20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1997 TV Movie) User Reviews

Passable adaptation based on Jules Verne's classic novel with good cast

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 11 December 2010]

New take on for TV with agreeable casting and an acceptable Ben Cross as Nemo. The film talks about the known story from Jules Verne novel and previously rendered in the classic by Richard Fleischer . The oceans are no longer safe , many ships have been lost, the sailors have returned to New England's fishing port with tales of vicious giant whale with long horn . Admiral Selling (Michael Jayston) assigns to naturist, biologist expert named professor Pierre Aronnax ( Richard Crenna in the role of Paul Lukas) a dangerous mission . Aronnax , her daughter as helper , along with a professional whaler named Ned Land( Paul Gross in the character of Kirk Douglas) join forces in an expedition that attempts to unravel the mysterious sinking ships by an unknown creature . Aboard the ship called USS Abrahan Lincoln , they go out to investigate . At sea, Professor Aronnax was aboard the ship 'Abraham Lincoln' when Nautilus rammed it and threw the Professor, his daughter and Ned Land into the water .Their ship is sunk and are captured and get thoroughly involved with captain Nemo ( Ben Cross in the role of James Mason) and take an extraordinary adventure underseas in an advanced submarine called Nautilus. Prisoners at first, they are now treated as guests to view the underwater world and to hunt under the waves. Nemo will also tells them about the Nautilus and the revenge that has driven him for all these years .

This fantastic TV movie displays sensational adventures, drama, intrigue, marvelous scenarios and is pretty enjoyable. Surprise-filled entertainment and with plenty of action on grand scale with good special effects made by a computer generator and some ship and submarine by maquette or scale model . However, overlong runtime is not boring but is entertaining and amusing . Memorable and likable cast as Ben Cross plays a captain Nemo who falls in love with the Annorax's daughter ; Richard Crenna plays perfectly to Annorax while in Disney version was an old Paul Lukas ; attractive Julie Cox in a new role, she has a loving triangle with Nemo and Ned Land played by Paul Gross who is an obstinate, stubborn young , just like Kirk Douglas . Atmospheric and vivid score by John Scott. Colorful cinematography by Alan Hume reflecting wonderfully underwater scenes . This TV picture is well produced by Robert Halmi Sr from ¨Hallmark , Hall of fame¨ TV , which has produced several films and series about historical happenings and known personages , as : Cleopatra, Odyssea(Ulises), Hercules , Jason and the Argonauts, Joan of Arc, Lion in Winter( Henry II and Leonor Aquitania), Prince and pauper( Henry VIII and Edward VI ), and numerous retelling based on famous novels .

The television movie is correctly directed by Michael Anderson. Other versions from the classic story are an old mute (1916) by Stuart Paton , the best adaptation by Richard Flescher and for TV directed by Rod Hardy with Michael Caine and Richard Crenna , furthermore a cartoon movie directed by Arthur Rankin.The motion picture will appeal to fantasy-adventure buffs.

This was made in 1997???

[mannasuebob · 6/10 · 10 July 2012]

The only reason I looked this up on IMDb was to verify the year was correct. I understand it was made for TV, but it looks for all the world as if it had been made in the 50s or 60s. The music, the cinematography, the scenes. The way the camera pans in on the actress's face and all of a sudden her skin is dewy and translucent, as she stares with a damsel-in-distress expression, for just one example. This is done repeatedly. I truly thought the date listed on my television was an error. The show itself was OK. Most of the acting wasn't magnificent, but they weren't given much to work with either. I have never seen any other version of 20,000 Leagues nor have a I read the book, so this did get me interested enough to follow through with other versions. My husband and I agreed that this was a decent show for its time, until we realized it was made in 1997!

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

[CinemaSerf · 5/10 · 28 November 2022]

After what seems like an age of prologue material, "Prof. Aronnax" (Richard Crenna) and his daughter "Sophie" (Julie Cox) finally set sail on the USS "Abraham Lincoln" under the command of "Capt. Farragut" (Jeff Harding) in search of a sea monster that has been marauding the South Seas terrorising the shipping. Luckily they have harpoon man "Ned Land" (Paul Gross) on board, so catching and killing this beast ought to be a synch. Well, the animal duly arrives and next thing, the threesome find themselves guests of the enigmatic "Capt. Nemo" (Ben Cross) who has a serious axe to grind with those on the surface. This smacks of a pilot episode to a television series. It takes far too long with character establishment then relies almost entirely on the underwater visual effects to tell a story that is really bereft of decent acting and writing skills. Jules Verne wrote a great story that offers loads to a film-maker, but Michael Anderson seems content to leave us with this lacklustre sequence of pretty predictable, lame even, adventures and there is even room for a little love triangle between the captain, the harpoonist and the daughter (who reminded me of Sheena Easton) who is fed up having to compromise as a woman in a man's world. Nothing at all memorable here, Cross is shockingly wooden and if this is the story for you, then the 1954 Disney version and the 1916 silent ones are far, far better.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Weak adaptation

