not even described in dialogue. For the most part, we see a single room, which looks like an old Victorian bedroom with one wall that looks like it belongs in a boiler room.

Probably the worst crime that the film commits is in the character of Captain Nemo. Granted, Nemo in the novel is not exactly the most charming and charismatic man, but it is as if they set out in this film to create a man as far from the original description as humanly possible. As a result, we get a bizarre spectacle that looks like a disgruntled Santa Clause in blackface. And not only that, throughout the film he gives several displays of compassion that the original Nemo would have scoffed at. Indeed, at one point, he torpedoes a ship, and then afterwards and then almost faints as he worries about the safety of the victims. What the hell?? And incidentally, Verne's Nautilus didn't have torpedoes, although he did use it as a ramming weapon.

In the film's defense, the underwater photography is truly impressive given the time that it was filmed, and surely knocked 1916 audiences, most of whom had probably never seen the underwater world, out of their seats. This would certainly explain the seemingly endless lingering on these scenes. Their is also an interesting allusion to another Verne novel, as at one point in their underwater tour they come across a decayed shipwreck, which Nemo describes as "the wreck of an old blockade runner."

And the worst thing about the bizarre personification of Nemo in this film is the backstory that was invented for the film which, amazingly, is introduced with this intertitle -

"Captain Nemo reveals the tragic secret of his life, which Jules Verne never told."

What follows is the most bizarre story imaginable, which claims that Nemo was previously some kind of empirical royalty who lived in an empire "beyond the sea." One man wrongs him, which doesn't explain his subsequent disdain, and even hatred, for all of mankind of all nations, nor does anything explain why he took to the sea. And incidentally, Nemo is a man of art, science, biology, history, astronomy, etc. The transition from his old life to the one we see is totally senseless.

It may very well be that this was one of the first major films to set the trend of adapting novels to film, and while modern adaptations still make ridiculous changes to story and characters where they don't belong, at least those inexplicable liberties seem to have diminished since 1916!

---

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A wonderful and groundbreaking film, 25 May 1999

Author: Norman Cook from Orange County, California

This film combines plot elements of Verne's original 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Mysterious Island, then adds its own subplot involving the origin of Captain Nemo that ties everything together. I was very impressed by the writing. This was the first major film with underwater photography. The set design was impressive. I found the diving suits to be particularly interesting--essentially early versions of scuba gear. The new score fit very well into the story. All in all, a wonderful and landmark achievement in filmmaking.

---

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Amazing for then; entertaining now, 29 April 2006

Author: mlevans from Oklahoma

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a most intriguing and entertaining film. While some flaws can certainly be pointed out, it still stands up as a fine feature film.

The story is certainly different in this version. This Nemo is a Boy Scout, helping those in need and interested in revenge only in the case of one personal enemy. As I recall from reading the book and seeing one of the color, sound versions (both about 30 years ago), Captain Nemo was a real sob, intent on extracting "revenge" on every ship he came across. (He was also about half the age of this Nemo.) Still, the twists make for an interesting story, as does the incorporation of "Mysterious Island," another Jules Verne masterpiece, into the story.

Of course the film is best remembered for the amazing early underwater film sequences. These are something to see – especially considering the year. My only criticism of the film would be that Paton perhaps got a little carried away with showing his sequences of underwater sights. Of course, who could blame him? No one else had put anything remotely like this on screen in a feature film before. There is almost a quasi-documentary feel to the film, thanks to the underwater scenes and early SCUBA outfits.

Alan Holubar is outstanding as the aging (and the young) Captain Nemo, while the rest of the cast is solid. The only exception is Jane Gail's horrid overacting as the princess. This is strange, considering that she handled the "child of nature" role with some credibility and little if no overacting. Perhaps the female histrionics were expected in 1916. (At least Robert K. Klepper identifies Gail as playing both roles in "Silent Films, 1877-1996." IMDb does not identify the princess.)

