User Reviews

I don't know why everyone's being so hard on the script and actors for this movie. They're not that bad; it's just that they're so obviously hamstrung by the film's very limited budget. The movie looks as if it was shot on home video equipment (especially the night scenes) and the sound is pretty poor, too, in places.

The most egregious offense of this production is probably the costumes. A couple of the characters who are supposed to be Civil War soldiers are wearing what are clearly synthetic thermal undershirts that weren't seen on Earth before about 1980. Let alone 1880.

Do yourself a favor and rent the 1960s version.

The island is mysterious. I'll give the movie credit for that, at least. And the mysteriousness of the island does manage to carry this for a while. The basic problem that I had with this, though, was that after a while I simply found myself not caring. The characters weren't at all sympathetic. None of them were sufficiently developed to really make me care about their fate, which is a big problem in a movie like this, since most of the story revolves around what's happening to the castaways.

The movie is obviously based on the Jules Verne story of the same name in which a group of Union soldiers steal a giant Confederate balloon in order to escape from Richmond near the end of the Civil War and get carried by the winds to the island. Obviously it's based very loosely on that story. I have only vague memories of the Verne story, but what I recall tells me that while the very basic outline is here, much of the original story is either left out or changed in this. And obviously, Verne having written the story in 1875, the addition of the Bermuda Triangle plot, and the crash of the airplane aren't from the Verne story at all, the former simply lending a paranormal feel to this, the latter being little more than an excuse to introduce two attractive young women to the group of castaways. The ending left me a bit dry and it left everything up in the air, whereas the Verne story had a much more definite ending.

For a while this is fine. It just falters mainly on the sense of indifference I had to the characters. If you don't care about the characters, you really don't care about the story. (4/10)

I don't care if this was made for TV or not. I think it is a crime to take a great story and butcher it the way this director did. I am a big fan of the 1961 version, and only stumbled upon this movie because they sent the wrong movie, I had ordered the version with Patrick Steward as Nemo, but instead I got this version. The Movie is obviously made for TV, the acting in so bad, I thought I was watching a Mexican soap opera. As the movie started, it seamed to follow the original story line, But after the balloon took to the air, the plot took a 180 degree turn for the worst.Some of the acting was OK, but The girl with the bad leg, looked like she studied Monty Pythons silly walks, to prepare for her part. The creatures were laughable, the almost looked like they used the costumes from Time machine, (the warlocks). It wasn't till Nemo showed his face that I realized this isn't the movie I ordered, and as I could no longer watch, and my girlfriend already left the room, I just stopped it, never finishing. If you like the 1961 version as I do, the don't see this movie, just watch the original.

I saw Mysterious Island as I love the story and have a soft spot for the 1961 film. I was dubious as it was SyFy, whose standard of movies generally are nothing to write home about, however even for SyFy Mysterious Island is an abomination. Other commentators have said that it is very loosely based on the book, and they are right. I wasn't expecting much different on that angle, because from their adaptations of Earthsea and Journey to the Center of the Earth I knew that the only resemblance to the original story was going to be either the title or the characters' names. The problem is that Mysterious Island doesn't just fall down as an adaptation, it falls down on its own merits as well. The story here is very dully paced, and due to lack of any real tension or thrills it is very uninteresting as well. The characters are not as interesting either, a lot of them are clichéd and not much is done to develop them. Even Nemo's back-story is rushed and convoluted, almost as if done in reference. The dialogue is often corny with SyFy, but not in a while have I heard dialogue that was so unbearably so that you have a hard time taking anything seriously. The acting is poor, with a stiff uncharismatic Lochlyn Munro, a pretty but vapid Gina Holden and an all too brief Pruitt Taylor Vince. The production values I have no better news I'm afraid. Not much is done to make them authentic with the furs sometimes looking as though they were actually made of straw, also further undermined by the sights of modern technology like air vents when the mansion was built on an island supposedly without electricity. The special effects are laughable, with the octopus belonging more at home in a cheap video game and the shaggy creatures were as scary as someone dressing up for a Halloween party. All in all, terrible. 1/10 Bethany Cox