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 31 January 2019]

The Jules Verne classic 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea has been adapted many times, too many times arguably and this is a demonstration of that.

Starring Ben Cross, Richard Crenna and Paul "Due South" Gross it's another fairly loyal but slightly compacted version of the original novel and the first one with even remotely "Modern" special effects.

Telling the timeless tale of a group taken prisoner by Captain Nemo after being stranded at sea, they bear witness to the marvels of his submarine and the wonders of the ocean.

I'm not entirely sure why but I find myself struggling to really get engaged into this version, maybe I'm burnt out on the same old story, maybe the distinctly average writing and cinematography left me less than impressed or maybe it's just not that good.

There are better versions out there, that's all I can really say. This is Hallmark channel original, and that should tell you everything you need to know.

The Good:

Richard Crenna

The Bad:

Poor finale

Pretty lifeless

Ben Cross's Nemo was less genius more creepy

A romance?!!?

[jimelek · 29 April 2004]

I cannot believe that they tried to make a romance out of this story! I truly wanted to barf every time the love triangle between Sophie, Nemo, and Ned reared its ugly head!

It was disappointing that so many of the elements from the novel and previous movies were missing in favor of this sappy romance.

Then, they ruin the potentially best part of the movie by replacing the giant squid with a reject from a Godzilla movie!

I will admit that there were some good things. First, the design of the Nautilus was right on the money as were the sets and the costumes. It is a shame that the story didn't do them justice.

major disappointment

[tstallings · 3/10 · 6 June 2004]

I rented this video remembering how much I enjoyed the original as a kid. I saw it in the video store and thought I would rent it so I could share the same experience with my kids. They were not able to watch more than a half of the movie. Can't blame them, I wasn't able to either. Lousy sets, paper thin acting, it seems like everyone from the director to the actors were just going through the motions. Rent the original. Singled out for particular disdain is the actress portraying Sophie - Julie Cox. Was she dating the director? Who cast her? She could have sunk this dog all by herself. Poor Richard Crenna, he gives his best in the movie, but is surrounded by lousy actors all around.

Lunch bag-let-down

[oigres · 1/10 · 26 June 2002]

After watching the 1954 version numerous times and having read the novel several times, I was very disappointed with this version. The class, the atmosphere and acting were no where to be found. These days they'll do anything to make a fast buck! Stick to the 54' version, it may be campy but by a longer "league" than this version will ever hope to be.

A mediocre yet enjoyable rendition of the absolute classic tale

[kevinmeylemans · 7/10 · 23 June 2020]

Quite interesting to see the different adaptations of the superb classic Jules Verne novel. Not as good as the extraordinairy 1954 Kirk Douglas movie still this made for tv production entertains on a decent level with a slightly different take on the original story. As competing the same year with the Michael Caine mini-series this version delivers quite well and will engage hardcore fans of the Jules Verne all time classic. Here we get good performances by Richard Crenna and Ben Cross that keeps this one afloat from sinking.

Vile little production, don't waste your time.

[smokehill retrievers · 1/10 · 10 April 2004]

Jules Verne must be spinning in his grave to see his excellent novel turned into a shoddy little romance for those who move their lips when they read. If they can read at all.

Ben Cross is a decent actor, as was Richard Crenna, but they were badly miscast in this low-grade, moronic little adventure flick and their hearts truly didn't seem to be in it at all. Small wonder.

Unless there is absolutely nothing else on TV except Love Boat re-runs, don't do this one unless you're about half drunk and looking for laughs. Seeing Ben Cross in his silly little uniform with the faggy pink sash -- ye Gods, how could he keep a straight face?

I'd give it about half a star. Maybe.

Faithful but boring

[jackbutler-80127 · 7/10 · 23 March 2020]

Really close adaptation of Verne's visionary book, but turgid in execution. Disney did it better.

