IMDb > 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea (2007) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
30,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
30,000 Leagues Under the Sea (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 51 reviews in total 

65 out of 104 people found the following review useful:

Sci-Fi channel material for sure.

1/10
Author: cobram-1 from United States
11 September 2007

Well, don't expect anything near the previous versions of Jules Verne adventure. Aside from the title and the recycling of names, this "updated" story is a total disappointment. Contrived story line, horrible dialog, horrible plot, and even worse acting. This is a dog fish if ever there was one. Real shame too, they could have done so much more with this premise if they'd only tried. It's like a really bad Deep Space Nine episode, only torturous drawn out and pointless. I gave it 3 stars out of pity. Don't waste your time with this one. The best description of this would be Dr. Strangelove meets Jaques Coustou, only without any of the humor or cinematography of either.

Was the above review useful to you?

44 out of 69 people found the following review useful:

Horrible in every way

1/10
Author: officiallybitesdotcom from United States
15 September 2007

I don't see why anyone would watch this. The CG is pathetic. The acting is very high school. Lorenzo Lamas? Why? Why? Why? This is no way to end a career or begin one. The actual story could have been something, but the money put in just wasn't enough. My advice to the actors of this movie... Please just try to be yourself. Read the script, make it your own. Saturday Night Live is for reading cue cards, OK? Do yourself a favor and rent an ed wood movie or even better, rent Robot Jox. I thought Lorenzo Lamas was worth watching at one time. I guess the 80's just slipped away. He ranks right up there with Michael Pare. I'm surprise he wasn't in this disaster. Go away bad movie, please go away!

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 66 people found the following review useful:

30,000 Bad Things About A Movie

1/10
Author: puntoaparte from United Kingdom
21 September 2007

Quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. Made me laugh though, for all the wrong reasons. I wanted to invoice the the cinema for letting me watch it! Continuity was all over the place. I failed to understand how some of the characters got hurt or appeared and disappeared, maybe I fell asleep though. If I was one of the actors, I'd have given my fee back and asked for the masters so I could have those sink to the bottom of the ocean too.

Will these guys work again? Should we create a '30,000 Leagues Actors Charity'? Who will support their families?

I gave them a score of one as I couldn't select zero. Shame for Jules though, he must be turning in his grave. Some excrement floats, some excrement sinks, this sank right to the bottom.

Was the above review useful to you?

45 out of 75 people found the following review useful:

The worst version of the Jules Verne classic that I've ever seen.

1/10
Author: kbf1123 from United States
12 September 2007

We already knew that Lorenzo Lamas was a bad actor and not very bright considering the fact that he broke up with a fox like Shawna Sands but he had to go and confirm his stupidity by taking part in this film. It was horrible! Bad acting, bad effects, bad dialog and way too much face time for Lamas. This film had generally no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In addition, the film strayed so far from the original Captain Nemo storyline that they might as well have left out the Jules Verne reference altogether. Hollywood had a genuine opportunity to make something entertaining and redeeming in this age of environmental awareness and once again, dropped the ball.

Was the above review useful to you?

31 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

really, really, really terrible

1/10
Author: foxpoet from internet
20 September 2007

Execrable acting, directing, editing, dialogue. Others have already covered that.

Also, in the first 10 minutes I counted 4 blatant science errors... When a submarine captain said "It can't be a fish, there's nothing but plankton this far down," I knew this was a real stinker. (The truth is the reverse, there are big animals but *not* plankton in the deep.)

It costs millions of dollars to produce a project like this, even with the pitiful special effects and no-name talent. Can't they at least invest a couple hundred dollars to hire a science fiction writer to do a little fact-checking? I'm available!

jpf

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

low budget fun

10/10
Author: capt-video from United States
10 March 2008

I am a life long fan of Jules Verne and of his legendary character Captain Nemo. I also have a strong affinity for B and C grade movies. When I came across 30,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA in my local video store it made me laugh. 30,000!? LOL! I was also amused to see that Lorenzo Lamas was in it (no offense Lorenzo). I scooped up the DVD and smiled all the way to the counter. I left the store hoping that 30,000 LEAGUES would be a fun adventure flick with entertaining portrayals of the legendary Nemo and his amazing Nautilus. I was not disappointed.

