Mysterious Island (2005 TV Movie) User Reviews (68)

Disappointingly pathetic, might be OK for children

[rlange-3 · 4/10 · 2 February 2010]

I read Mysterious Island as a child many years ago and I remember being fascinated by it. This version might be OK as a family evening to pass the time -- there is no foul language, no nudity, barely a hint of a romantic relationship with one kiss.

However as entertainment for adults it fails on every level. As many have mentioned, the special effects are not special at all, the dialogue is stilted, the acting for most of the cast is charitably mediocre, and the plot elements come across as contrived. And it is long, without good timing.

Apparently the director decided that this timeless classic novel needed a major rewrite to pass muster in the new millennium. Two woman are thrown in as major characters; the younger manages a new wardrobe almost daily, and neither have so much as their hair mussed for more than five minutes, despite fighting off pirates, giant ants, sea monsters and what have you. They manage to build a house inside a nice clean cave with amenities that probably rival those available to a typical country cottage in the 30s. I was almost surprised that they didn't manage a washing machine. Smokeless fires conveniently illuminate the giant cave better than track lighting. Everyone in the main party manages to be fresh scrubbed and well groomed at all times.

The pirates are like the Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyworld, highly stereotyped caricatures. At least the Pirate Captain is entertainingly bombastic, but realism has definitely been left marooned on the shore somewhere.

Nothing even approaches being frightening, or intriguing. For a movie for those interested in Verne's work or a well told adventure tale, this is a waste of time.

Fascinating adventures and colorful scenarios along with colossal animals

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 6 July 2009]

This new adaptation from Jules Verne novel starts on American Civil War , after the battle of Richmond . An Union POWs , an official named Cyrus (Kyle McLachlan) , Pencroff (Jason Durr) , an African-American soldier (Omar Gooding) , a mother (Gabrielle Anwar) and her daughter (Calvert) escape in an observation balloon and terminate stranded on a lonely South Pacific island . They must use their talents to survive dangers , facing off pirates (Vinnie Jones) and devise a way to return home . At the uncharted island find gigantic bugs and huge animals , such as large serpents , giant spiders , monstrous dragonfly , enormous rat , among them . Of course , they also encounter captain Nemo (Patrick Stewart) and his loyal helper Joseph (Roy Marsden) and his riveting submarine of the future called Nautilus . Furthermore , an unstable volcano on the edge of eruption .

This follow-up to ¨20.000 leagues under the sea¨ is an exciting fantasy-adventure full of special effects created by means of computer-generator . The runtime is overlong with several incidents and sub-plots , taking too much liberties from original novel . The cast is great but wasted , as weak performance by Patrick Stewart , unforgettable Star Trek's Piccard . Brilliant and shimmer cinematography , being filmed on location in an island of Thailand . The motion picture was middlingly directed by Russel Mulcahy.

Other versions based on this classic story are the following ones and filmed before : 1) Silent rendition made in 1929 , 2) Mysterious island directed by Cy Endfield (1961) , and starred by Michael Craig , Joan Greenwood and Herbert Lom as Nemo , with creatures designed by the master Ray Harryhausen , it's the best adaptation , and 3) European take on Mysterious island (1973) made by Juan Antonio Bardem with Omar Shariff as captain Nemo , Rik Battaglia , Gerard Tichy , among others.

I was amazed that Hallmark would put their name on it!

[david-3400 · 3/10 · 9 August 2006]

Jules Verne might have been one of the best storytellers of his time, but a century later, he doesn't stand up.

The movie keeps faithful by using much of J.V.'s dialogs, but makes SIGNIFICANT changes in order to make for "good TV" (adding characters, making the pirates buffoonish, etc). I cant help but think that if they were going to make broad changes, they would have been positive ones.

Aside from the liberties taken with the story (too complicated to detail)there were so many BAD special effects and continuity goofs that I found a clipboard and started keeping track.

HUMOROUS MISTAKES:

-Two longboats of pirates attack the protagonists on the beach. Clearly there are only two boats and a total of 14 pirates. The good guys use rifles (and one arrow), to shoot down 12 pirates. Sensing defeat, the Captain rallies his sailors back to the longboats. SEVEN men return to the boats! 14 minus 12 should have made that one damn lonely boat ride back...