A classic book as a cheap romance

[darth76 · 1/10 · 16 January 2000]

Here we have a complete perversion of Jules Vern. Instant of Conseil we find professor's Arronax ...daughter(!),who is the apple of discord between a terribly bad captain Nemo and Nent Land. The only thing worthing attention here are the fishes.Trully.

Open you eyes and see the beauty around you.

[ozthegreatat42330 · 8/10 · 19 April 2007]

A beautifully mounted version of Jules Verne's classic. Unlike the Disney version of the fifties this one offers an understanding of Nemo's reasons for his actions. The photography was masterful and the music was sublime. Richard Crenna once again rises to the occasion and Ben Cross is outstanding as the master of the Nautilus. Julie Cox had not yet quite developed the excellence of performance that she would later with Children of Dune, but still brought much to her role as Sophie. It is true that there were a few weak spots in the storyline, but nothing that could deserve the negative reviews that I have read here. This Nemo was always true to who he set out to be, unlike James Mason's Nemo who too shallow. All in all a visual splendor.

Laughably Bad

[hamstergirl7 · 3/10 · 10 April 2007]

Wow, this movie wasn't great, I'm a huge fan of Paul Gross, and I must say, it looks like he tried, but there wasn't much point in wasting energy, however, if you enjoy laughing at movies that have completely missed the mark, (and seeing some excellent shots of Paul Gross)then this movie is good, however, if you are looking for an excellent adaptation of the book, I strongly recommend looking elsewhere. Although the movie is laughable at best, there are some very pretty ocean scenery shots, however, the shots are a bit close up for window views which is what they seem to be used as a lot. So it's definitely not the greatest movie out there, and the actors probably leave that one off their resume, but if you want to have a bit of fun laughing at it, it's good for that, but I wouldn't spend a lot of money on it.

Book was 20,000 times better

[mikedonovan · 17 March 2002]

Richard Crenna is the only name I recognized in this cast and it is fitting because he gives the only credible acting performance. The film is too preoccupied with the good looks of both the young harpooner and the young female stowaway who is posing as a boy. She doesn't remotely look like a boy. Mr. McGoo without his glasses would say, ‘by George, why is that girl making a fool of herself pretending to be a boy?' On top of that she is a bad actress with an ugly nose. This version of the great Jules Verne novel takes liberties with the masterpiece. We are informed that it is `based on' the novel by the same title. Those two dreadful words; based on. And the clown who plays Captain Nemo does no justice to that fabulous character. When he made his grand entrance I was down on him before he even opened his mouth for his first line. His is a rigid, laughably solemn and overplayed part.

Crenna is 20,000 leagues a better actor than the others and the book and the ‘54 movie are each 20,000 leagues superior to this production.

Luckily the story is good enough that even a bad version of it is tolerable. Its not a groaner, but its junior high lame and shouldn't be.

Watch an Eagle mutate into a Turkey before your eyes.

[barryhaworth-1 · 1/10 · 3 December 2006]

This movie starts off OK. The book it is based on is a classic, the design work is interesting, the special effects are pedestrian by today's standards but perfectly adequate. Then they started changing things in nonsensical ways. Extra plots and sub plots are added, Verne's original novel emphasising exploration is set aside in a convoluted story that involves revenge, father/son conflicts, bionic limbs, and an attempt to make all the fault lines on the planet go off at once.

I stuck through with it to the end, but I wish I hadn't. Avoid this one.

failed adaption of a classic

[Nightgaunt · 2/10 · 15 December 2006]

