Anyone with an axe to grind against the delightful 1950's version starring James Mason need only look at this remake from 40 years later to see how good it was for its time.
Here, Nemo is played by the usually excellent Micheal Caine. And it is clear that he only came along for the ride, donating his name in the process. He leads a cast of stylishly young, second-division lightweights through a script with more wobbles than a jellyfish.
What can I say? The acting is stultified and wooden. The directing is amateurish. And as to the set-pieces - well, they are the worst advertisement for CGI presentation I have ever seen. Anyone who thinks this can be done believably on the cheap needs to think again. There's no substitute for good solid metal and wood.
It is not enough to say that it was 'made for TV' as if that were an excuse for poor quality. An awful lot of people watch telly, and pay handsome for the pleasure. Yet this wretched piece of vacuosity stumbled on for longer than, say - 'Schinder's List'.
I don't know if it had greater fidelity to Jules Verne's novel or not; what I do know is that it was an absolute travesty of entertainment for which Mr Caine should be suitably ashamed. Actors of his calibre and reputation have a duty to those who made them rich when they were young, ensuring that any production which solicits their name bears the stamp of quality the viewing public deserve, and not just 'take the money and run'.
Here, Nemo is played by the usually excellent Micheal Caine. And it is clear that he only came along for the ride, donating his name in the process. He leads a cast of stylishly young, second-division lightweights through a script with more wobbles than a jellyfish.
What can I say? The acting is stultified and wooden. The directing is amateurish. And as to the set-pieces - well, they are the worst advertisement for CGI presentation I have ever seen. Anyone who thinks this can be done believably on the cheap needs to think again. There's no substitute for good solid metal and wood.
It is not enough to say that it was 'made for TV' as if that were an excuse for poor quality. An awful lot of people watch telly, and pay handsome for the pleasure. Yet this wretched piece of vacuosity stumbled on for longer than, say - 'Schinder's List'.
I don't know if it had greater fidelity to Jules Verne's novel or not; what I do know is that it was an absolute travesty of entertainment for which Mr Caine should be suitably ashamed. Actors of his calibre and reputation have a duty to those who made them rich when they were young, ensuring that any production which solicits their name bears the stamp of quality the viewing public deserve, and not just 'take the money and run'.