As I watched this amazingly stupid movie, and may I add, shame on me for watching it through the end, I noticed, when they where inside the house...there were candles every where...however if you look closely you'll notice light switches in every room, thermostat in one room. This movie was simply put "AWFUL"

I had some expectation why I wanted to watch this film. I had no information about it, except a line that this film is based on J. Verne's book. It started like a normal remake but turned to a surreal vision of a hurt brain about something. After ten minutes it was obvious that the original story and author has only a very loose connection to this film. The story does not worth more. The actors are forming unrealistic characters. It seems that they did their job only for the money without any efforts to play characters -if there is any at all. The director seems not to have minimal assumption about the story had to be filmed. In summary: Primitive story, no connection to the original book. The creators have stolen only a couple of names from J. Verne. Category "Z" actors, but is true that their level of play is comparable with the whole film. It is very difficult to understand who was able to give money for this. Waste of time even a minute. One star what I gave is exactly one star more than it worth, but there is no option for zero.

I said recently that I considered the 2005 Patrick Stewart adaptation of Mysterious Island to be the worst Jules Verne adaptation and I'd like to firmly retract that statement.

This version starring Lochlyn Munro and Gina Holden is an absolute abomination for a couple of reasons. For a start it's because it's simply bad, it's ugly, it's unoriginal, for the most part it's laughably written and acted and a film you'll have forgotten within mere moments of the credits rolling.

The second reason is the worst, this is supposed to be an adaptation of Jules Verne's classic! Now other adaptations have gone on tangents, featured characters and oversized monsters that weren't in the original novel but this version takes that to a whole new level. In no way shape or form is this Mysterious Island! Here we have portals, we have time travel, we have an entirely new background story for Nemo and instead of giant monsters we have Morlock looking antagonists! I don't know what they were thinking here but it's 5% Verne's work and 95% original and moronic.

It's films like this that underline my issue with senseless remakes, if you aren't going to respect the source material then why even call it an adaptation?

A regular on the Scyfy channel this is one to not only not watch but actively avoid especially if you enjoy Verne's works.

The Good:

Gina Holden

The Bad:

Some of the alterations from the source material are beyond moronic

Stock sound effects

Cringe inducing script

Mark Sheppard is wasted

This film has it all...bad writing, bad direction, bad acting, some of the worst CGI ever and an ending that basically was the director yelling, "CUT, we're out of time".

I agree SyFy movies follow certain convention. They cannot be compared to big nationwide blockbusters with spectacular special effects and equally big budgets. SyFy movies can be all characterized by really good stories, usually based on accomplished sci-fi novels, but at the expense of modest and limited special effects. Because I grew on books and I prefer a movie with an interesting story, even sacrificing the technical level, than completely mindless and empty blockbusters offering ONLY technical effects. For example I prefer obvious CGI with a good story behind, rather than huge catastrophic explosions costing millions of dollars with no content at all. If a have a good story I can make up for poor effects with my own imagination, but with no story I leave the theater completely empty-minded.

So this movie is just like that - poor effects when compared to Transformers and other nationwide hits, but an interesting story based loosely on Jules Verne's classic. Nice dose of action, some history, some cultural clash between different historical periods, everything makes logical sense, decently acted. Maybe not Oscar-worthy, but still very watchable.

I am really a big fan of SyFy and its convention. I only wish they would become a paid channel so that they can escape the usual network censorship and other limitations. Still staying focused on stories rather than effects, but more open to the after-hours market. Something like HBO.

I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the negative comments. Sure, the movie had a small budget, but the story line was a nice twist on what would be a dusty story had they followed the original book. I'm familiar with the JV story, but had never read nor seen any films on it. This version is an adaptation and updating of the original.

Yeah, the acting was a bit clunky at times, but really, it wasn't that bad. I'd give the writers a bit of credit for trying to pad out their characters a little bit. Most stories of this type, and budget, never bother to do so. Stop trying to take this so seriously, and you'll enjoy this movie. If you want some good, mindless entertainment, you could do far worse.

