20,000 Leagues Under the Sea - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea Reviews

Page 1 of 3
Super Reviewer
January 16, 2017
I guess you can call this the first Michael Bay film. 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea was the second adaptation of the Jules Vernes novel, it features iconic mariner costumes. The story telling was a mess however, but the special effect was impressive considering the budget. It's not the most interesting films but deserves cinematic recognition.
½ July 4, 2014
An interesting adaptation of 20000 Leagues Under The Sea, and The Mysterious Island... The first submarine photoplay ever filmed--A wonderful and groundbreaking film!!
December 7, 2012
Would like to get round to seeing!
August 1, 2010
This technological masterpiece for its time suffers in a poor script, acting and direction. This may be the first film of underwater photography which was done through a system of mirrors and prisms as people were photographed in those heavy clumsy underwater diving suits accompanied with astonishing scenes of coral reef sea life. See this film for just that alone.
July 19, 2010
Cool underwater scenes for 1916, but this silent version doesn't live up to Walt Disney's classic.
½ July 11, 2010
Although it's a great Victorian nautical science fiction epic it's not as great as the 1954 Disney version...but the experience of seeing it on the big screen with fantastic live music by Stephin Merritt would be a 5 star one.
May 2, 2010
It hasn't aged as well as other Silent films like Nosferatu, but with the right appreciation you can still respect 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. The submarine clips were groundbreaking and amazing for the time, although today they don't come off as anything too special. It seems that the Underwater footage was what made it a standout film in the first place, and that means that people who grew up on a pure CGI diet of film won't be able to admire it's beauty.
May 9, 2009
Weird. Interesting to see some of the first underwater filming. But we do much better these days. Underwater footage from 1916 is just old.
August 13, 2008
nice to look at but the 1954 version better
May 15, 2008
I'm not even interested in seeing this movie.
½ March 26, 2008
Fantastic... I enjoyed it quite a lot.
March 21, 2008
I did not really like this movie.
January 7, 2008
I can only remember dying of bordem whilst watching this.
December 23, 2007
I am guessing this is a silent. I love silents.
December 19, 2007
Incredible underwater scenes when you consider how much film cost and how difficult it would have been to film underwater. This would have created a sense of serenity in theatres when it opened. I can image patrons quietly marvelling at the fish darting in and out of coral while sun light plays wave patterns on the ocean floor.

I always smile when I see the over acting in silent movies to emphasize with the audience what is occurring and how the characters feels at that moment. I can imagine a full theatre of patrons going between hushed silence and gasps of suspense. In today‚??s movie experience this emotions are played out on the big screen and no longer audience participation.

Any Classic Sci-Fi lover would enjoy this movie.
½ December 18, 2007
It's a very interesting look at the experience of film-viewing at the start of the 20th century. I'm rating it more on historical interest than as a film per se, as they didn't really have the language of the cinema in hand yet-- it's sort of like Og Cavewarmer's version of Hamlet.
December 11, 2007
ewwwww silent movies.
November 2, 2007
Classified as a classic = Interested.
½ October 12, 2007
Since I'm rating by genre, I think that you have to consider the fact that this movie was made in 1916! For it's time, it's incredible. Underwater photography....some of the visuals are amazing for a movie made in 1916. I find it interesting that even back then movies were taking liberties with the story originally told in a book....adding a whole series of events that "weren't told in the Jules Verne" tale.
Page 1 of 3