-During the pirate attack, two pirates start to scale a cliff face.

One pirate wears a Gray shirt and one wears an orange one:

Kyle McLauchlan shoots one of the pirates (the one in the Gray shirt,

the one in orange has magically disappeared) then he reloads, aims,

and shoots THE SAME GREY SHIRT PIRATE off the cliff again!

There are many more, but those were the most glaring...

I don't recommend the movie for conventional entertainment, but a "spot the flub-up" drinking game might be ripe for development!

Wow, this is incredibly bad.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 2/10 · 3 March 2007]

Knowing that several of the actors in this movie have turned in remarkable roles in other films and television shows, I have come to suspect that the massive performance deficiencies displayed in this film are the result of what appears to be nonexistent direction. When I look at the performances given here, I can only picture director Russell Mulcahy standing behind the camera giving the same direction that Bob MacKenzie (Rick Moranis) was given by his brother Doug in Strange Brew ("PSST!! Act! Act!!").

I am familiar with a good portion of the work of Jules Verne, as well as the astonishing and disappointing creative liberties that are so often taken with his work (it still blows my mind completely that they added a DUCK to the 1959 adaptation of Journey to the Center of the Earth), but I have not read Mysterious Island so I don't know how faithful the film is to the original story. In any case, there is not a single passable performance in the movie, the direction is completely witless, and the special effects are deplorable. A 15-year-old with an outdated copy of After Effects could do better than this.

Besides all that, I will be perfectly happy to live out the rest of my life and never again see a movie in which someone washes up onto a beach, sleeping soundly, and then coughs once or twice before getting up to go exploring. Are the giant insects not enough reason for suspension of disbelief? And don't even get me started on the pirates, my god what a joke. First of all, not only do our heroes react with hostility and violence when they finally encounter other normal human beings of the non-gigantic-man-eating-insect variety on the island, but after inviting them over to their humble Robinson Crusoe home, complete with dinner table, place settings for ten, goblets, eating utensils, candles, and the like, but once convinced of the defected pirates' trustworthiness, they give one of them - a caveman looking sort from years surviving on the island – a total celebrity makeover, shave, haircut, gel, new clothes, etc. I guess they forgot that they are surviving, too.

The worst thing that the movie does, besides the deplorable performances and ridiculous screenplay (I can even forgive awful direction as long as the effort is there), is that it tries to create dramatic and intense situations when there is no reason for it. The captain jumps maybe 15 feet into the water to lighten the load on the hot air balloon, and everyone freaks out as though he jumped out of a plane. Other humans are greeted with suspicion as though anyone has any reason to be afraid for their lives. At one point, the eagle-eyed Neb, played by Omar Gooding, uses a telescope to spot a massive, four-masted pirate ship maybe a hundred yards off shore. He calls to the captain and explains that he has spotted a pirate ship and hands him the telescope, somehow intuitively knowing that the captain will not be able to see Old Ironsides blotting out the horizon without it.

I'll go right ahead and admit that I had extremely low expectations for the show, it's made-for-TV, first of all, and I've yet to see a single competently made Jules Verne film adaptation, but I've seen better acting in an elementary school drama class, and the script could not possibly be dumber. Who thought it would be a good idea to have the good guys sneak up on the pirate ship behind a floating log, for God's sake?? Come on guys, let's just swim right out to the ship, no one will notice!

Wow. Miss this one.

On a scale of 1 to 10 this one owes ME points

[dave-847 · 1/10 · 22 March 2006]

Picture a pirate captain (NOT Long John Silver) with really long hair and a constant 1 day stubble of beard. Now make him try to talk like the most famous pirate ever (played by Robert Newton) and have him do it very badly.

Picture beautiful Thailand with lush vegetation. Now superimpose cheesy giant CGI critters that look like they were thrown together in an afternoon of programming while playing the original "DOOM!" game.

