| Actors: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Director(s): | Gabriel Bologna | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IMDB Rating: | 3.80 out of 10 (210 votes) |
Downloads
| Runtime: | 85 minutes |
| Resolution: | 720x416 px |
| Codec: | XviD MPEG-4 |
| Bit Rate: | 1415 kbps |
| FPS: | 23.976 |
No additional software or browser plug-ins required!
All downloads are available instantly.
You can play them for unlimited number of times whenever you want.
Downloaded movies will work perfectly on any PC, DVD player, PDA etc.
You will be able to burn downloaded files on a CD or DVD.
Technical Information
| Type | Resolution | Codec | Bitrate | Audio Channels |
| Language: English | 48 kHz | Dolby AC3 | 448 kbps | 6 |
| File Name | Size | Download |
| 30000_Leagues_Under_the_Sea.avi | 1160.95 MiB | Download |
| Total Size: | 1160.95 MiB |
Storyline
Movie Photos
We have taken some photos of "30,000 Leagues Under the Sea". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitor Reviews
-
Horrible in every way posted on 06 Aug 2009
I don't see why anyone would watch this. The CG is pathetic. The acting is very high school. Lorenzo Lamas? Why? Why? Why? This is no way to end a career or begin one. The actual story could have been something, but the money put in just wasn't enough. My advice to the actors of this movie... Please just try to be yourself. Read the script, make it your own. Saturday Night Live is for reading cue cards, OK? Do yourself a favor and rent an ed wood movie or even better, rent Robot Jox. I thought Lorenzo Lamas was worth watching at one time. I guess the 80's just slipped away. He ranks right up there with Michael Pare. I'm surprise he wasn't in this disaster. Go away bad movie, please go away!
-
I cannot quite believe that a 2007 movie can possibly be this bad! It is worth watching just to see how bad this is. The most noticeable things for me were that the directing was terrible, the same special effects clips were used over and over and the voice dubbing was way to obvious. But the biggest problem for me was the acting. I have seen better acting in a high school Christmas play.If you do insist on watching this, i suggest you watch it and think of it as a 'take the mick' movie rather than a serious film. I seriously cannot stress how awful this is. I think it was a waste of money, time and energy.
-
Why isn't there a zero rating? In cases like this movie even a zero would be a high grade. Bad everything! actors, direction, plot, scenery, special effects. etc.. My 6 year old kid would be better actor than ANY of this movie's actors! Its disgusting the way they use the name of Jule Vernes as a "catch" for misinformed cinema-goers. Don't rent it, refuse to see it even if its free! I'm sure you can do something better with your time! This is the worst movie I've always saw (or better, tried to see, couldn't go to the end). As I wish no evil to anyone,I broke the DVD and put it broken in the case just in case somebody would borrow it (I kept the case to remember me to look IMDb comments before buying a DVD. The Blockbuster kid that sold me this DVD for US$3.50 will have his payback.If you have the misfortune of seeing this movie, pay attention to the face expressions of the main actress: its always the same "don't like what I'm eating" face.
-
I was really disappointed by this one. I was hoping to see a well acted movie, instead I got sick to my stomach as soon as the dialog started. I cannot think of another concept as good as this on totally flushed down the toilet. This was a total waste of time and money for the production company and anyone who pays to see it. There is so much that could have been done with this movie, and yet, like many other crappy movies lately, we are left imagining what could have been. Personally, I have never made a movie, nor have I even made a picture slide show, however, I know I could have done better than what we have here. Man, there are so many other workable ideas that are better than this filth. Do not waste your time.
-
Execrable acting, directing, editing, dialogue. Others have already covered that.Also, in the first 10 minutes I counted 4 blatant science errors... When a submarine captain said "It can't be a fish, there's nothing but plankton this far down," I knew this was a real stinker. (The truth is the reverse, there are big animals but *not* plankton in the deep.)It costs millions of dollars to produce a project like this, even with the pitiful special effects and no-name talent. Can't they at least invest a couple hundred dollars to hire a science fiction writer to do a little fact-checking? I'm available!jpf
-
This film is terrible. I mean really, really bad! I'm so angry that the producers of this film dared to spend money producing this horrendous piece of crap. How dare they! I wasted almost 18 minutes of my life, (I fast forwarded after watching about 10 minutes of this flick), which I can never get back. The acting, the sets, the really crappy CGI's, the sound, the look....among the worst I've ever seen. The only thing that amazes me is that some other reviewers here actually gave this film 3 stars out of 10. Ridiculous! Do not watch this film unless you crave pain or regurgitation. Can I make this any clearer to you? An utter and complete waste of time.
