Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Matt Melchert It's fun to watch an old silent movie and imagine what it must have been like for people watching it back then. In this case, we have what must have been a blockbuster of the first water (pun intended). It includes a lot--and I mean a LOT--of underwater filming, which apparently hadn't been done before. In this way, millions of people would have gotten their first look at a world they'd never seen before. For the Nautilus they used a real submarine, which compared to later depictions is pretty basic but still must have had a strong impact at the time.The plot was a reasonably faithful version of the original book, though as usual they took a few liberties. This movie included a back story of where Nemo came from and why he chose the life he leads. As in the original book, Nemo is a Muslim from the Indian subcontinent--something many other film adaptations didn't seem to have the guts to do.The characters of Nemo and the princess are well and sympathetically portrayed. As you'll have with the silent medium, personality and feelings can be efficiently portrayed with a mere expression or gesture. The princess in particular is established as a charming and lovable character, the kind you could fall in love with and want to take care of the rest of your life. When one of the castaways tries to force himself on her, we find ourselves hating the loathsome blackguard and cheering when he gets his just deserts.So in general, when viewed through contemporary eyes we have a cracking good story with good character development, along with some revolutionary effects in the underwater photography. A masterpiece! But when seen through modern eyes...oh, dear. Inevitably, there are facets of the film that have not aged at all well. The interminable underwater scenes, though they must have been mind-blowing at the time, slow the pace badly, and compared to what we see every day on TV and the Internet the images are very blurry and indistinct. And, although they portrayed Nemo and the princess as Indian Muslims, they clearly used Western actors in black-face, which tends to wrinkle noses these days.And Nemo's costume! His coat of indeterminate colour with its white boarder, along with his obviously fake white beard, makes him look like Santa Claus in black-face. Surely they could have done better, even at the time? There are a few silent movies that have stood the test of time and can be appreciated by modern audiences--The Battleship Potempkin comes to mind--but this is not one of them. I would not, for example, try to show it to small children as they would be bored out of their skulls. Still, if you're one of those lucky people who is able to project themselves into the past and see an old movie through the eyes of the time, it's well worth a look.I really wanted to give this movie two ratings: a 10 for what it achieved at the time, and, say, a 3 for it's overall objective quality, but they don't let you. So, I gave it a 9, which is honest.

jdc121 This is a very hard movie to rate, as one has to take into account not only the entertainment value, but it's historic value as well. As an entertainment entity, I believe it fails. Scenes between three different tales keep alternating, and it isn't until the end of the movie that one finally realizes how they all tie together. (Jules Verne's books "20,000 Leagues..." and "Mysterious Island", are both intertwined into the plot of the movie, along with a storyline created just for the film.) Add to that an inordinate amount of time showing underwater shots which, while I'm sure were wonderful in their day, were eclipsed long ago by the likes of Jacques Cousteau, and you have both a confusing, and rather boring film.That said, if one views this movie from an historic perspective, it can be quite enjoyable. After all, this was made in 1916, and was one of the first films to have such underwater photography. The octopus, as an extremely early special effect, would be quite convincing, if it weren't for the readily apparent fake eyes.As for the Image Entertainment 1999 DVD, the source used was quite good, considering the age of the film. I can't say how it would look on a large monitor, and I'm guessing that it is probably interlaced. However, on my smaller widescreen TV, it looked quite nice. The musical accompaniment was wonderful. It fit both the era of the film, and was scene appropriate.The transfer may have benefited from windowboxing (to make up for overscan), as some of the intertitles are pretty tight. However, given this is a 1999 release, I think it looks quite good.If you are interested in cinema history, I would recommend this disc. However, if you are looking for pure entertainment, go with the 1954 version of the film (which is quite a different story, too).

j-cf OK, this movie isn't at all faithful to Verne's novels (both 20000 leagues & Mysterious island), but who cares. It was too difficult for that time to stay close to the characters and to the relationship between Arronax and Nemo, which is based on the talking, showing different philosophical points of vue. So there we stick to a melodrama full of suspense and action. The pacing is quite fast, for a 1916 movie. A lot of characters and settings are involved, the cinematography is most of the time quite good and the actors are... so so. But it's the editing that attracts attention here, in a griffithian narration full of "parrallel editing" as we say in french. Some sequences are composed of four or five parallel actions, and sometimes flashbacks are used to add another dimension to the melodrama. The same fact is related three times by three different characters, each flashback being longer than its predecessor until the final revelation (that we can guess early in the film, but, as for most of gender movies, the pleasure for the viewer comes from the combination between waited events and surprising elements) narrated by Nemo himself. I don't know anything as for the origin of the version I own on DVD, so this editing question is to stay questioned. But as it is there (I saw the 1h45 version, a Jokanan copy), it's a really imaginative movie, a sort of serial with a complexer narration. It is sometimes a little boring anyway, especially when it deals with Arronax and co (Ned Land is useless, and the real hero of the movie arrives later on) and with submarine sequences (no so many, in fact, but a little childish sometimes). The documentary aspect is anyway interesting (the shark scene, an early Cousteau sequence) and from an historical point of view those sequences are very important.A good movie, not as brilliant as the Fleischer version, but entertaining and representative of the evolution of American cinema at that time.Just for the record: it's quite possible that the Nadia anime series by Anno Hideaki have been highly inspired by this movie (I won't say anything else, avoiding spoilers. Watch for yourself).

Norman Cook This film combines plot elements of Verne's original 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Mysterious Island, then adds its own subplot involving the origin of Captain Nemo that ties everything together. I was very impressed by the writing. This was the first major film with underwater photography. The set design was impressive. I found the diving suits to be particularly interesting--essentially early versions of scuba gear. The new score fit very well into the story. All in all, a wonderful and landmark achievement in filmmaking.