Picture Jules Verne rolling over. And over. And over. Which he undoubtedly did during the writing of a script that ignores both the ideas and the spirit of his masterful book. I'm accustomed to seeing novels hacked at to transition them from print to film, but this is the very epitome of a hatchet job. Necessary characters are dropped completely, and unnecessary characters are added. The plot has been changed in not-so-subtle ways. And while I have great respect for Patrick Stewart and his talent this movie even makes him look bad.

The kids may enjoy this simply because they are kids, but this is not something I would recommend for a serious fan of Jules Verne. They might hurt themselves while they are kicking the TV.

Cheesy at best...............

[cudaseeker-1 · 2/10 · 12 July 2007]

Don't waste your time with this. If I had known that this was a made for TV movie, with fade outs for commercials, and a "to be continued" pause in the middle of the DVD, I would not have rented it. It was a waste of 2 hrs & 45 minutes of my time. I do believe that the special effects were supposed to be cheesy, as if to imitate the 1961 original film. If that was the case, they didn't even match up to that and that movie is 45 years old for crying out loud! But go rent the original. It was much better. Even Jason and the Argonaut movies hands down had 100 times better effects than this movie. Patrick Stewart, one of my favorite actors of today and the main reason that I rented it, was fair at best. You could tell that he was just walking through this role and suffering along with the rest of us. And he sure was not at all interested in vying for an Oscar or Emmy. Yikes!! Oh, and did I mention that this was a totally useless movie? Stay away......a galaxy far, far away!

Patrick Stewart was the best Special Effect in this film

[mike-3333 · 2/10 · 24 March 2006]

Did anyone else notice that Patrick Stewart was not actually on location in Thailand with the rest of the cast. All his scenes were in a studio or against a 'Blue' screen, even when appearing to be in scenes with other actors - probably the best Special Effect in this film. Perhaps he did not realise how bad the film really was as he was not really there.

Special effects reminded me of Jason and the Argonauts (1963), although not as realistic.

It's difficult to rate the film out of 10. If you take it as a serious film it rates very low, but if you think of it as a comedy then it could be rated quite highly.

Verne would be as furious as I am if he had to watch this schlock

[tom_amity · 1 November 2005]

This is indeed an awful production, and it has nothing to do with Verne.

The five castaways in Verne's book are Cyrus Smith (the brilliant military engineer--who for some reason or other is called Cyrus Harding in most of the English-language versions), Gideon Spillett (the newspaper reporter), Neb (ex-slave still working for ex-owner Smith, who freed him), Pencroff (a sailor), and Harbert (youngster, son of Pencroff's late captain, for whom Pencroff is acting as guardian). Verne is very good at sketching these guys' personalities and making them come alive for us, and all his careful nuancing is thrown out the window in this production.

Why these female characters? The novel has NO female characters, and it assumes five men can live on a deserted island for three years and never think about women or sex---the subject never comes up. If the producers didn't think that believable, they should have written their own damn story and not pretended to be dramatizing Verne's.

Yes, Captain Nemo does appear in the novel, but he's absolutely nothing like he is in this production.

There's a reformed pirate named Ayrton in the book, but other than that he has nothing in common with the reformed pirate Blake in this version.

My respect for Stewart is a lot less after knowing that he would consent to be in this ridiculous production.

Russell Mulcahy directed this??????????????!!!!!!!??!???

[adler_elfooscuro · 1/10 · 5 April 2006]

What the devil is this? It's your typical TV-movie garbage... poor story (Not Verne's fault, it isn't even his original story but an adaptation randomly written by 12 monkeys) poor acting (who would have thought it, with Patrick Stewart and Kyle McLachlan's names being in it.) horrible lighting, horrible directing (And it's Highlander and The Shadow's Russel Mulcahy!!), unrealistic, fake and below-average TV-cgi.

There's only one plus for this movie. If you are a Dune fan, you get to see again Paul Atreides and Gurney Halleck together again. But it's curious. It seems Stewart hasn't aged as much as Kyle has since the eighties. It's fun and nostalgic to see them together again. Unfortunately this nostalgia alone can't compensate for the silliness that reeks from every single scene.