-
30,000 Leagues Under the Sea starts as Lieutenant Captain Michael Aronnaux (Lorenzo Lamas) is ordered to use his invention the Oxygenator, which turns water into air, aboard his small sub the Aquanaut 3 to dive down 20,000 feet to the stranded USS Scotia & save the 150 odd crewmen. Once Aronnaux & his small crew reach the USS Scotia they are kidnapped by eccentric billionaire Captain Nemo (Sean Lawlor) & held prisoner on his submarine the Nautilus where he reveals that he has stolen the nuclear warheads from the USS Scotia & intends to use them to destroy the Earth & create an underwater utopia. Aronnaux & his crew aren't keen on the idea & set out to stop Nemo in his destruction of our planet, as the fate of the human race hangs in the balance can Aronnaux stop Nemo?Directed by Gabriel Bologna this is yet another Hollywood blockbuster rip-off from those people at The Asylum, do I really need to to say which Hollywood flick 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea rips-off? There's only one number difference in both titles although any connection to the classic Jules Verne novel '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' is purely coincidental. While the original Verne novel was set during Victorian times the makers of 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea decide to set the story in contemporary times although the basic plot of a sea loving genius who wants to start a new civilisation under the waves is present & correct. To be brutally honest 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea is absolutely terrible, the plot sucks, there's no pace or tension or drama, the character's & dialogue are awful & the film has many, many factual holes which are painfully obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense or general knowledge. For instance the submarine featured in 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea sinks to a depth of over 20,000 feet yet the crush depth of such a submarine is less than 2,500 feet & then there's the scenes of people diving & swimming at that depth with nothing more than normal clothing & simple air breathers. Also I think I am right in saying that at a depth of over 20,000 feet it would be literally pitch black since no sunlight can travel that far through water so why is everything illuminated so well? Why does that underwater Volcano intermittently prevent radio signals? The basic physics & facts of reality are completely ignored in 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea & it has no dramatic impact or weight because of it. The whole film is also incredibly boring, the pace is slow & the plot is very predictable with obvious character arcs, plot development's & a by the numbers 'hero saves the day & rescues the girl' style ending.This film just looks cheap, from the rubbishy low lit sets that looks slightly more futuristic than your average warehouse corridor to the boring design of the costumes & underwater equipment. The sets are decorated by what looks like cheap car seats & I never really got the impression that I was on a modern, sleek ultra sophisticated state-of-the-art submarine. The sets & production design on Seaquest DSV (1993 - 1996) were far superior to this & 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea feels like a cheap imitation of it. This is strictly PG stuff all the way so forget about any fights or gore or action. The CGI effects vary, some of them are alright if a little basic while other's are awful like the giant squid things which look terrible.With a supposed budget of about $500,000 this didn't have much spent on it & it shows since the film looks drab, dull & cheap throughout. Par for the course for The Asylum really, do they even try to make good films? The acting is poor from no-one I have ever heard of before.30,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a cross between 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea & Seaquest DSV with less than spectacular results. The CGI isn't as bad as it could have been but all the errors that you need to suspend your disbelief & forget everything you know about the sea just sink it without trace.
-
A modern updating of the Jules Verne immortal under water tale. Lieutenant Aronnaux(Lorenzo Lamas), an under water specialist, is assigned to rescue a U.S. submarine on the ocean's floor. Upon taking the assignment he learns he will be taking orders from his ex-wife a Lt. Commander(Natalie Stone). The crew loaded with the latest high tech equipment find themselves in trouble of their own. They are "rescued" by the demented Captain Nemo(Sean Lawlor), who seems to have created his own world below the sea's surface. He is proud to show guests all his domain. Pretty much a waste of time. Special effects are nothing special. Maybe a bigger budget and some real stars would have made this a "real" movie. Other wise this piece of film sucks.
