Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

2 used & new from CDN$ 82.96
See All Buying Options
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
 
   
Tell a Friend
20 000 Leagues Under The Sea (
 
See larger image 
Share your own customer images
20 000 Leagues Under The Sea ( (1916)
Starring: Edna Pendleton, Matt Moore Director: Stuart Paton MPAA Rating: G
3.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (8 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.


2 used & new available from CDN$ 82.96

Product Details

  • Actors: Edna Pendleton, Matt Moore, Dan Hanlon, Joseph W. Girard, Leviticus Jones
  • Directors: Stuart Paton
  • Format: AC-3, NTSC, Silent
  • Language: English
  • Region: All Regions
  • Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
  • MPAA Rating: G
  • Studio: Image Entertainment
  • DVD Release Date: Oct 1 2002
  • Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
  • ASIN: 6305268150
  • Amazon.ca Sales Rank: #43,857 in DVD (See Bestsellers in DVD)

    Popular in this category:

    #3 in  DVD > Classics > Silent Films > Sci-Fi & Fantasy

    (Studios: Improve Your Sales)

    •  Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?

Product Description

Video Details
Released by Universal in 1916, "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was the first great special effects spectacular of early cinema. Based on the Jules Verne novel, the story concerns a team of scientists investigating a series of naval disturbances who find the culprit is the Nautilus, a submarine piloted by Captain Nemo, a hate-driven renegade seaman. Over a year-and-a-half in production, "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is a colorful recreation of Verne's science fiction classic.

Synopsis
The 1916 silent version of Jules Vernes' 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was "sold" on the basis of its advanced underwater photography, the handiwork of the legendary Williamson Brothers. The film's storyline combines elements from both 20,000 Leagues and another Verne novel, Mysterious Island. Towards the end of the film the power-mad Captain Nemo, whose futuristic submarine is the film's centerpiece, explains why he has come to hate mankind--which segues into an elaborate flashback sequence set in India, which seems to have been concocted by Rudyard Kipling. The cost of this film was so astronomical that it could not possibly post a profit, putting the kibosh on any subsequent Verne adaptations for the next 12 years. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is available today in a tinted print, which has been somewhat truncated due to film-stock deterioration. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide

See all Product Description
 

Customer Reviews

8 Reviews
5 star: 12%  (1)
4 star: 37%  (3)
3 star: 25%  (2)
2 star: 12%  (1)
1 star: 12%  (1)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Create your own review
Most helpful customer reviews

 
3.0 out of 5 stars A story within a story within a story, Jun 28 2006
By B. Chandler "xyzzy" (Arlington, Texas) - See all my reviews
(TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
Prince Daaker AKA Captain Nemo has searched 20,000 leagues under the sea for revenge. The daughter of Prince Daaker (Lois Alexander) was abducted. Prof. Aronnax (Dan Hanlon) is invited by the US navy to track sown a sea monster that is interrupting shopping. He takes his daughter (Edna Pendleton). A balloon is blown off course and carries four men to the south pacific. An evil yacht owner looks for a girl from his past. All of these stories and the story of a Child of Nature in a chic leopard skin outfit will converge on a mysterious island for the final scenario.

We find this version of 20000 Leagues Under the Sea quite different from the Disney version. The special effects are more vantage and they spend more time explaining how the physics of the underwater suits, crystal "magic window", and underwater guns, work.

There are a few things that one must take in account for the times. Nemo looks like a goat herder. The giant octopus looks much more like the octopus in the John Wayne move Wake of the Red Witch. The underwater guns look like Winchester lever action. Where did the Child of Nature get her leopard skin? How did Nemo obtain his technology? Not the most plausible story.

There is also a long long under water filler scene. However there is excellent underwater photography by the brothers George and Ernest Williamson.

Other than that is fun to watch.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)



 
3.0 out of 5 stars Recommended as a Historic Artifact, But Nothing More, Oct 9 2003
By Gary F. Taylor "GFT" (Biloxi, MS USA) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
The 1916 version of 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA is a perfect example of what can happen when a film relies primarily on special effects. In its day, it was widely celebrated as one of the first feature-length films to make use of underwater photography, and audiences thrilled to its scenes of coral reefs and sharks. But nowadays we're very used to seeing underwater photography, and of a quality that far surpasses that seen here. And the film has little else to offer.

The story, of course, is based on the Jules Verne classic--but "based" is the operative word. About the only thing this film version has in common with the Verne novel is the title, a few character names, and a few basic concepts, so if you're expecting a faithful silent adaptation of the novel you're outta luck. In this version, a scientist (Dan Hanlon) and his party go in search of sea monsters and run afoul of the Nautilus, but they soon discover that Capt. Nemo (Allen Holubar) really isn't such a bad guy after all. There's a subplot about a "child of nature" (Jane Gail) who lives on a "Mysterious Island" and who has some mixed experiences with shipwrecked sailors stranded there--and before the whole thing ends we are flashed back to colonial India for an explanation of just who Capt. Nemo really is and how he got that way. In the process there is underwater photography aplenty, including a faintly hilarious attack on a sailor by a 1916 special-effects-octopus.

The acting is extremely broad here, even for 1916, and Nemo's costume makes him look rather like a skinny Santa Claus gone bad. The Nautilus is uninspired and the cinematography is only so-so. Consequently, what audiences thrilled over in 1916 seems pretty clunky today. The film has not been well-reserved, nor has any attempt been made to restore it, and there isn't a single scene that isn't riddled with artifacts. This is really a film for die-hard silent film buffs rather than casual viewers, and even silent film buffs will probably find themselves hitting the fast forward more than a couple of times. Recommended as a historic artifact, but nothing more.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Was this review helpful to you?