Good story, Not enough for a whole film

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

This rendition of Jules Verne's novel is, like all screen adaptations of fictional literature, definitely not accurate as far as the book plot goes. However, like just about every production, it has its bad parts and its good parts (but mostly bad in this case). The actual cinematography is good, and some of the acting is fairly well done. I found it interesting that the producers were able to get a notable actor such as Sir Patrick Stewart. But when it comes to some of the post-production, it was terrible. The computer graphics for the giant creatures are HORRIBLE! If the computerized graphics are not jerky then they are quite noticeably out of sync and do not match up well with the video clips. If you decide to watch this poor production I think you will find yourself saying, "Oh my gosh; that's so bad!" out loud and more than once.

Being a fan of the 1961 version of "Mysterious Island," I HAD to see this 2005 TV remake. Despite the somewhat lackluster reviews, a few things perked my interest: Patrick Stewart (aka Star Trek's Captain Picard) as Captain Nemo, Gabrielle Anwar and the long runtime of 170 minutes, just ten minutes shy of 3 hours (!). What compelled me to seek out this rendition more than anything is the simple fact that I favor stuck-on-a-deserted-island type adventures.BASIC PLOT: A handful of people, including a nurse and her daughter, escape in a balloon from a Confederate prison in Virginia. Storm winds ludicrously take them West into the South Pacific where they land on an uncharted island. There they discover numerous huge animals and two men living as recluses, the master being the mad genius Captain Nemo, who hates war so much he's trying to invent the atomic bomb in order to stop it altogether. Add to this mix a ship of pirates seeking hidden treasure hidden somewhere on the island.Despite the film's full title "Jules Verne's Mysterious Island," the story is based on the 1961 movie rather than Verne's book. All the elements of the 1961 version are here with a few notable changes: The story is switched around so that Captain Nemo is revealed right away rather than in the final act and the castaways don't search the island and make their home in the cliff until the second half of the story. Also, there are way more gigantic creatures -- a mantis, rat, scorpion, ant, eagle, spiders, squid (or octopus), etc.WHAT WORKS: The Thailand locations are magnificent, and far superior to the Spanish coast with fake backdrop of the '61 version; the cast is decent - characters you don't like at the beginning you'll probably start liking by the end; the score is decent, although not as good as the '61 version; the story maintains a vibe of realism despite the absurdities (for instance, it doesn't go overboard with camp like, say, "Pirates of the Caribbean"; the CGI special effects for the various creatures are pretty good; the pirates look & act like what you'd think real pirates would act like, with a good mix of races and an accurate Eastern-styled ship (with a dubious backdoor, lol); and the second half of the story is more captivating than the first half (so if you're bored with the first half, stick around - it gets better).During the first half you'll note a growing attraction between the castaway leader (Kyle MacLachlan) and Gabrielle Anwar's character. In the second half, this culminates in a seriously passionate kiss. This is one smoking hot kiss! It ranks with cinema's best kiss scenes, like "Jerry McGuire" or "The Whole Wide World."After hearing the criticism leveled at the black castaway Neb (Omar Gooding), I was prepared for the worst. Upon seeing the film, however, I don't get the beef. Not one bit. Neb, as portrayed, is far from an "1860's gansta rapper with an attitude," as one reviewer over-criticized. When they first land on the island he shows a bit of angst toward an unlikable character in response to the criticism, "You're just a slave anyway." Neb rightly responds that they're far from the Confederacy and slavery doesn't exist on deserted islands. Isn't it realistic that Neb would revel in a new-found sense of freedom now that he's far from the social constrictions of the Confederacy and America in general? Besides, his "attitude" is short-lived. He's actually a likable character as the rest of the film bears out. Also, even though the unlikable character is a questionable weasel throughout most of the story stick around for the last act.WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Captain Nemo isn't remotely likable here - he's basically just a grumpy recluse who happens to be brilliant; there are probably TOO MANY monsters - sometimes less is more; the explanation for the numerous large creatures is lame (why didn't they just chalk it up to Nemo's experiments like the original film?); I found it hard to believe that the handful of male castaways could prevail against an entire ship of pirates during the on-board battle in the second half (but this is larger-than-life fantasy, right? And the fight is thrilling); and the CGI effects at the very end depicting lava and an erupting volcano aren't very good (although they get the job done).One of the highlights of the original film was cutie Beth Rogan and her skimpy cavegirl outfit. Unfortunately neither female cast member in this remake dons such an outfit. I suppose it's more realistic, of course. Anyway, Danielle Calvert certainly possesses a undeniable cuteness as Helen, but Beth Rogan is all around superior.FINAL WORD: The critics are a bit too hard on this 2005 remake. It's a respectable TV updating of the story. If you love awe-inspiring island locations, island adventure, gigantic creatures, convincing pirates, lost treasure, Captain Nemo and insightful moralizing about the evils of war, you'll want to catch this remake. The original 1961 version is a nigh-masterpiece and I admit that I can't say that about this version. It's limited by its TV budget and doesn't have the mystery build-up of the original, but it has numerous positive aspects the first one lacks, as noted above."Mysterious Island" is worthwhile if you appreciate adventure/fantasy films like the original 1961 version, Sinbad, Conan, Jurassic Park and Pirates of the Caribbean (not that I'm a big fan of the latter two franchises), as long as you don't mind TV productions and the limitations thereof.GRADE: C+ or B- (5.5/10)

Oh... why doth humans insist on taking something as perfectly told and almost divinely inspired as the works of Jules Verne and turning them into a sham?For years I have been looking for something that (and I know that immaculate is not possible) at least would pay respect to Jules Verne's Imagination and gifted writing.But Alas! Nay! Instead people are pouring out money to make shitty political manifestos like Avatar, when they have gold - between their hands.When will somebody hearken to Jules Verne's heartbeat and be true to his works?

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.