Patrick Stewart, as Nemo, is forced to wear a turban that doesn't really fit at all with his occidental complexion. He's also visibly embarrassed and stiff wearing it, and the result is not very convincing. You almost expect Stewart to say 'computer: end simulation' as Picard did every time he left the Holodeck in ST:TNG. It's too bad that the script was so lame because Nemo seems like the kind of character Stewart could have had a lot of fun with. Very similar to Ahab in many ways. A great man gone wrong. Unfortunately the script misses the mark, and he's displayed as a grumpy and slightly moronic host who couldn't find his shoes without his 'multipurpose butler'... a butler who doubles as cook, psychologist, physician---- I mean, this guy is incredible!

Kyle's character is as alive as a chunk of wood. He's also inexplicably hostile towards Nemo without any good reason. He comes across as having horrible manners towards his host, no gratitude at all, and a recurring tendency to awkward reactions. There's a scene when he's dining with Nemo, in which there's a giant crab pincer served as main dish, and he seems completely oblivious to it. Only when Nemo warns him that the island is dangerous due to giant creatures, does he react with surprise and disbelief... well what's that in front of your face then you dummy???

The rest of the characters are either cardboard cutouts or cannon fodder for the cheap CGI monster of the moment.

Speaking of the monsters, one of the worst has got to be the giant rat, because in certain scenes instead of running, it almost looks like it's hovering over the grass.

I won't even comment on the pirates, because they are uncomfortably childish.

I'm a huge Patrick Stewart fan. I've seen some things I didn't necessarily enjoy just because of him being in them. but this is a true test of fan loyalty... Being in the X-men movies I wouldn't have thought he'd be that pressed for money. Because, as judging from my fellow reviewer's opinions, I agree 100% that he can't have thought this was decent material.

My advice.. skip it. It's not even bad or pathetic in a good way. You won't have fun ripping it to shreds, because you'll probably be asleep or disturbed for most of it's duration.

Fairly mediocre, but with cheesy appeal

[ahifi · 6/10 · 23 July 2009]

I know this was pretty meh, yet I couldn't help but enjoy it. Part one is definitely the more enjoyable of the two, while part two is just bad.

I hadn't read or seen Mysterious Island previous to this so I can't comment on how faithful it is. My guess would be: not very.

The direction is lame, the editing is lacking and the acting is sub-par. At times, it was enjoyable. The props, set-design and location were a nice touch but the CGI - oh my God! Terrible! The over-sized-insects looking bad I could take...but the CGI-heavy ending is AWFUL!

I want to tell you to avoid it but...it appealed to me because sometimes I like action to be cheesy, stupid and unintentionally funny. If you do too, watch it. If not, stay far away says I. 6/10

P.S. I didn't even recognise Vinnie Jones. I don't know what to say to that. I guess it's a compliment...

blech

[rhole2 · 1/10 · 17 September 2005]

The acting ensemble here is totally wasted. They walk through. I've never seen a really bad performance from Patrick Stewart until tonight, and while it's possible he was doing what was asked of him - the result is something between a train wreck and paint drying.

The special effects are worse than can be believed in this day (I do better on my laptop, and I'm NOT a pro!). Certainly not as good as Harryhousen's version.

Though certainly truer to Verne's book than previous versions I've seen, it's really not worth watching for three hours, even on 'free' TV. It might be good when edited to a 90 minute special.

A good film, worth seeing if you have the time.

[JKneller · 8/10 · 20 March 2006]

It's good and well worth seeing if you have some free time. The special effects wasn't the best, but were quite good in places. The acting of the main villain wasn't good and was sort of letting the rest of the film down. He was trying to do an accent but wren't pulling it off at all. I liked this because it has a goo story and the acting of Patric Stuart was superb, he was the real hero of the show. I think that the show is let down by the advertising, I saw it as a two-part mini series what what used to fill the time slot. It deserves more than that as it is good, but sadly not everyone thinks so.

It's a good story and well worth watching, even though it was mildly let down by the acting. I fully recommend it and you should look out for the brilliant acting of Patric Stwart.