In any case, whatever flaws one may find are dwarfed by the realization that it was so advanced for its time. It's still entertaining, as well, and a great addition to any collection.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Very interesting, thought not faithful to Verne, 24 December 2005

Author: j-cf from France

OK, this movie isn't at all faithful to Verne's novels (both 20000 leagues & Mysterious island), but who cares. It was too difficult for that time to stay close to the characters and to the relationship between Arronax and Nemo, which is based on the talking, showing different philosophical points of vue. So there we stick to a melodrama full of suspense and action. The pacing is quite fast, for a 1916 movie. A lot of characters and settings are involved, the cinematography is most of the time quite good and the actors are... so so. But it's the editing that attracts attention here, in a griffithian narration full of "parrallel editing" as we say in french. Some sequences are composed of four or five parallel actions, and sometimes flashbacks are used to add another dimension to the melodrama. The same fact is related three times by three different characters, each flashback being longer than its predecessor until the final revelation (that we can guess early in the film, but, as for most of gender movies, the pleasure for the viewer comes from the combination between waited events and surprising elements) narrated by Nemo himself. I don't know anything as for the origin of the version I own on DVD, so this editing question is to stay questioned. But as it is there (I saw the 1h45 version, a Jokanan copy), it's a really imaginative movie, a sort of serial with a complexer narration. It is sometimes a little boring anyway, especially when it deals with Arronax and co (Ned Land is useless, and the real hero of the movie arrives later on) and with submarine sequences (no so many, in fact, but a little childish sometimes). The documentary aspect is anyway interesting (the shark scene, an early Cousteau sequence) and from an historical point of view those sequences are very important.

A good movie, not as brilliant as the Fleischer version, but entertaining and representative of the evolution of American cinema at that time.

Just for the record: it's quite possible that the Nadia anime series by Anno Hideaki have been highly inspired by this movie (I won't say anything else, avoiding spoilers. Watch for yourself).

---

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Age has withered it..., 7 May 2006

Author: TrevorAclea from London, England

The 1916 version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was a landmark in special effects in its day, but 90 years on it's a mere historical curiosity. It's not that it's particularly bad, more that it's very flatly directed even for its day and the passage of time has dealt it some particularly low blows. Although in the first draft of the novel Nemo was clearly identified as a Pole waging a private war with Russia before Verne's publishers and the French censors objected, the film goes off on its own to make him a wronged Indian Prince (Allen Holubar) with a penchant for wearing Santa Claus suits: the fact that his crew alternately seem to be dressed as elves or pastry chefs does not help matters much. Then there's his long-lost daughter, introduced as a 'child of nature' skipping and dancing through the jungle in so insipid a manner that she even scares off the cheetahs. Looking like a cross between a young Bette Midler playing Elmo Lincoln in blackface and Spike Milligan playing Little Eva while being poked with a cattle prod, Jane Gail's performance is every negative cliché about silent movie acting incarnate. Little of Verne's episodic plot remains: having introduced Professor Aronnax and Ned Land, the hunting trip aside, the film promptly ignores them for the rest of its running time in favour of a plot drawn loosely from Verne's other Nemo novel, Mysterious Island. Still, it's watchable enough even if it doesn't give Richard Fleischer's 1954 version much of a run for its money.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Silent Version - 1916), 15 September 2007

Author: gzwebdiver-1 from United States

I found this film extraordinary, if for no other reason than the fact, that that they used underwater photography showing divers in deep sea helmets using what looked to be rifles with spears attached (early spear guns, I imagine) actually shooting at a large group of sharks swimming around them. I also didn't see any air lines attached to any of these divers, however, if you looked closely, you could see some air bubbles come out of the helmets of the divers every so often. They must have been using some type of compressed air with a regulator, however when I queried Google, I was informed that SCUBA wasn't invented until 1939 for the US Navy and the air regulator hadn't been invented until 1943 by Jacques Cousteau. There was a device that contained compressed air in a belt attached to a diver's helmet that was invented in 1825 but that would only allow a diver to stay under 7 minutes. Were they really able to get all of the shots with the divers within that time frame. Very curious. Does anyone have the technical details for how this film was accomplished? I give this film a 9 for technology and a 5 for story line and acting for a 7 overall.

