70 reviews
Poorly written, error riddled & frankly terrible 'mockbuster' rip-off.
- poolandrews
- Aug 8, 2008
- Permalink
Wow... this was really bad.
I would have a tough time picking which was worse, the acting or the editing. Scenes just jumped from one to another, sometimes without explaining what happened. I didn't expect great acting, due to the origin of the movie, but I was hoping for more than this. How bad was the acting? Lorenzo Lamas was one of the best actors. That is bad. I debated on giving this a 2 or a 3 rating. I gave it a 3, because the idea behind the movie wasn't terribly bad, and the effects weren't bad for a made-for-TV movie. You could watch it on a Sunday afternoon, if you have a head cold, can't get off the couch, and your too sick to change the channel or find a DVD. Other than that, I would really try to avoid it altogether.
A hopelessly tedious clunker
- Woodyanders
- Dec 29, 2011
- Permalink
Sci-Fi channel material for sure.
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.
30,000 Bad Things About A Movie
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.
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.
- puntoaparte
- Sep 20, 2007
- Permalink
Horrible in every way
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!
- officiallybitesdotcom
- Sep 14, 2007
- Permalink
really, really, really terrible
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
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
The worst version of the Jules Verne classic that I've ever seen.
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.
Deserves a Place in the "Top Ten Worst Ever" films
Inane, stiff dialogue, bad acting. Almost unwatchable.
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.
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.
- MightyTiny
- Sep 18, 2007
- Permalink
low budget fun
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!
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!
- capt-video
- Mar 9, 2008
- Permalink
LMAO=Lamas,Monster,Action and Ocean---LOL to the HATERS
30,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA Theasylum.cc Starring : Lorenzo Lamas & Sean Lawlor Directed by: Gabriel Bologna
Really liked this newest offering from The Asylum peoples. Lorenzo Lamas is finally given something to do besides walk thru a direct to Sci-Fi Channel opus. Was kind of weird to have hero with beard and Bad Guy Nemo sans. The sea creature was very different angle, Yet familiar territory. ALL the effects looked great thanks to Tiny Juggernaut and Tara Lang. Was surprised by a couple of performances- Kim Little (Nice development of character, HOW could producers let you end that way-LOL !),Natalie Stone( From Werewolf In A Women's Prison to this...),Sean Lawlor( You have a Robert Vaughn-ish look with even more debonair to boot, Keep going.) The scenes in stranded sub ( Michael Tower as captain) were heroic and confining. Realize there are plenty of 'Leagues Under The Sea ' movies, This is nice addition. This film has a nice, Big look and really takes its audience to another place, Just don't be a military sub that pisses on/off NEMO !
Really liked this newest offering from The Asylum peoples. Lorenzo Lamas is finally given something to do besides walk thru a direct to Sci-Fi Channel opus. Was kind of weird to have hero with beard and Bad Guy Nemo sans. The sea creature was very different angle, Yet familiar territory. ALL the effects looked great thanks to Tiny Juggernaut and Tara Lang. Was surprised by a couple of performances- Kim Little (Nice development of character, HOW could producers let you end that way-LOL !),Natalie Stone( From Werewolf In A Women's Prison to this...),Sean Lawlor( You have a Robert Vaughn-ish look with even more debonair to boot, Keep going.) The scenes in stranded sub ( Michael Tower as captain) were heroic and confining. Realize there are plenty of 'Leagues Under The Sea ' movies, This is nice addition. This film has a nice, Big look and really takes its audience to another place, Just don't be a military sub that pisses on/off NEMO !
Holy crap. Avoid at all cost!
- richardlindseycsc-94678
- Apr 24, 2021
- Permalink
This is the worst "leagues" movie ever made.
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.
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.
Another waist of time
- carlos-a-gomes-1
- Sep 9, 2007
- Permalink
VERY bad! Really VERY BAD. I wish I could rate it with a zero!
Why isn't there a zero rating?
In cases like this movie even a zero would be a high grade. Bad everything! actors, direction, plot, scenery, special effects. etc..
My 6 year old kid would be better actor than ANY of this movie's actors!
Its disgusting the way they use the name of Jule Vernes as a "catch" for misinformed cinema-goers.
Don't rent it, refuse to see it even if its free! I'm sure you can do something better with your time!
