30,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Video 2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
70 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Poorly written, error riddled & frankly terrible 'mockbuster' rip-off.
poolandrews9 August 2008
Warning: 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.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wow... this was really bad.
bill-52518 September 2007
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.
24 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A hopelessly tedious clunker
Woodyanders30 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The crazed Captain Nemo (robustly played with plummy relish by Sean Lawlor) wants to wreak havoc upon the world by turning the waves upside down. It's up to a submarine rescue crew to stop him. Sound good and thrilling? Well, it just ain't. Gabriel Bologna's flat and pedestrian (non)direction crucially fails to inject any real tension, energy, or excitement into the plodding narrative; instead this flick gets severely bogged down in a numbing surplus of drippy dialogue thanks to Eric Forsberg's blah and long-winded script. The mostly crummy acting likewise fails to impress, with the top thespic dishonors copped by the ever-wooden Lorenzo Lamas' stiff portrayal of the stalwart Lieutenant Michael Arronax and Natalie Stone's supremely grating turn as Arronax's bitchy ex-wife Liuetenant Commander Lucille Conciel (Stone sports one of the worst and most unconvincing British accents to disgrace celluloid in the last five years). The bland cinematography, terrible CGI effects (the giant squids are especially hokey and laughable), infrequent and ineptly staged action scenes, and generic marital score all don't help matters any. Moreover, this picture is too dull and lifeless to even work on a so-bad-it's-good kitschy level. A real stinker.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sci-Fi channel material for sure.
cobram-111 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.
73 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
30,000 Bad Things About A Movie
puntoaparte21 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.
49 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible in every way
officiallybitesdotcom15 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!
46 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
really, really, really terrible
foxpoet20 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
37 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst version of the Jules Verne classic that I've ever seen.
kbf112312 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.
46 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Deserves a Place in the "Top Ten Worst Ever" films
sue-18023 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
What a disaster! The plot is paper-thin, the acting diabolical and I wondered if they sacked the continuity person part way through.

A stricken submarine called the 'Scotia' (as in Nova Scotia) was occasionally and randomly referred to as the 'Scotty-a' by one of the main characters, who clearly hadn't learnt his lines. The leading lady's bright red (or sometimes bright purple) lipstick was an overwhelming and ever-present distraction - at one point she was rescued (by ex-hubby, naturally) from underwater to emerge unconscious and soaking wet with lips perfectly coated in vermillion. Ex-hubby was curiously unaffected by the same water, which allowed him to remain dry presumably so that his buffoned hair did not flatten. As for Captain Nemo - he was decidedly camp which didn't sit well with his egomaniacal desire to destroy the world by nuclear annihilation.

If you must watch this, be prepared for a trip to hospital to have your buttocks surgically unclenched.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Inane, stiff dialogue, bad acting. Almost unwatchable.
MightyTiny19 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.
27 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
low budget fun
capt-video10 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!
39 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
LMAO=Lamas,Monster,Action and Ocean---LOL to the HATERS
guestar5721 September 2007
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 !
34 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Holy crap. Avoid at all cost! Warning: Spoilers
Okay, first it says it's an adaption of the Jules Verne novel. Outside of Nautilus and Nemo there is no relation. Acting was about as stale as month old bread. And whoever was in charge of contrast did not do their job.

In the beginning, we see the cast wearing military ranks, but as the show develops, their ranks change. Demotions perhaps for poor performance in a bad movie?.

Oxygenator, oh how original. Steel squids? Scuba free diving at that depth? A nobody that has the nuclear codes for missles.

I just cannot explain how many mistakes there were. Any intelligent person would have popped Nemo in the back of his head right away. And proceed to kill the rest of the evil crew.

Just give yourself a chance to avoid the disappointment. Watch the 20000 leagues movie instead. A classic actually based on the novel.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is the worst "leagues" movie ever made.
swatkat6113 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.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Another waist of time
carlos-a-gomes-110 September 2007
Warning: 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.
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
VERY bad! Really VERY BAD. I wish I could rate it with a zero!
robshuds26 December 2007
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.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Possibly Worse Than Plan 9 From Outer Space
Jim Tritten25 May 2009
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.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Really, really, really bad
dmuel12 October 2007
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.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The beginning of the 4 minutes tell me everything about the movie..it sucks
dekakashi19 September 2007
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.
18 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Another Lorenzo Lamas waste of time and money
gulffl19 September 2007
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.
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very nice film
bradharley_915 October 2007
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?
28 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ha, the Name Lorenzo Lamas Should Have Been the First Sign of Poor Quality
bkkaz30 October 2021
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Accidentally rented this movie
Fury903316 March 2008
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.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Now I need a cleansing shower...
mcaramb3 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Just rented and viewed this movie and um... well, there simply isn't a nice way to say this... it was simply awful.

The CG, effects, and set design was very nice, no worries there. Even the overall story had some merit, but the music, editing and especially the acting was really, really bad.

The music looked like it was pulled off someone's free demo reel on the internet. The sound quality was nearly as bad as the soundtracks themselves.

The editing was simply horrendous. Huge gaping holes in continuity. Does the director actually expect us to believe a giant squid can grab a girl through the hull of a submarine and carry her off through the ocean, without tons of water spilling through the obvious hole it would have left behind? Not even a trickle of water shows up as Lorenzo quickly shuts the door she apparently falls through...

As all the actors were equally bad in the same respect, i'm betting the director was responsible. Much like George Lucas, this director simply doesn't know how to direct actors. If you listen to the "featurette" on the DVD, you'll find there were many re-writes on the set. This probably threw everyone off, and without a strong hand at the helm, the actors were left floundering and it shows.

Avoid at all costs.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
after watching this film i laughed
filmaseaman28 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
in short, i usually don't write reviews on films, however this one i just had to say something. reading the reviews and comments on this film i just had to say that they are far more entertaining than the film itself. I think that this movie should be a must see for all aspiring film makers as something not to do. LOL thanks asylum for brightening my day, if you want the film to do better, i can do some minor editing adjustments and fix the story by a large margin,.... that is if you haven't given the film up. LOL... seriously though, it isn't going to be the next action thriller, um.... ever... in fact, never. (might get some festival recognition though).... no,... never mind.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed