20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1916)

Touches You

Sorry, this movie sucks

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Had this film been made a decade or so later, I would never have scored this film a 9. However, this score is relative to the other types of films being made in the 1916 time period--and for this, the film is rather amazing. While today we take so much of the film's innovations for granted, the film had some incredible underwater scenes--something people of the age would have seen here for the first time. It also featured some exciting submarine scenes--again, quite the innovation for 1916.The story follows Jules Verne's book pretty closely at the beginning. However, later in the film, the story goes off in some rather strange directions--making Nemo a Muslim who is seeking vengeance, the character of the daughter, the missing octopus/squid attack and the ending--all very different from the story. However, at a little over an hour and a half long and filled with great special effects, this is a film well worth seeking if you, too, love silent films.The movie, incidentally, is in the public domain so it can be downloaded from various sources for free. However, the copy is only average--the biggest problem being that the intertitle cards are occasionally clipped at the edge.Oh, and when you watch the film, see if you, too, think that in this film Nemo looks a bit like Santa--really!

This is a most intriguing and entertaining film. While some flaws can certainly be pointed out, it still stands up as a fine feature film.The story is certainly different in this version. This Nemo is a Boy Scout, helping those in need and interested in revenge only in the case of one personal enemy. As I recall from reading the book and seeing one of the color, sound versions (both about 30 years ago), Captain Nemo was a real sob, intent on extracting "revenge" on every ship he came across. (He was also about half the age of this Nemo.) Still, the twists make for an interesting story, as does the incorporation of "Mysterious Island," another Jules Verne masterpiece, into the story.Of course the film is best remembered for the amazing early underwater film sequences. These are something to see – especially considering the year. My only criticism of the film would be that Paton perhaps got a little carried away with showing his sequences of underwater sights. Of course, who could blame him? No one else had put anything remotely like this on screen in a feature film before. There is almost a quasi-documentary feel to the film, thanks to the underwater scenes and early SCUBA outfits.Alan Holubar is outstanding as the aging (and the young) Captain Nemo, while the rest of the cast is solid. The only exception is Jane Gail's horrid overacting as the princess. This is strange, considering that she handled the "child of nature" role with some credibility and little if no overacting. Perhaps the female histrionics were expected in 1916. (At least Robert K. Klepper identifies Gail as playing both roles in "Silent Films, 1877-1996." IMDb does not identify the princess.)In any case, whatever flaws one may find are dwarfed by the realization that it was so advanced for its time. It's still entertaining, as well, and a great addition to any collection.

This may have been thrilling in 1916, but today it seems more of a curio. The Williamson brothers invented a camera to take pictures underwater, (the prologue tells us, complete with photos of them) so there's lots of shots of fish swimming, the bottom of the sea, men in diving suits and one battle with an octopus, which was a bit fuzzy. Still, the sense of watching movie history was strong, but don't expect too much in light of more modern techniques. What really bothered me was the hammy acting styles, with lots of arm motions and exaggerated facial features. It's the style that gave silent films a bad name. One who avoided this was Matt Moore, the hero of the film, and the only actor I recognized. Perhaps that is why he was still making movies in the 50's. The film uses plot elements of Verne's "The Mysterious Island" as well as "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea."

My first exposure to 20,000 Leagues, was as a kid in the late 50's at the Colony Theatre in Chicago. This was the Walt Disney version.I have since purchased the 1916 silent version. I have to commend the movie-makers for a very well-done attempt at filming such a difficult story. The surface shots of the Nautilus looked very much like the vintage 1900's submarine, "Holland". The interior shots were, of course, stage sets. I have to comment however, on the helm-wheel-- the prop guys forgot to tighten it down!!! Also too, the first (as far as I know) underwater shots were very well done-- remarkable for the times. If anyone at all is familiar with 20,000 Leagues, and has not seen this silent version, by all means, see it--and buy it!!! One last thing--- being an avid theatre organ buff, I only wish the music was tracked in organ-- perhaps by Gaylord Carter or Lee Irwin.Thank you. Your's, Rick