This is the worst movie I've always saw (or better, tried to see, couldn't go to the end).
As I wish no evil to anyone,I broke the DVD and put it broken in the case just in case somebody would borrow it (I kept the case to remember me to look IMDb comments before buying a DVD. The Blockbuster kid that sold me this DVD for US$3.50 will have his payback.
If you have the misfortune of seeing this movie, pay attention to the face expressions of the main actress: its always the same "don't like what I'm eating" face.
In cases like this movie even a zero would be a high grade. Bad everything! actors, direction, plot, scenery, special effects. etc..
My 6 year old kid would be better actor than ANY of this movie's actors!
Its disgusting the way they use the name of Jule Vernes as a "catch" for misinformed cinema-goers.
Don't rent it, refuse to see it even if its free! I'm sure you can do something better with your time!
This is the worst movie I've always saw (or better, tried to see, couldn't go to the end).
As I wish no evil to anyone,I broke the DVD and put it broken in the case just in case somebody would borrow it (I kept the case to remember me to look IMDb comments before buying a DVD. The Blockbuster kid that sold me this DVD for US$3.50 will have his payback.
If you have the misfortune of seeing this movie, pay attention to the face expressions of the main actress: its always the same "don't like what I'm eating" face.
Possibly Worse Than Plan 9 From Outer Space
This is a very hard movie for anyone with actual naval service to watch. Clearly the producers did not bother to hire a technical adviser and it shows (or if there was a technical adviser he was ignored). There are so many things wrong about how the US Navy is portrayed and technology that it is hard to fit them all into a short review.
The USS Scotia, ostensibly a US Navy nuclear submarine looks more like a Russian Alpha class. Any submarine would crush at the depths played out in the story and would be incapable of radioing while underwater. Neither people nor plankton could survive outside any submarine at the depths portrayed in this movie. And there would not be light that deep.
The time setting is "today" but the USS Abraham Lincoln is a World War II battleship. And it, nor any other ship that large, could possibly travel 75 knots. There is a real world Abraham Lincoln but it is an aircraft carrier and more likely to have acted as a flagship. Uniforms are wrong and not only do the rating badges and insignia change from scene to scene but they are incorrect in the first place. And it is the "US Coast Guard" and not the "American Coastal Guard." Then there is the portrayal of personnel. A British-accented woman as the commander of a mini-sub? First of all, it is possible for a foreign-accented person to be an officer in the US Navy but not at all possible for a foreign citizen to be one. And despite advocates, there are no women permitted to serve on submarines – conveniently ignored in this movie. If there were women in the "Silent Service," they would be expected to adhere to grooming standards and not wear fashionable nail polish, garish lipstick, headbands, or ornamental earrings. The men are equally out of standards for grooming.
But even if women did serve, the placement of an ex-wife as the commander of a very small unit that includes the former spouse is suspect. And even if they were to serve together, the interaction between the two goes well beyond anything expected between two military professionals.
If you can get past all of this, which I admit is hard for anyone who has actually served, then there are other problems galore with the story. The first half hour is not particularly interesting because it is mostly an explanation of technical and scientific jargon. Captain (wearing Major General's stars) Nemo does not appear for way too long. Then quite honestly, the film just gets boring even though it is set underwater and features an obviously psychotic antagonist and many challenges to our heroes. Why did they think they needed the nightclub scene? I didn't mind the inventions that kept the plot going. I could even get into the plot to shift mankind above the sea to underwater - the new Atlantis. But I am not sure about whether it was the writing, the directing, or just the acting that made we want to ignore the words that came out of the mouths of everyone on the screen. Could it have been all three? The color is excellent and I did not have any problem with the sound that a few others had.
At least Plan 9 From Outer Space had ..wait; there is not much to offer for that either. Well, this one was in color.
The USS Scotia, ostensibly a US Navy nuclear submarine looks more like a Russian Alpha class. Any submarine would crush at the depths played out in the story and would be incapable of radioing while underwater. Neither people nor plankton could survive outside any submarine at the depths portrayed in this movie. And there would not be light that deep.