This movie fails for several reasons. First of all, if someone thinks of 20000 leagues under the sea as a film, he will most likely remember the 1954 Walt Disney version of it with Richard Mason, Peter Lorre, Kirk Douglas and Paul Lukas. Against a cast like that this version stands with no chance, Richard Crenna is a decent actor if he plays a decent role and the one thing you can say about him is that he doesn't look as ridiculous as the rest of the cast. Now if you think of Peter Lorre as Prof. Arronax assistant in the 1954 version and consider what you get instead, a girl with an ugly haircut, this is the first big disappointment. As an earlier comment posted, the words "based upon" always gives the authors of a script a lot of creative options. But if you make use of that freedom, you should know where you're going and the result should be good. This time it's not. With the focus of the story on the love thing going on between Nemo, Ned Land and Ugly Haircut the whole essence of the book gets trivialized. The book is a warning about advanced technology used for wrong purposes, adapting this to nuclear power in the Disney version was actually a pretty good idea back then as it was a very popular topic used in many b-movies of that period. The evolving love story is completely dispensable as we know who she'll choose in the end anyways. Furthermore, Nemos attempts to murder Ned Land cause he is his rival in winning Ugly Haircuts heart alters Nemos character significantly to a lovesick villain but once Land saves the ship at the end they are released by him. Makes lots of sense. The biggest disappointment however in this film is the non existent fight with the giant squid, instead you get some sort of alien that gets defeated in a very silly way. Don't get me wrong, I liked Signs for the fact that the alien gets beaten with a baseball bat but this was just pathetic. Some decent underwater shots is all it has to offer, though they add a goof with that as when Ugly Haircut admires the sight outside the Nautilus scuttle the ship would crash into the corals as the camera suggest it is floating sideways. The special effects of the sharks, the monster attacking the Nautilus and the exterior animations of the Nautilus itself are done very sloppy, but that's a disease TV shows and films of that time often suffer from. However, when effects like that are mixed with bad actors, a half baked storyline and a plot basing on the most ridiculous idea that 2 guys would actually compete over a woman with an abomination as a haircut you get a silly film in the end. You may argue that Kirk Douglas building a guitar out of a turtle shell and singing songs to a seal is silly too, it is, but that's what you get when you see a Disney film. At least Disneys version had some funny moments, but who laughed watching this one? I rest my case.

Another view from "The Nautilus".

[michaelRokeefe · 5/10 · 22 May 2005]

This is a pretty fair TV version of the Jules Verne novel. No way does this come close to the 1954 classic starring Kirk Douglas and James Mason. The U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln is commissioned to investigate attacks of ships at sea. The ship is carrying marine scientist Henry Arronax(Richard Crenna) and his daughter Sophie(Julie Cox). The Lincoln is suddenly rammed by what is thought to be a giant whale. The damage has been done by the evil minded Captain Nemo(Ben Cross) who has been attacking vessels at will from his advanced submarine "The Nautilus". Arronax and his daughter along with harpooner Ned Land(Paul Gross)are taken aboard the futuristic submarine in the hopes of studying underwater marine life. "The Nautilus" comes under attack itself by huge sharks and a squid-like creature. Some of the visuals are pretty good and others not so good. It is obvious this is a classic on a shoe-string.

Inferior 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea TV Movie

[HawksRevenge · 3/10 · 2 October 2006]

In a running length of about 95 minutes you have this full featured story of Captain Nemo and the crew of the Nautilus and Professor Aronax and his daughter Sophie, with Ned Land in support. I was not very impressed by this production; first the Nautilus looked like a whale and the interiors were so cheap looking you would think they were plastic and cardboard.

This was without a doubt a very cheap production and the political correctness of adding a woman to the visitors on the Nautilus was pretty dumb, because you have a crew that hasn't seen a woman in a long time and everyone is well mannered and behaved, well you fill in the blanks.

From the very first scene where the US Navy comes looking for Professor Aronax and the daughter says I'm not sure we can help you I have a Biology degree and my father has a degree in Oceanography. If I was the US navy representative I would have said "excuse me Hun, we didn't come here looking for you" I think it's funny how Professor Aronax wrote books about the sea, but he never was beneath the waves, and must have based his knowledge of the sea on other peoples work.

Disappointed(** out of ****)

I'd like to personally apologize to Jules Verne

[resadote · 3/10 · 13 September 2006]

Quite possibly one of the cheapest and worse movies of all time, comparable only to Journey to the Center of the Earth (1988). Hmm both remakes of Jules Verne novels. Could there be a connection? With the staggering number of times these movies have been remade, it's quite possible that all opportunities for originality are lost. Also, it's a TV movie; need I say more? Hallmark is known for it's portrayal of human emotion, so I thought that at the very least that would be good. But no. Acting is cliché, the set is terrible, and the plot is same ol, same ol. When will someone make a good remake of a Jules Verne novel again?

not Disney but a new adaptation that is faithful to the novel

[RichardWeddle · 8/10 · 15 February 2009]