-
I rarely feel compelled to write reviews on films. With this film however I think it is only right for me to try and stop other people making the same mistake as me! This film is without doubt, the single worst film I have ever seen. The acting is utterly, shockingly bad. The storyline is painfully bad. Please, do yourself a favour and give this film a wide berth. The film really bares no resemblance to the original and it surely must contravene the trade descriptions act. Actors seem to appear from one shot to the next injured (in one case shot in the arm) and yet inexplicably bandaged? I really am shocked at just how bad this film is. Please IMDb, offer us the chance to choose a zero out of ten as a bottom score.
-
I really liked this film. The scenes were really good. I liked the cast of the film as well. The director is amazing. Knowing that this was a low-budget film, and the actors gave there heart in this film, I don't know why other users tore this film apart. But I respect their opinion. To have low-budget on this film and to include cgi as it was, along with the music, the value was there as best it could be. Naturally when there is more money in the budget, then one can bring more to the table. I know that this film will be on the Sci-Fi channel due to it's nature. That is cool, since it will be played all over and will have a fan base. All in all, this film was enjoyable to me. I would recommend it for sure.
-
As soon as Lorenzo Lamas' name appeared as the lead actor, deep shadows of doubt had spread over me, making me question the decision of whether it was really a good idea to spend an hour and a half on this movie. What followed was nothing but a very long, a very, very long answer, and time wasted completely uselessly. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like to write comments just to trash movies, pick up the pieces, burn them to ashes and bury them so deep no one ever could find it again, but this one not only deserves it but asks for it tenfolds. The acting is so much below par that you actually have to dig deep underground to find the level that could actually describe how awful it was. Lamas was perhaps the best of all the cast...God, did I really say that? The story...well, there was probably one, trying to feed off Jules Verne's original novel, with Captain Nemo involved and the Nautilus, some giant squids, but that's about it. We have the nuclear sub sunk, we have the crew of misfits, the usual fight between the hero and his ex-wife that is supposed to be funny, we have some greenpeacish crap (Greenpeace is not crap, but the way they serve it to you in this one should be banned), we have some sci-fi inventions...mixed up so much that most of logic is lost. The special effects are not great to say the least. I've seen better in the cinematics of Warcraft 3. Better by miles...or leagues...whatever. I could go on for quite q while what was wrong, very wrong with this production. If this had been the opus of high school film enthusiast, I would probably kept a benevolent smile till the end, but...Sometimes even a movie that is cheap and crappy can be surprisingly good, see Love And A Bullet (if I remember the title correctly). This one has nothing that could save the impression. The conclusion is simple: avoid at all cost. Better watch some Ed Wood movie instead.
-
Donot ever make the mistake of watching this movie. I got this movie free from someone and the person told me its a waste of time. I was told that this is the worst movie ever made after watching the movie, But I have had seen the original Captain Nemo movie a long time ago I thought with new technology it might be made better but after watching the movie I totally agree its not worth of watching even for free. waste of time and waste of a great story I have seen the original captain Nemo comparing to that movie its as bad as it could be the director did his best to make it the worst movie ever. and the actors they never let the director down by helping him doing the worst acting of there carriers
-
What a disaster! The plot is paper-thin, the acting diabolical and I wondered if they sacked the continuity person part way through.A stricken submarine called the 'Scotia' (as in Nova Scotia) was occasionally and randomly referred to as the 'Scotty-a' by one of the main characters, who clearly hadn't learnt his lines. The leading lady's bright red (or sometimes bright purple) lipstick was an overwhelming and ever-present distraction - at one point she was rescued (by ex-hubby, naturally) from underwater to emerge unconscious and soaking wet with lips perfectly coated in vermillion. Ex-hubby was curiously unaffected by the same water, which allowed him to remain dry presumably so that his buffoned hair did not flatten. As for Captain Nemo - he was decidedly camp which didn't sit well with his egomaniacal desire to destroy the world by nuclear annihilation.If you must watch this, be prepared for a trip to hospital to have your buttocks surgically unclenched.