We should take this movie as it is - an entertaining television production for the whole family

[kluseba · 7/10 · 15 May 2011]

First of all, one should expect from such a low budget television production that this flick can't be as good as a cinema production and there are indeed horrible special effects, a couple of stupid goofs (especially the balloon riding scenes) and some flaws in regard to the groundbreaking original novel because of a rather mediocre script. That's why immediately cut the rating down about three points.

Now, concerning the rest of the movie. Is this flick interesting even with a length of almost three hours? Yes, it surely is entertaining even if some events are predictable. We get anything a good adventure movie needs: a strange and isolated professor, his intelligent and warm hearted butler, dangerous and ugly creatures, weird pirates, hating and loving prisoners and an erupting volcano. That creates many intense moments of action, tension, comedy and drama which is an interesting potpourri.

Is the acting well done? Yes, it is. Especially the stars of the movie that are Patrick Stewart and Kyle MacLachlan are doing solid jobs as one would usually expect. Of course, Stewart was more memorable in "Star Trek" and MacLachlan easily better in "Twin Peaks" but for what the mediocre script offers, they are doing the best they can. With Roy Marsden as butler and Vinnie Jones as weird and megalomaniac pirate there are also a couple of rather unknown actors that are doing a good job. Overall, one can say that some characters are not profound enough and have a lack of emotions but once again most of them do their very best with the mediocre script.

Other things like the locations and the soundtrack also have good television standards without being extraordinary. We can easily talk about a mostly solid but not great effort.

In the end, there are only the technical skills that are completely missed in this movie and one should have spent some time on a more profound and detailed script. With more money and more time, this movie could have been a lot better because the movie itself is very diversified and entertaining, the soundtrack and atmosphere is well done and the acting overall very solid. We should though take the movie as what it is without too much comparing it to the original novel and the big Hollywood productions. It's a well done television entertainment for the whole family that might introduce some folks to some very good novels and actors. It won't win any prices and isn't very memorable but a great fun ride of almost three hours.

Mysterious? you mean bad digital imaging island?

[carlajenkins5 · 5/10 · 15 October 2005]

I'm watching this movie right now on channel 7. Let me start off by saying its a nice little story... but i'd rather read the book. What is with the bad bad bad fake digital imaging when the people are going towards the island? Those huge insects are pretty fake too... they couldn't have made it better than this? The characters always have their clothes considerably nice for their activities and their surroundings and they all never really get too dirty.

If anyone thought about watching this movie i would say sure it's a nice family movie and suitable for little kids but i wouldn't watch this again voluntarily... there's nothing else worth watching on TV. I have seen TV low budget movies before and some of them are excellent movies! i mean in running with big Hollywood block busters but this leaves much to be desired. This is not like any movie I've seen before and I'm glad for that.

Now i must say I've never read the book but it is now on my reading list purely because i think it would be better than this. If your looking for a version of this movie to watch warning!: boring alert.

"If it didn't star Patrick Stewart I may not have watched this film at all"

[simon-trek · 15 October 2005]

I've always been an admirer of Jules Verne's novels. But this movie was certainly poorly produced. This movie has a completely different storyline from Jules Vernes novel. Like Jules Verne's novel, the film tells the story of a group of prisoners who have escaped from a Confederate prisoner of war camp during the American Civil War by a hot air balloon. They travel over the pacific and their balloon is wrecked on an island in the south Pacific, an island which is filled with mysterious secrets.

While Captain Nemo did appear in the novel of 'Mysterious Island' he didn't appear in the novel until the third quarter of the novel, while in this movie he reveals himself close to the beginning. Also there were no female characters in the novel of 'Mysterious Island' while this includes film a woman who works as a nurse at the Confederate prisoner of war camp and her teenage daughter who are among the escapees in the balloon and stranded on the island. But I suppose it does give a bit of interest to the film. While there were certainly cutthroat pirates in the novel of 'Mysterious Island' I don't recall any giant animals.

The giant creatures were certainly very terrifying in this movie. There was a giant praying mantis, giant scorpions, giant ants, and even a giant bird. These creatures certainly presented a great suspense throughout the film, the computer generated affects didn't look realistic at all. Not much fun I don't think.