If you are used to Disney's version of this Jules Verne classic, this Hallmark Hall of Fame made-for-TV special will take some getting used to. It's different, but in a good way. It is not a remake, but an altogether new adaptation by one Joe Wiesenfeld, who has clearly studied the novel carefully and crafted a script that is faithful to Jules Verne's original intent and exposition while cutting to the chase. The emphasis falls in different places than in the Disney film and at a faster pace, but it maintains a sense of wonder and adventure. Wiesenfeld is attentive to character and motivation and crafts a script that makes good dramatic sense. The biggest change -- making the doctor's assistant his daughter -- is necessary in modern times and most welcome, especially because she is played by the lovely and talented Julie Cox. Other women are glimpsed among the crew of the Nautalis, bringing the film up-to-date in period dress. The classically trained English actor Ben Cross was an excellent choice for Capt. Nemo. He is absolutely believable as the tragic and haunted Captain who recognizes no boundaries in the sea or his own conduct. All the contradictions and conflicts of the character are conveyed with subtlety by Ben Cross. Richard Crenna brings gravitas and presence to the role of Prof Aronex. The production design and costuming redefine the utilitarian world of the Nautalis as a ship we can believe in. The cinematography is by the great Alan Hume, and the direction by Hollywood veteran Michael Anderson (The Quiller Memorandum, Logan's Run) is both pictorial and dramatically engaging. This is a well-produced and legitimate version of Jules Verne's novel. It is not Disney, which may be taken as an advantage.

Sinks like a stone

[sashazur · 2/10 · 11 January 2007]

This is one of the rare bad sci-fi movies that I actually stopped watching before it was over! The best thing can say about this film is that for the first 20 minutes or so, I didn't realize that I was watching a made-for-TV movie. The initial scenes seemed hokey, but the acting, sets and story were engaging enough, including an attack on a ship and the introduction of Dr. Arronax and his daughter.

But the film sprung a leak as soon as we get to the Nautilus, and the results of a small fx budget start to really stand out: uniforms that looked like my mom sewed them for the class play, tons of stock footage of the same coral reef going by the porthole endlessly, a night scene where I could swear they used lightbulbs to simulate stars in the sky, and finally (when I gave up watching), an incredibly silly and fake-looking sea monster.

The effects were not the only disappointment - nobody in this disaster at sea could act either. Please, watch the Disney version with James Mason and Kirk Douglas instead. Still silly, but well done.

Great addition to the Nemo legacy.

[SanDiego · 12 October 2000]

I am a fan of Jules Verne and was introduced to his works via the films that came out in the 50's in 60's (wasn't everybody?) I was born in 1958 but the impact of Disney's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" in 1954 followed in rapid succession by "Around the World in Eighty Days" in 1956, "From the Earth to the Moon" in 1958, "Journey to the Center of the Earth" in 1959, "The Mysterious Island" and "Master of the World" in 1961, and "Five Weeks in a Balloon" and Disney's "In Search of the Castaways" in 1962 played an important part of my youth. There have been other film adaptations of Jules Verne's stories since, but it is these earlier films that captured my imagination and set the standard for future adventure films. Since cinema and novels are two different mediums it is unfair to compare one to the other, especially with such visual temptations built into the storyline, but I suppose it is fair to compare one film version to another. What I look for in any remake (especially when the original is very good) is if the director and writer can add anything new...are they inspired by the original to add their own twist in the flavor of the author. This can be really fun in this type of film.

Recently, there was a TV remake of Melville's "Moby Dick" that was a virtual scene by scene retelling of the classic 1956 film starring Gregory Peck (which in turn was a remake of a 1930 film starring John Barrymore). The later two films were faithful to the novel whereas the earlier version changed the ending to be more upbeat. At least one could enjoy the first two films on their own merits (the lead performances of Peck and Barrymore were virtually night and day). As far as the TV "Moby Dick" went, there was very little reason to see it with regards to new storylines or character developments. The only curiosity was seeing Peck play the small role that Orson Welles played in the 1956 version. So I LOOK for variations, something new, a different way of looking at the story, or perhaps a part of the story that was not fleshed out previously. Imagination should go hand in hand with the name Jules Verne.

There have been sequels based on Verne's own Nemo sequel ("Mysterious Island"), "inspired" sequels ("Captain Nemo and the Underwater City"), futuristic versions ("Nautilus"), and even futuristic "inspired" versions ("The Black Hole"). I am such a fan of the genre that even a cheesy version will hold my attention for the mere fun of it (as fans, such as myself, of the different versions of Doyle's "The Lost World" do!)