30,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA was far more fun than I expected. Sean Lawlor is a terrific Captain Nemo. The good Captain's Nautilus is impressive as well. IT'S HUGE! I was pleasantly surprised by the entertaining storyline and the low budget FX were a treat. I really dug the funky giant squids! LOL! The DVD has some great Special Features too. The charming Natalie Stone really shines in the behind-the-scenes featurette and commentary. There's even a fun blooper reel. This is a nice package that's well worth a look.

I'm very happy that I watched 30,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. I had a blast! Those who prefer strictly big budget special effects extravaganzas have been warned: 30,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA may not be you cup of tea. This is not a big budget flick. That's the beauty of it. This is definitely a low budget "popcorn movie" that will be most appreciated by fans of fun "no budget" films. I loved it!

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 40 people found the following review useful:

Inane, stiff dialogue, bad acting. Almost unwatchable.

1/10
Author: MightyTiny from Finland
19 September 2007

I've seen better dialogue in the seediest daytime soaps, and the acting didn't improve it. The combination is too contrived and stiff to take seriously, and not quite campy enough to be funny.

Sean Lawlor as Captain Nemo seems to put in the best effort, while Lorenzo Lamas and Natalie Stone seem to be competing for the worst acting ever prize; their exchanges are inane in content, and stiff in delivery.

I can't for the life of me, find anything good to say about the movie. Just blabbering on to meet the "10 lines of text" minimum; two lines could have more than sufficed for this one.

This is one movie that never should have been made.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

This is the worst "leagues" movie ever made.

1/10
Author: swatkat61 from United States
13 December 2008

Where to begin...where to begin.This movie is just plain bad...all bad. Every underwater scene looks unrealistic, the effects are terrible. I guess they really loved that low budget "light shining through a fish tank " trick since they used it in every scene possible. To bad there is no light as such at that depth. With the money they obviously saved in the F/X department you would have thought that they could have hired some decent actors. This movie was doomed the instant they put Lamas' name on it. The acting is stale, forced and very poorly scripted. Lorenzo Lamas' performance is pretty much like all his others...horrible. As for the rest of the crew they knew nothing of actual military procedures, terminology, proper dress code, etc..and I've seen better acting from an elementary school play (much, MUCH better in fact...and the sets looked better!)

Furthermore, it seems that everything that could be wrong with this movie...was. First, the Scotia "nuclear" sub with a bridge the size of a walk in closet?...wrong. It also had the steering and navigation controls of a 60's diesel submarine. Most of the "navy" crew walked around in ARMY rank.(There are no full bird colonels in the navy) Also, the navy lieutenants wear 2 bars (exactly like army captain's bars) as their rank. And for some reason "captain" Nemo wore a mix of US Army Major General rank, what appears to be an air force aviators device and a mix of army and air force commendations...and as the sole leader of this underwater waste of time who would give him commendations?

And, one would think if they had the "advanced technology" available, like the pointless "bubble-hammock", that they could have at least tried to make ANYTHING else look high tech. look at the scene where Lamas and crew are first aboard the nautilus...the bulk heads are made of plywood and they're CROOKED! Like any sub would be built this badly? Puh-lease.

Whatever you do ,don't rent this action-less, mindless, thoughtless and useless cinematic piece of bargain bin leftovers. You'd have a much better time watching paint dry. We can only hope that somewhere out there is a movie company willing to do a remake such as this the CORRECT way with all the attention and budget requirement's it deserves...and keep the "20,000" in the title. There's nothing impressive about changing one digit to further indicate how far you've sunk.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Poorly written, error riddled & frankly terrible 'mockbuster' rip-off.

