Mysterious Island (2005)

You won't be disappointed!

Fantastic!

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 movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I wish to thank the creator of their word posthumously because without "it" nothing else would apply to this "lovely" little flop. Patrick!!!! What the hell were you thinking when you signed on or did they hold a pistol to you or are you broke? No other explanation could exist for your participation. At least Gabrielle was there to divert our attention to something else. Also, I need to send out a "cosmic" plea asking for forgiveness from the author for abuse of his story.

I think that if you didn't read the book by Verne, you'll still think this movie is 'a fun ride'. Although not very credible it's an adventurous movie that will probably appeal to many kids. It has nice landscapes and caves, it has Kyle MacLachlan, which is always good, and Patrick Stewart. It kind of looks like they sent them on a free holiday on the condition that they would show their faces to the cameras once in a while. I realise this is probably a very mild review still. And this is probably due to the fact that I'd seen Riverworld right before I watched this movie and, trust me, Riverworld was so much worse! At least, in this movie, I cared 'a bit' about 'some characters', the story 'kind of' made sense and at least had a classic beginning, middle and ending. But I hated it when Blake died. He gets a second chance and he dies in a couple of seconds in a very meaningless way. And Cyrus is like: "Leave him. He's dead." I still thought for a while he was going to come back... When Cyrus tells his love interest (what's her name anyway) that he let a little boy die during the war this scene only seems to lead to a kiss, while I would have made it more meaningful if I had had any say over the script, e.g. by making him return for Blake to save him, making up for his past mistake in a way. But now, they might as well have cut the scene. It had no (important) function. So this movie lacked a decent pay-off to begin with.I wonder whether Kyle MacLachlan's character looks so cold because the actor didn't care much about his part. This is an actor who can radiate so much warmth and passion just by watching something or someone and here he plays a character that appears to be more robot than human being, like they actually programmed his traumatising past into his brain. And I always wonder why they call movies under 5 or 6 hours miniseries. It's just a (too) long movie if you ask me. There is absolutely no need for a 'to be continued' in this movie, perhaps on television due to all the commercial breaks but not on a DVD. Two end credits are just annoying. And I do have to say this movie has insultingly bad CGI, especially for its time! I bet a toddler could draw up better spiders on a magna doodle. I'm arachnophobic and I shrugged when I saw those spiders. You could see the budget decrease reflect on the CGI. Every minute the creatures in this movie had less texture eventually looking like early storyboard prototypes. Also, hey clearly 'glued' Patrick Stewart on the screen whenever he was outside his house. And, oh, that bird was awful! Also, the costumes looked like they went shopping in H&M and came up with some clothes that - with some imagination - had something slightly in common with what people wore around that time. I haven't read the book but it's on my reading list now. I agree with the guy saying they shouldn't have added female characters to the story. Seriously, a woman can handle a movie with not a single (or few) female characters. There is this little something called imagination, you know. Playing a male character in an RPG as a woman can be really fun and it's all about relating to the 'human' aspect, right? I think it's more important to stay loyal to the characters from the book than to satisfy a couple of feminists. I enjoyed 300 very much and I would have been insulted if they had forced female characters into the battle scenes as that wouldn't even have made historical sense. It's different when there already is a strong female character present in the original source, like Eowyn in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Actually, adding these boring female characters who don't really add anything to the story (except for being the obvious mannequin displaying 'the evil amulet' and being the subject of a more important character's love) is more insulting than leaving them out.So this movie is okay if you just want to see something light and adventurous during which you'll be able to talk without someone shushing you and if you're not a real Verne fan. But you will be bothered by the script from time to time and you WILL notice the ridiculous CGI. (Oh my God, HOW fake was that smoke coming out of the volcano!!!) If you think that's cute and charming and that doesn't annoy you, you'll probably enjoy it. If you want to see something deep and meaningful that makes you ponder upon themes and characters for another week afterwards, please pick something else.

Mysterious Island proved its worth as a Ray Harryhausen feature back in the 60s. Then you start watching this TV mini-series, and you are impressed with the cast (which boasts some relatively high profile talent - Patrick Stewart and Kyle McLachlan far outstrip anyone in the 60s movie) and with the gorgeous location work.And then you stop being impressed. Because the script is not so good. It meanders, it abandons Verne's story to plot its own course (which wouldn't matter if it was going somewhere better, but it doesn't), and it is generally hugely underwhelming.Then you get to the critters, the raison d'etre of Mysterious Island as a screen spectacle. Well, to be fair, they aren't the worst made-for-TV critters I've ever seen, but they're not good.And then you get to Vinnie Jones. Now I love Vinnie (I have to say that in case he comes round to my house and hits me) and, in the right part, he is very effective. This isn't the right part. By all means play Captain Hook as a pantomime villain in a pantomime. But the pirate chief here isn't in a pantomime, and playing him like one is excessively hammy.Where's Percy Herbert when you need him?

This is drek. Kyle McClanahan, Patrick Stewart in the Jules Verne story? How could it go wrong? Hallmark is not what it was. They used to do, at worst, a Cliff Notes version of stories that leaned toward the sappy, So I thought their version of "MI" would at least be fun here and there...The rewrite that began as one story got rewritten and raked over.I watched about 45 minutes of a 2 part movie?...and it was obvious that when they shot it the story was in flux. Vernes' story is completely hollowed out and subverted into the most shameful of cash-cows. I think that if the 3 well known stars in this new what a mess it would turn into they would not have been in it. It tries to make hay from the "Pirates of the Caribbean" popularity and add some bad pirates in worse costumes searching for treasure-where else but on the Mysterious Island. I just couldn't stand more than I saw when the "pirates of the pop-scene" came aboard so malevolently. Any resemblance to Vernes work is minimal and the writers of this junk should be marooned on an island somewhere! Fay-Wah! (Mandarin for "Nonsense!" I think)