In this case we have the first re-make of the original story of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" since Disney's 1954 classic (it had been filmed before as silent films in 1907 and 1916). Curiously a second 1997 TV version starring Michael Caine came out at the exact same time which confuses everything so let's consider that in an alternate Universe. I like this remake despite the fact that it seems to have a heavy influence from James Cameron's "Titanic," most notably the romance. But this is film entertainment and it seemed to add something...why not? The novel introduces us to Professor Aronnax and his young male assistant who go off in search of a sea monster attacking ships in the North Pacific. When Disney adapted the story they kept the gender of the assistant but aged him into a role suitable for actor Peter Lorre. This film keeps the age in tact but changes the gender...and relationship to the Professor (Richard Crenna), by introducing us to his beautiful daughter Sophie (played perfectly by the beautiful Julie Cox). At first she must pretend to be his young male assistant to even be allowed on board the USS Lincoln in search of the sea monster. Julie Cox in male drag could have passed for a teenaged Elijah Wood and there was a neat little look from handsome stud-sailor Ned Land (Paul Gross) to the Professor and the ship's captain when he seemed to be thinking "are you two crazy? This is a girl!." By the way, that was my exact reaction to Elijah Wood when I saw him in the remake of "Flipper!"

Unlike other film versions much more time is spent prior to the actual meeting of Captain Nemo and the Nautilus. We get a feel of the time period on board an ornate passenger ship (our first introduction to the Titanic influence) and on land. It isn't long before the Professor, his daughter, and sailor Ned Land (for those keeping track, Kirk Douglas in the Disney version) are thrown off the deck of the USS Lincoln from a ramming by Captain Nemo (Ben Cross) and his metallic "sea creature." The sets of the Nautilus are cold and grey with great iron bolts and the cold grey uniforms worn on board are reminiscent of 20th century Communist military uniforms. There is something very cold war Russian when Captain Nemo (with neatly trimmed beard) and his men stand atop the submarine staring off toward the oncoming American warship in a thick grey mist. Even Nemo's organ (an ornate pipe organ in the Disney film) is just a plain little organ. But there are rooms of incredible museum collections decorating the submarine, salvaged from shipwrecks that add the richness one would expect. Best addition of all is a series of large circular view ports that allow the actors to look out into the vast oceans. Ben Cross does a credible job as Nemo in this context, a bit cold, a bit distant, dangerous. He is at home among his jeweled possessions in the same way a shark is at home against colorful coral waiting for his prey. But he is also human, and his reasons for attacking ships has changed from the original novel to one of revenge. Despite all of this Nemo and the Professor become friends and the two plan to have young Sophie marry Nemo (a plot device lifted from 1969's "Captain Nemo and the Underwater City.") Nemo also wants Ned Land dead to end any speculation of a relationship between Ned and Sophie. On an expedition outside the submarine Nemo sets Ned up for certain death. Those plot devices along with a different look for the Nautilus and a brisk pace by the director were plenty to please me and become a welcome chapter in the Nemo world.

Not a good one...

[mist · 2/10 · 1 July 2006]

What the hell is this? Michael Anderson is a good director, and has done good films in the past, but this? A giant octopus - or is it a sea monster - attacks, and the crewmen WALKS into the mouth of it and thinks they gonna survive???

And what is it with Hollywood concerning the fact, that there CAN'T be a group of men living together on a tiny area, for a long time?? In all modern versions of Jules Verne books (except Richard Fleischers version), there are some characters replaced by female versions. Do Hollywood think that ALL men are gay???

Two versions came the same year and in BOTH the professor has a daughter...

Well, Ben Cross is brilliant - as always (and 2 points for that). Richard Crenna is OK, but the rest? No, let Nautilus go to the bottom and the let crew & passengers rest in peace...

utterly stupid

[sandcrab277 · 1/10 · 6 January 2020]

All the props were built on a sound stage in england and it was almost as gross as the canadian paul gross who seems to mess up every film he's in making a new meaning for the word gross ... the submarine's propulsion is derived from sea salt which is ludicrous ... to keep a steel bucket of bolts afloat would require so much air pressure the sub would float to the surface ... this film is so far from science fiction it looks more like a pipe dream

Good film!

[Movie Nuttball · 10/10 · 8 August 2005]

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Richard Crenna, Ben Cross, Julie Cox, Michael Jayston, Paul Gross, Jeff Harding, David Henry, James Vaughan, Susannah Fellows, Joshua Brody, and Phillip Van Dyke! The acting by all of these actors is very good. Crenna and Cross are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Richard Crenna, Ben Cross, Julie Cox, Michael Jayston, Paul Gross, Jeff Harding, David Henry, James Vaughan, Susannah Fellows, Joshua Brody, Phillip Van Dyke, the rest of the cast in the film, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Romance, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!