If you saw the original from 1961 stay clear of this turkey. This movie is so bad that when they talk about the Bermuda triangle they describe it as being on the west coast near Bermuda. the acting is non existent and every cast member is really stupid. I must confess I didn't last to the end, so maybe the last hour got a lot better. I doubt it, though.

This movie stinks. There's no getting around that. I can think of nothing positive to say about it. I've watched a lot of terrible movies made for the SyFy channel, and this one ranks among the very worst. It's right up there with that awful version of KING SOLOMON'S MINES that looked like it was filmed in a city park.I don't object to films adapting works of classic literature in ways their original authors never imagined, but I do object strongly to attaching the original authors' names to the often unrecognizable results. Such is the case with this virtually unwatchable atrocity. It has little to do with Jules Verne's original story, which is set in the time of the U.S. Civil War, when five Yankee prisoners escape from Confederate captivity in a balloon craft and are blown by an immense storm all the way to an uncharted South Pacific island. That's the essential premise of this film, though the geography is vague. Beyond that premise, however, the film has little to do with the novel. In fact, I'm willing to bet it was based not on Verne's novel but on the 1961 film of the same title that was itself a major departure from the novel. Like that film, this SyFy stinker adds several similar characters not in the novel–namely a Confederate soldier and two women. This version differs mainly in having the female characters arrive on the island in a airplane after–apparently–being blown through the Bermuda Triangle. Is the ensuring story now set in the mid-19th century or in the early 21st century? It's impossible to say, but I doubt the creators of this film themselves knew–or cared.Like the 1961 film, this one moves the action along far more swiftly than the novel does. It has the characters leave the island within days of their arrival there. By contrast, in the novel the castaways are on the island nearly four years, during which time they raise extensive crops, breed animals, mine minerals, make tools and machines, and build houses, bridges, and boats. One of the chief points of interest in the novel is how they meet the many challenges they face, while dangers posed by harsh weather, fierce animals, pirates, and a volcano make for frequent thrills. The novel is a robust, fascinating book that might be thought of as like THE SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON on steroids. In this SyFy movie, nothing interesting happens. The chief questions one has while trying to watch it is this: Did someone actually write a screenplay for this mess? Or, were they making it up as they went along? What does this terrible SyFy movie have to do with Verne's novel? Not much, aside from its undeserved title. If the SyFy channel wants to produce lousy movies, that's fine. They'll always find an undiscriminating audience that will enjoy them. I have no problem with that. However, if they must do that, it would be far better if they would come up with totally original stories and not pretend they are producing adaptations of classic works that can only serve to give real science fiction a bad name.

I agree SyFy movies follow certain convention. They cannot be compared to big nationwide blockbusters with spectacular special effects and equally big budgets. SyFy movies can be all characterized by really good stories, usually based on accomplished sci-fi novels, but at the expense of modest and limited special effects. Because I grew on books and I prefer a movie with an interesting story, even sacrificing the technical level, than completely mindless and empty blockbusters offering ONLY technical effects. For example I prefer obvious CGI with a good story behind, rather than huge catastrophic explosions costing millions of dollars with no content at all. If a have a good story I can make up for poor effects with my own imagination, but with no story I leave the theater completely empty-minded.So this movie is just like that - poor effects when compared to Transformers and other nationwide hits, but an interesting story based loosely on Jules Verne's classic. Nice dose of action, some history, some cultural clash between different historical periods, everything makes logical sense, decently acted. Maybe not Oscar-worthy, but still very watchable.I am really a big fan of SyFy and its convention. I only wish they would become a paid channel so that they can escape the usual network censorship and other limitations. Still staying focused on stories rather than effects, but more open to the after-hours market. Something like HBO.

I watched this movie on the SyFy channel last night and it was every bit as bad as the other movies they air. Having read the book by Jules Verne many decades ago, I was disappointed to see very little of the original plot to exist in this feature. Supposedly, Captain Nemos crew builds this mansion in the middle of an island that has no electricity. Yet, when the characters first enter the house, we can clearly see a modern air vent in the entry way. Also, nowhere in the book did Nemo's crew mutate into shaggy creatures. Nor was there any mention of a time travel machine in the classic. Also, for some unknown reason, the makers of this film decide to give Nemo a static electricity weapon that can not only shoot in a straight line but hit only the villains and not the heroes. The producers should have just saved their money.