Makes not so thinly veiled references to the TV show LOST. It does so because it cannot stand on as a movie. It is like a high school play written by a child who only read the CliffsNotes. The 1961 version is better.

This movie stinks. There's no getting around that. I can think of nothing positive to say about it. I've watched a lot of terrible movies made for the SyFy channel, and this one ranks among the very worst. It's right up there with that awful version of KING SOLOMON'S MINES that looked like it was filmed in a city park.

I don't object to films adapting works of classic literature in ways their original authors never imagined, but I do object strongly to attaching the original authors' names to the often unrecognizable results. Such is the case with this virtually unwatchable atrocity. It has little to do with Jules Verne's original story, which is set in the time of the U.S. Civil War, when five Yankee prisoners escape from Confederate captivity in a balloon craft and are blown by an immense storm all the way to an uncharted South Pacific island. That's the essential premise of this film, though the geography is vague. Beyond that premise, however, the film has little to do with the novel. In fact, I'm willing to bet it was based not on Verne's novel but on the 1961 film of the same title that was itself a major departure from the novel. Like that film, this SyFy stinker adds several similar characters not in the novel–namely a Confederate soldier and two women. This version differs mainly in having the female characters arrive on the island in a airplane after–apparently–being blown through the Bermuda Triangle. Is the ensuring story now set in the mid-19th century or in the early 21st century? It's impossible to say, but I doubt the creators of this film themselves knew–or cared.

Like the 1961 film, this one moves the action along far more swiftly than the novel does. It has the characters leave the island within days of their arrival there. By contrast, in the novel the castaways are on the island nearly four years, during which time they raise extensive crops, breed animals, mine minerals, make tools and machines, and build houses, bridges, and boats. One of the chief points of interest in the novel is how they meet the many challenges they face, while dangers posed by harsh weather, fierce animals, pirates, and a volcano make for frequent thrills. The novel is a robust, fascinating book that might be thought of as like THE SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON on steroids. In this SyFy movie, nothing interesting happens. The chief questions one has while trying to watch it is this: Did someone actually write a screenplay for this mess? Or, were they making it up as they went along? What does this terrible SyFy movie have to do with Verne's novel? Not much, aside from its undeserved title. If the SyFy channel wants to produce lousy movies, that's fine. They'll always find an undiscriminating audience that will enjoy them. I have no problem with that. However, if they must do that, it would be far better if they would come up with totally original stories and not pretend they are producing adaptations of classic works that can only serve to give real science fiction a bad name.

March 1865. A group of Union soldiers escape from Confederate hands in a balloon, accompanied by their former Confederate captor. The balloon crashes on a sinister island, complete with strange malevolent creatures, pirates...and people from the year 2012.

Ostensibly based on Jules Verne's classic novel but, if it is, it must be very loosely based, as there is no way Jules Verne wrote even 5% of this crap. (Unfortunately, I haven't read Verne's novel, so can't comment with any authority on how closely this movie does follow the book). Bad in every way: plot, dialogue, acting. Even the historical references are inaccurate!

Monumentally cringeworthy. Avoid like the plague.

Just to make it clear, the movie has no resemblance to the real story. A bunch of cliches very badly executed. The movie is just awful.

RELEASED TO TV IN 2012 and directed by Mark Sheppard, "Mysterious Island" is loosely based on Jules Verne's book about Civil War soldiers stranded on a strange island and their eventual encounter with Captain Nemo (played by William Morgan Sheppard and, in flashbacks, Mark Sheppard). Gina Holden & Susie Abromeit play two women the soldiers meet on the island. Lochlyn Munro is effective as the male protagonist while Edrick Browne, Caleb Michaelson & J.D. Evermore appear as other soldiers.