This film certainly needed a lot more to make it interesting. It needed a better cast of actors for one thing, but most of all this film needed a better story-line, the story in this film is extremely dull, it's not like the story in the novel at all. Overall the only good thing about this movie was Patrick Stewart, he is such a brilliant actor! In fact he was the only reason I kept watching the film. So I have to admit this 'Mysterious Island' movie is extremely dull, I don't recommend it to anyone.

Such a bad movie on such a great book

[myosotis_99 · 1/10 · 13 June 2006]

First I read the book "The Mysterious Island" when I was very little and it gave me wonderful time of dreams and adventures. I was so excited during reading it. Last year I finally found the book and bought it and until now I've read it many times and I think it's one the greatest books ever written.

I started watching this movie with some hope to see the journey and life of my heroes from the book, but I couldn't even stand to watch half an hour of it, because it has nothing to do with the book and it's made so so bad. The actors, the play...are awful! Lots of the scenes and special effects makes me wonder how is it possible this movie to be made in 2005 when they're so ridiculous and cheap.

To all of you who respect the author and the book - you can leave this movie behind and believe me you're doing good.

Total rot...

[philphoto · 1/10 · 18 March 2006]

It looked good on the trailer, I keyed in a reminder on my Digi Box, it came on, It was rubbish.

Patrick Stewart an actor I admire- is he short of work?

Also was this in 1863?

Nemo said he had been on the island for 10 years, lost his family in the 'Indian Revolution' so that would have been 1853..

Only I think he was vaguely referring to the Indian Mutiny, which happened in 1857..

Confused, I was.

also why were the pirates right off the set of 'Prates of the Caribbean??

Who wrote this, a bunch of 9 year olds?

Mysterious Island: One of the worst Verne "Adaptations"

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 8 February 2019]

Straight off the bat let me say this is a low 3/10, I'm being generous on this one.

Standing at three hours in length this very very very very very very loose adaptation of the Jules Verne classic Mysterious Island is a sight to behold for all the wrong reasons.

On paper it has everything going for it, it's based on the works of Jules Verne and stars Patrick Stewart, Kyle MacLachlan and Vinnie Jones..........okay forget about that last one.

So what went wrong? Well considering the cast the whole thing looks so very cheap, the cgi is dreadful and many of the costumes look they've been ripped from a run of the mill 5 buck costume shop.

The acting is such that they just don't want to be there, Vinnie Jones is worse than he's ever been. Let's make clear I have nothing against him, I think he has his place in the industry and he was hilarious in Eurotrip (2004) but right here is a performance so bad, so tacky I can't put it into mere words.

And then there is just how loose of an adaptation it is. This simply isn't in anyway shape or form the Mysterious Island, it's hard to even call this an adaptation because the content has been overhauled to such an extent you could easily have called it something else and nobody would have compared it to Jules Vernes work.

It makes you wonder why they bother doing that. Regardless when you take all those things into consideration it's hard to see this as anything but an embarrassment with a cast who look out of place in this travesty.

The Good:

Patrick Stewart

The Bad:

Yet another not even remotely loyal loose adaptation

Vinnie Jones really hams it up

Cast are simply too good for this

Shoddy cgi

Poor Jules would Hate this One.

[johnmbale · 1/10 · 18 October 2005]

A very mediocre adaption of Jules Verne indeed, even if it appears to include bits from every story Verne ever wrote. Although obviously enjoying the Thai sunshine, the cast do little to help the inane script along. Patrick Stewart valiantly tries, but sadly looking an Arabian Dress Up Party as the sinister Captain Nemo, Kyle MacLachlan does his usual Twin Peaks wooden routine, while the Pirate Captain gives a terrible impersonation of Robert Newton's Long John Silver. Add to this some dismal animation of huge bugs, spiders, snakes and birds that look like they are made of plastic and escaped from an Insect Spray Commercial. The scale was awkward to say the best of it, the original King Kong had smoother animation than this lot. We deserve much better after 70 years and digital technology. Verne seems to adapt best to the screen with some Spielberg like tongue in cheek attitude, which is sadly lacking in this film. The whole thing plods along to its obvious conclusion, without any credit to anyone involved. Main mystery is why they made it, but possibly inspired by the success of the TV series LOST.