The time setting is "today" but the USS Abraham Lincoln is a World War II battleship. And it, nor any other ship that large, could possibly travel 75 knots. There is a real world Abraham Lincoln but it is an aircraft carrier and more likely to have acted as a flagship. Uniforms are wrong and not only do the rating badges and insignia change from scene to scene but they are incorrect in the first place. And it is the "US Coast Guard" and not the "American Coastal Guard." Then there is the portrayal of personnel. A British-accented woman as the commander of a mini-sub? First of all, it is possible for a foreign-accented person to be an officer in the US Navy but not at all possible for a foreign citizen to be one. And despite advocates, there are no women permitted to serve on submarines – conveniently ignored in this movie. If there were women in the "Silent Service," they would be expected to adhere to grooming standards and not wear fashionable nail polish, garish lipstick, headbands, or ornamental earrings. The men are equally out of standards for grooming.
But even if women did serve, the placement of an ex-wife as the commander of a very small unit that includes the former spouse is suspect. And even if they were to serve together, the interaction between the two goes well beyond anything expected between two military professionals.
If you can get past all of this, which I admit is hard for anyone who has actually served, then there are other problems galore with the story. The first half hour is not particularly interesting because it is mostly an explanation of technical and scientific jargon. Captain (wearing Major General's stars) Nemo does not appear for way too long. Then quite honestly, the film just gets boring even though it is set underwater and features an obviously psychotic antagonist and many challenges to our heroes. Why did they think they needed the nightclub scene? I didn't mind the inventions that kept the plot going. I could even get into the plot to shift mankind above the sea to underwater - the new Atlantis. But I am not sure about whether it was the writing, the directing, or just the acting that made we want to ignore the words that came out of the mouths of everyone on the screen. Could it have been all three? The color is excellent and I did not have any problem with the sound that a few others had.
At least Plan 9 From Outer Space had ..wait; there is not much to offer for that either. Well, this one was in color.
- Jim Tritten
- May 24, 2009
- Permalink
Really, really, really bad
This film is terrible. I mean really, really bad! I'm so angry that the producers of this film dared to spend money producing this horrendous piece of crap. How dare they! I wasted almost 18 minutes of my life, (I fast forwarded after watching about 10 minutes of this flick), which I can never get back. The acting, the sets, the really crappy CGI's, the sound, the look....among the worst I've ever seen. The only thing that amazes me is that some other reviewers here actually gave this film 3 stars out of 10. Ridiculous! Do not watch this film unless you crave pain or regurgitation. Can I make this any clearer to you? An utter and complete waste of time.
The beginning of the 4 minutes tell me everything about the movie..it sucks
The beginning of the 4 minutes tell me everything about the movie..it sucks. At first I thought it's going to be a really cool movie. When the captain open his mouth, all i heard is craps. NO FEELING AT ALL. Everyone in the movie was like reading from their script or something. WORST ACTING EVER. They chose the wrong people for the roles. Like the lieutenant, he doesn't look like a lieutenant to me, nor did her spoke like one. I assume these were some actors that got paid with minimum wages or something. Wasting time. It's like they are afraid we won't realize that those people are from the Navy, they have to put a BIG "Navy" tag on everyone's cloth. The director failed to make the plot more interesting, they just go directly to them.
30,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Bad even for an Asylum feature
So, another movie from the infamous Asylum. A film studio who pound out these "Mockbuster" movies that are low budget rip offs of big Hollywood titles and release them at the same time to cash in on their popularity.
For example
The Day the Earth Stood Still > The Day the Earth Stopped Pacific Rim > Atlantic Rim Aliens vs Predator > Aliens vs Hunter Snakes on a Plane > Snakes on a Train High School Musical > Sunday School Musical
You get the idea. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact they're so incredibly dire!
I'm sure I don't need to say what 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a "Mockbuster" of but rest assured it doesn't use much of the material. A couple of character names (One they fail to pronounce correctly) and the Nautilus and that's as far as it goes. The entire movie is an embarrassingly bad entirely original story that has nothing to do with Jules Verne's classic works.
I've been binge watching every adaptation and this is the last one, what a way to end it on an absolute bottom of the barrel low.
It looks terrible, the cast are pitiful and this actually manages to be bad even for an Asylum feature. Bad, bad, bad.
The Good:
I like the bit where it ended
The Bad:
Expectedly poorly made
Some embarrassingly bad sound balancing in places
In no way is it based on Vernes work
Dreadfully paced
Cast are less than competent
For example
The Day the Earth Stood Still > The Day the Earth Stopped Pacific Rim > Atlantic Rim Aliens vs Predator > Aliens vs Hunter Snakes on a Plane > Snakes on a Train High School Musical > Sunday School Musical
You get the idea. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact they're so incredibly dire!
