Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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.

For a book that I didn't know existed until a few years ago I am surprised that there have actually been four movies made that have been based upon this book. I am not sure about two of them, but the more recent one (Journey 2) and this one are loosely based upon the story, and seem to take the story in a different direction. The original concept that Verne explored in his book was the idea that a group of castaways on a desert island could create an industrialised society with the right knowledge and resources.Obviously in the book they do have a little help, and a lot of luck (namely that the Cyrus Smith is a very knowledgeable engineer and that the island produces a lot of the things that are required), but it appears that the movies (including this one) have pushed this aside to simply turning it into a story where the heroes are trapped upon a desert island and use what they can to survive.This movie, however, has a few extra things thrown in, though they were in the original book. Firstly Nemo is introduced right at the beginning and plays a much more major role in this movie than in the book. In the book he exists mostly backstage, though his actions do allow the characters to survive. Also the pirates play a much greater role in this movie, and are also out hunting for treasure.What baffles me (and it is what put me off Journey 2, and has also put me off this one) is that the film makers have decided to put in monstrous creatures. In Journey 2 they are dinosaurs and in this one they are simply giant animals. Despite the fact that the giant insects are physically impossible (okay, it is only a movie, but at least Verne was somewhat more realistic) I felt that the addition of these creatures were simply there to make the film much more exciting. Personally, I preferred the book as I found the idea of the castaways building an industrial society was actually quite exciting.Oh yes, and the book originally had no female characters, and had a pet ape that was trained so well that it was almost human. However, in the spirit of creating a family movie with no homosexual innuendo, they ditched a couple of the male characters a threw in a couple of female characters. In a way it seemed as if this was simply just to have a couple of token characters to make us, the audience, feel good.

The quality of the leading actors, notably Patrick Stewart, Kyle MacLachlan and (lesser-known on the international stage but highly-rated in the UK) Roy Marsden, fails to raise the film from the ranks of the unwatchable. Fortunately, although clearly not intentionally, this situation offsets the not-so-subtle anti-British propaganda; something which features regularly in American productions. In this instance, Nemo's wife and daughter have died while being interrogated by the British during a rebellion in India. Presumably this is a pseudo-historical reference to the Indian Mutiny of 1857. However, it seems likely that most people will have switched off before that regrettable piece of dialogue is reached.

My Take: Bad adaptation of a terrific Jules Verne novel. The video cover forced me to buy this "adaptation" of Jules Verne's continuation of his 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. This one didn't actually apply a Jules Verne-style fantasy adventure. Video covers are among the things that force you to buy a movie, so don't always fall for such tricks. But "Mysterious Island" isn't totally a horrible movie, but it is a bad one no doubt about it. The CG effects are lame and sloppily made. I prefer Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion monsters (who animated them on the original adaptation in the 1960's) any day. The acting lacks energy, which is an essential if you are making an adventure movie, made-for-TV or otherwise.Anyway, your better off reading the book again. TV movie rating: * out of 5.