I've seen two other movies based on Verne's novel (1961 & 2005) and those departed from the novel as well, although this one takes the most liberties. As my title blurb points out, the castaways aren't just lost on a deserted island, they're lost in time too and I enjoyed the ramifications of this (Civil War-era militarists trying to catch a grip with two modern women). If you're a sucker for lost-on-deserted-island movies, like me, this version is a must, as long as you can handle the TV budget. The only noticeable flaw (beyond the typical limitations that go with a low budget) is the awkward way some scenes are executed, like the final one with Herbert.

THE FILM RUNS 91 minutes and was shot entirely in Louisiana (St. Amant, St. Gabriel, Mandeville & Baton Rouge). WRITER: Cameron Larson.

GRADE: C

I love the book, and I even love the goofy version with the giant chicken. But this version is just nuts. Aside from a few attractive cast members, it has absolutely nothing going for it. The plot makes almost no sense, the elements of the book which were such fun are all missing, and there are scenes which drag on endlessly.

It was slightly entertaining to watch while trying to figure out why they made the movie, but thank heaven for fast forwarding.

i truly enjoyed this film. i think what you have to keep in mind before you turn it on is, this is a made-for-TV-Syfy movie. you can't over analyze it - i just took it for what it was : an entertaining TV movie on a Saturday night.

i'm also not a Verne Purist- i like seeing creative adaptations, so the fact that the movie veered from the original novel didn't bother me a bit. actually i kinda like it, because it meant that i didn't know what was going to happen. i did like that they gave homage to other verne works by including other favorite characters and names - i thought that was an interesting tie in and a great way to work up to a sequel or prequel if that happens.

i also was familiar with the fact that this film had a VERY small budget, and honestly, i think they did a heck of a lot with the amount of money they spent. there were a couple cheesy effects, but for the most part they were pretty dang good - i've seen a lot worse from films that had a lot more money.

i also like the fact that they added 2 women characters, as i woman, i appreciated that. i think it would be very interesting to update other classic novels, and give people characteristics that weren't initially part of the story - what if captain memo was in a wheelchair? or hebert was gay? or they were all hispanic? i think adding new pieces to the story gives it more layers.

i particularly liked the conversations between the girls from modern times and the civil war soldiers, when they were trying to figure out which time period they were from - it really makes you think about how different things are now compared to over 100 years ago. and it provided some comic relief, which is always welcome.

overall i really liked this movie, i thought Mark Sheppard did a fantastic job on directing his first film. i wish the Syfy channel had more quality movies like this on their channel. i DVR'd it and will watch it again.

Not a great movie by any standard but not too bad either - by far - I'm saying this in the context of the modern movie industry where most of the product is just too painful to watch. So against such backdrop this was a nice piece of family-safe entertainment - yes entertainment indeed. Kids loved it, I sat through it with occasional interest. Acting wasn't that bad despite what has been said on this site.

Yes it's not faithful to the book by Jules Verne but in a creative way. There is a even a reference to Barack Obama. Not necessary but not out of the way given the time travel angle that this movie has introduced into the story.

Not the best, silly at times, but if you take it for what it was meant to be (a TV movie) it's a solid piece of work.

I stumbled upon this 2010 fantasy adventure movie in 2021. And I hadn't actually never heard about the movie before now as I sat down to watch it. But I figured that it being a movie based on a Jules Verne story, then it couldn't possibly be all bad.

Boy, was I wrong. This movie from writers Sholom Gelt and Cameron Larson was downright awful. This was definitely one of the most dubious and stupid movies that I have sat down to watch in a long time. And I can only speculate what the writers were thinking - or maybe not thinking - when they sat down to write the script and plot for "Mysterious Island".

Not only was the storyline a swing and a miss, but the whole movie was just permeated by being rubbish. The acting performances throughout the movie weren't much to write home about, and not even someone like William Morgan Sheppard were able to do much to salvage the movie.

Visually then "Mysterious Island" was not particularly impressive either, so there weren't much to be had on that account.

I am rating the 2010 movie "Mysterious Island" from director Mark Sheppard a generous two out of ten stars. Yeah, you might just want to skip on this particular movie, because it simply wasn't worth the effort.

Do not waist your time on this truly awful movie. There are very little redeeming qualities apart from ... nope I got nothing.