---

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
The hammy acting styles distract, but the pioneering underwater photography is worth a look., 10 March 1999

Author: Arthur Hausner (ahausner16@gmail.com) from Pine Grove, California

This may have been thrilling in 1916, but today it seems more of a curio. The Williamson brothers invented a camera to take pictures underwater, (the prologue tells us, complete with photos of them) so there's lots of shots of fish swimming, the bottom of the sea, men in diving suits and one battle with an octopus, which was a bit fuzzy. Still, the sense of watching movie history was strong, but don't expect too much in light of more modern techniques. What really bothered me was the hammy acting styles, with lots of arm motions and exaggerated facial features. It's the style that gave silent films a bad name. One who avoided this was Matt Moore, the hero of the film, and the only actor I recognized. Perhaps that is why he was still making movies in the 50's. The film uses plot elements of Verne's "The Mysterious Island" as well as "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea."

---

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
David Jeffers for SIFFblog.com, 30 October 2009
Author: rdjeffers from Seattle

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Monday November 2, 7pm, The Paramount, Seattle

"Slowly, silently, it rises from unfathomable depths."

A French scientist leads an expedition sent to find and destroy a gigantic, menacing sea monster. He discovers instead a dark, vengeful anti-hero that controls the "monster" and complications ensue.

The third motion picture (American Mutoscope & Biograph 1905, Georges Méliès 1907) based on Jules Verne's Vingt Mille Lieues sous Les Mers from his legendary Voyages Extraordiniares, Universal Film Mfg. Co's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1916) is noteworthy for the technically astonishing underwater photography of John Ernest Williamson's Submarine Film Corporation. Produced by Carl Laemmle over a two-year period in the Bahamas, at Universal's Leonia, New Jersey and Universal City, California facilities, for a reported cost of $500,000 (roughly $100,000,000 today), the screenplay also incorporated elements of Verne's Mysterious Island. The technology of Williamson's "Photosphere" observation chamber, used to film encounters with undersea creatures, rivals the fictional science of Verne's novel and helped establish the fantasy-horror legacy of Universal Studios.

---

13 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Of Historical Interest Only, 6 April 2005

Author: gftbiloxi (gftbiloxi@yahoo.com) from Biloxi, Mississippi

The 1916 version of 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA is a perfect example of what can happen when a film relies primarily on special effects. In its day, it was widely celebrated as one of the first feature-length films to make use of underwater photography, and audiences thrilled to its scenes of coral reefs and sharks. But nowadays we're very used to seeing underwater photography, and of a quality that far surpasses that seen here. And the film has little else to offer.

The story, of course, is based on the Jules Verne classic--but "based" is the operative word. About the only thing this film version has in common with the Verne novel is the title, a few character names, and a few basic concepts, so if you're expecting a faithful silent adaptation of the novel you're outta luck. In this version, a scientist (Dan Hanlon) and his party go in search of sea monsters and run afoul of the Nautilus, but they soon discover that Capt. Nemo (Allen Holubar) really isn't such a bad guy after all. There's a subplot about a "child of nature" (Jane Gail) who lives on a "Mysterious Island" and who has some mixed experiences with shipwrecked sailors stranded there--and before the whole thing ends we are flashed back to colonial India for an explanation of just who Capt. Nemo really is and how he got that way. In the process there is underwater photography aplenty, including a faintly hilarious attack on a sailor by a 1916 special-effects-octopus.

The acting is extremely broad here, even for 1916, and Nemo's costume makes him look rather like a skinny Santa Claus gone bad. The Nautilus is uninspired and the cinematography is only so-so. Consequently, what audiences thrilled over in 1916 seems pretty clunky today. The film has not been well-reserved, nor has any attempt been made to restore it, and there isn't a single scene that isn't riddled with artifacts. This is really a film for die-hard silent film buffs rather than casual viewers, and even silent film buffs will probably find themselves hitting the fast forward more than a couple of times. Recommended as a historic artifact, but nothing more.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history