I'm sure I don't need to say what 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a "Mockbuster" of but rest assured it doesn't use much of the material. A couple of character names (One they fail to pronounce correctly) and the Nautilus and that's as far as it goes. The entire movie is an embarrassingly bad entirely original story that has nothing to do with Jules Verne's classic works.
I've been binge watching every adaptation and this is the last one, what a way to end it on an absolute bottom of the barrel low.
It looks terrible, the cast are pitiful and this actually manages to be bad even for an Asylum feature. Bad, bad, bad.
The Good:
I like the bit where it ended
The Bad:
Expectedly poorly made
Some embarrassingly bad sound balancing in places
In no way is it based on Vernes work
Dreadfully paced
Cast are less than competent
- Platypuschow
- Feb 2, 2019
- Permalink
Very nice film
The high digital technology doesn't make the good movie. This one doesn't have the budget of the "Lord of the Rings" however it is a very well seen film for all the family. Personally i really enjoyed it and the rest of my family too. I also recommend to others to see it. Lorenzo Lamas and Sean Lawlor play very very good. They are really great actors. The story is based on Jules Verne's classic adventure tale with a modern view.I have seen some bad films and i can recognize when a film is good and when it is bad. And this one is good for sure. And it has it all...adventure, nice plot, suspense, action, nice actors and what else do i want to spent a nice evening?
- bradharley_9
- Oct 14, 2007
- Permalink
Another Lorenzo Lamas waste of time and money
I was really disappointed by this one. I was hoping to see a well acted movie, instead I got sick to my stomach as soon as the dialog started. I cannot think of another concept as good as this on totally flushed down the toilet. This was a total waste of time and money for the production company and anyone who pays to see it. There is so much that could have been done with this movie, and yet, like many other crappy movies lately, we are left imagining what could have been. Personally, I have never made a movie, nor have I even made a picture slide show, however, I know I could have done better than what we have here. Man, there are so many other workable ideas that are better than this filth. Do not waste your time.
Ha, the Name Lorenzo Lamas Should Have Been the First Sign of Poor Quality
It's hard to imagine why anyone would want to do such injustice to Jules Verne and his original brilliant tale of an genius anti-hero whose tragic life propels him on an ill-fated attempt to rid the world of war. Instead, we get some cranky British guy whose strange pauses before and after each line of dialogue makes one think all his scenes were filmed absent of anyone else in the room. This intensely cheap production is not just filled with shoddy acting and subpar CGI, but the script is like a freshman creative writing student's first efforts to raid B movies and bad TV shows for something to plagiarize. You can't even get lost in the toys. The Nautilus looks like some bizarre spaceship -- kind like a Star Trek alien ship missing its engines -- rather than a submarine, and the action is remarkably dull. Just an incompetent production all around.
Accidentally rented this movie
This is bad. BAD movie. I didn't realize the Block Buster had section for B Movies.
I agree that actors were not at fault with this. Problem is, they tried to make up low budget with CGI. The writer should be sent back to writer school. I felt it was written with little understanding what they were writing about. Battleship's handling submarines? American's using Russian Nuclear Submarines?
Kookie billionarie, wants nuke the world and make them live under the seas in ruins of a ancient civilization, thinking hiding under the sea is after destroying surface of the planet will result in better society? Unless your one those people who see this film as potential movie to use old Mystery Science Theater 3000 dialog. Stay away from this film, its not worth the rental. Maybe laugh at writer's cheap gimmick movie.
I agree that actors were not at fault with this. Problem is, they tried to make up low budget with CGI. The writer should be sent back to writer school. I felt it was written with little understanding what they were writing about. Battleship's handling submarines? American's using Russian Nuclear Submarines?
Kookie billionarie, wants nuke the world and make them live under the seas in ruins of a ancient civilization, thinking hiding under the sea is after destroying surface of the planet will result in better society? Unless your one those people who see this film as potential movie to use old Mystery Science Theater 3000 dialog. Stay away from this film, its not worth the rental. Maybe laugh at writer's cheap gimmick movie.
after watching this film i laughed
- filmaseaman
- Nov 27, 2007
- Permalink