Very Lazy Effort

[mail-1208 · 3/10 · 15 October 2005]

This has got to be one of the lousiest special-effects movies I've ever seen. It reminds me of B-grade '50s movies. It is unforgivable that the production was so lazy in this era of realistic CGI effects. The most atrocious part of the film was the attack in the cave of spiders. They looked like limited-animation cutouts. The poor effects throughout the film spoiled any experience of it.

Aerial shots were obviously filmed in front of a green screen. The balloon moved unrealistically against a backdrop of sky.

Time scale is wrong. How did these guys travel from the Eastern US to the Pacific in one night? It seemed they fitted out the limestone cave in a day and night, etc. Totally lazy effort.

How did top actors like Patrick Stewart and Vinnie Jones get roped into this mess? I love Stewart but this role forces him to sleep-walk. The best part of the movie was Jones' accent and attitude.

Good old fashioned hokum!

[Steve_Exeter · 7/10 · 30 July 2020]

Look, I grew up watching Pertwee and Baker's Dr Who and can enjoy them still today, so for me, these FX look pretty darn special!

The only thing letting this one down really is the pantomime style performance of Vinnie Jones as the head pirate and story's principal antagonist. Although by now he had got a lot of acting experience under his belt, seems just a little too self-conscious in the role to have the confidence to attack it with balls-out hutzpah - this is a part where you really need to go big, or go home!

Kyle MacLachlan and Patrick Stewart are uniformly strong in anything they do and both score well here. It was also a joy to see Roy Marsden revelling in the escapist hijinks here, as his face was so often on TV when I was growing up and he's not used as often as his talent deserves these days.

If you embrace the silliness and laugh at the cheesier moments, without trying to compare it to Jules Verne's book there's much to enjoy here!

Very different to the book!

[jp-222 · 3/10 · 15 October 2005]

I was looking forward to watch this film when I knew the local TV station was going to air it because I liked the book. Then I was a bit confused when the 'mother and daughter' tagged along and Gideon and Herbert were nowhere to be seen. Then I couldn't stand it anymore when Pencroft and LeMay ( <--who is this?? ) encountered a giant grasshopper just as they arrived. I turned the TV off. The only similarities to the novel are the title, some of the characters, and the main plot. I do not recommend this film at all. And as I remember there were no 'treasures' or 'monsters' in the island? Lovers of the book would not be satisfied with this adaptation as it is just so different. And I also think that the quality of the acting is not as satisfactory as I would have expected it to be. The novel is turned into a fantasy adventure in this film with all the treasures and monsters ( and not to mention the corny opening. )

As good as they get!

[gijoe-wi · 10/10 · 22 July 2015]

If you're like I am, and like movies that are very well put together with great costumes, stage sets, cast and real entertaining creativity ...I think you'll like this movie.

(In fact, I wish there were more movies like this.) This one is another title in my personal movie collection, and I'm glad I have it.

In all honesty, this film touches base with a little bit from several areas, such as some suspense, drama, a little thrill, and to me, some spots came across as having some sci-fi.

Wonderfully done, and a treat in difference from the other movies out there. Another great movie!

I highly recommend trying this one too.

Should have been much better

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 23 March 2011]

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?

The effects wrecked this one.

[stormruston · 5/10 · 5 August 2006]

This movie started out reasonably well, and it had a excellent cast.It is very well acted by the leads but all the pirates should have their actors guilds cards taken from them.

The story is a classic, even when very artistic license is taken as in this production.

So it had two positive points, the cast and the J.Verne story line.

Sadly it is all down hill from there. I am taking into account that this is made for TV, but even so, the pirates were a joke and absolutely cartoon like. The special effects removed you out of the movie every time you started to get involved in it.They were pathetic.

If this movie was an hour long I might suggest you sit through it, but at 170 min, it was not a fun experience. I wanted to like this, and really the actors did pretty good, but I just can not recommend it.