2/10
Author: Paul Andrews (poolandrews@hotmail.com) from UK
9 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

30,000 Leagues Under the Sea starts as Lieutenant Captain Michael Aronnaux (Lorenzo Lamas) is ordered to use his invention the Oxygenator, which turns water into air, aboard his small sub the Aquanaut 3 to dive down 20,000 feet to the stranded USS Scotia & save the 150 odd crewmen. Once Aronnaux & his small crew reach the USS Scotia they are kidnapped by eccentric billionaire Captain Nemo (Sean Lawlor) & held prisoner on his submarine the Nautilus where he reveals that he has stolen the nuclear warheads from the USS Scotia & intends to use them to destroy the Earth & create an underwater utopia. Aronnaux & his crew aren't keen on the idea & set out to stop Nemo in his destruction of our planet, as the fate of the human race hangs in the balance can Aronnaux stop Nemo?

Directed by Gabriel Bologna this is yet another Hollywood blockbuster rip-off from those people at The Asylum, do I really need to to say which Hollywood flick 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea rips-off? There's only one number difference in both titles although any connection to the classic Jules Verne novel '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' is purely coincidental. While the original Verne novel was set during Victorian times the makers of 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea decide to set the story in contemporary times although the basic plot of a sea loving genius who wants to start a new civilisation under the waves is present & correct. To be brutally honest 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea is absolutely terrible, the plot sucks, there's no pace or tension or drama, the character's & dialogue are awful & the film has many, many factual holes which are painfully obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense or general knowledge. For instance the submarine featured in 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea sinks to a depth of over 20,000 feet yet the crush depth of such a submarine is less than 2,500 feet & then there's the scenes of people diving & swimming at that depth with nothing more than normal clothing & simple air breathers. Also I think I am right in saying that at a depth of over 20,000 feet it would be literally pitch black since no sunlight can travel that far through water so why is everything illuminated so well? Why does that underwater Volcano intermittently prevent radio signals? The basic physics & facts of reality are completely ignored in 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea & it has no dramatic impact or weight because of it. The whole film is also incredibly boring, the pace is slow & the plot is very predictable with obvious character arcs, plot development's & a by the numbers 'hero saves the day & rescues the girl' style ending.

This film just looks cheap, from the rubbishy low lit sets that looks slightly more futuristic than your average warehouse corridor to the boring design of the costumes & underwater equipment. The sets are decorated by what looks like cheap car seats & I never really got the impression that I was on a modern, sleek ultra sophisticated state-of-the-art submarine. The sets & production design on Seaquest DSV (1993 - 1996) were far superior to this & 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea feels like a cheap imitation of it. This is strictly PG stuff all the way so forget about any fights or gore or action. The CGI effects vary, some of them are alright if a little basic while other's are awful like the giant squid things which look terrible.

With a supposed budget of about $500,000 this didn't have much spent on it & it shows since the film looks drab, dull & cheap throughout. Par for the course for The Asylum really, do they even try to make good films? The acting is poor from no-one I have ever heard of before.

30,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a cross between 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea & Seaquest DSV with less than spectacular results. The CGI isn't as bad as it could have been but all the errors that you need to suspend your disbelief & forget everything you know about the sea just sink it without trace.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Another waist of time

1/10
Author: carlos-a-gomes-1 from Brazil
10 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well.. this movie and apparently everything that comes from The Global Asylum and related companies (production and distribution) are all pure garbage (as far as I could see).

The movie is quite better than 'the apocalypse' but still factual and horrible acting (not mentioning the inconsistent background music). Explosions with fire under the ocean? Giant squids that roarer and are so big that can breakdown a nuclear submarine ?

This is a B movie no doubt! But even the ancient B movies were much much better than this one. What is missing? Creativity! Originality! They should try to make a good movie and not to earn easy money.

Again, watch by your own risk.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history