-
Apparently neither the writer or the director has any knowledge of U.S. naval vessels or their capabilities. Early in this disaster of a movie the crew a deep submersible is contacted by a U.S. Navy ship identifying itself as U.S.S Abraham Lincoln. The ship turns out to be a WWII vintage battleship. The U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln is an aircraft carrier. Shortly after the crew of the deep submersible arrive on board the "Lincoln" the Capitan orders the ship to 75 Knots (86 MPH). The only way the battleship shown in here could do 86 MPH would have been with a hurricane as tailwind.If the writer (Eric Forsberg) is going to write about the U.S. Navy or any other country's navy he should at least familiarize himself with how it operates and what the capability of its ships are.The above would have been forgivable had the story and acting been good to excellent. Sadly, they weren't. Jules Verne must be rolling in his grave.
-
As someone who served in the Navy, I found this movie appalling. The filmmakers did zero research (or negative research... is that possible?) into Navy uniforms and overall military structure. They didn't even attempt to accurately recreate military uniforms or standards. Some characters are wearing enlisted and officer insignias, the guys have sideburns that are way too long, and the girls wear earrings that are way too big. They never wear covers, and one chick is wearing a headband through most of the movie. The only thing that I can figure is that the script of this movie was so horrible, the US Government wouldn't even give them permission to semi-accurately recreate military life.
-
This is a very hard movie for anyone with actual naval service to watch. Clearly the producers did not bother to hire a technical adviser and it shows (or if there was a technical adviser he was ignored). There are so many things wrong about how the US Navy is portrayed and technology that it is hard to fit them all into a short review.The USS Scotia, ostensibly a US Navy nuclear submarine looks more like a Russian Alpha class. Any submarine would crush at the depths played out in the story and would be incapable of radioing while underwater. Neither people nor plankton could survive outside any submarine at the depths portrayed in this movie. And there would not be light that deep.The time setting is "today" but the USS Abraham Lincoln is a World War II battleship. And it, nor any other ship that large, could possibly travel 75 knots. There is a real world Abraham Lincoln but it is an aircraft carrier and more likely to have acted as a flagship. Uniforms are wrong and not only do the rating badges and insignia change from scene to scene but they are incorrect in the first place. And it is the "US Coast Guard" and not the "American Coastal Guard." Then there is the portrayal of personnel. A British-accented woman as the commander of a mini-sub? First of all, it is possible for a foreign-accented person to be an officer in the US Navy but not at all possible for a foreign citizen to be one. And despite advocates, there are no women permitted to serve on submarines – conveniently ignored in this movie. If there were women in the "Silent Service," they would be expected to adhere to grooming standards and not wear fashionable nail polish, garish lipstick, headbands, or ornamental earrings. The men are equally out of standards for grooming.But even if women did serve, the placement of an ex-wife as the commander of a very small unit that includes the former spouse is suspect. And even if they were to serve together, the interaction between the two goes well beyond anything expected between two military professionals.If you can get past all of this, which I admit is hard for anyone who has actually served, then there are other problems galore with the story. The first half hour is not particularly interesting because it is mostly an explanation of technical and scientific jargon. Captain (wearing Major General's stars) Nemo does not appear for way too long. Then quite honestly, the film just gets boring even though it is set underwater and features an obviously psychotic antagonist and many challenges to our heroes. Why did they think they needed the nightclub scene? I didn't mind the inventions that kept the plot going. I could even get into the plot to shift mankind above the sea to underwater - the new Atlantis. But I am not sure about whether it was the writing, the directing, or just the acting that made we want to ignore the words that came out of the mouths of everyone on the screen. Could it have been all three? The color is excellent and I did not have any problem with the sound that a few others had.At least Plan 9 From Outer Space had……..wait; there is not much to offer for that either. Well, this one was in color.
-
Really bad movie. It would require more effort then its worth to go into all the reasons this turd stunk. I love bad movies. This is not even good enough to be considered a bad movie. Unless you are one of the three or so Lorenzo Lamas fans, you know who you are, bypass this crap and move on. Got to add some more lines. Please IMDb allow five line submission. Some times you just can't express yourself in 10 lines. So I sit here and try to make 10 lines. Here is a spoiler Lameass has LT bars on one collar and a Master Chief device on his other collar. The chick has one Lt commander device and nothing on her other collar. I guess they did not have enough to go around. They are on a battleship, which we have none commissioned atm. A battleship had 1800+ men, for some reason there is only a dozen or so on this ship. Some chick was wearing a USCG shirt.
-
Well, don't expect anything near the previous versions of Jules Verne adventure. Aside from the title and the recycling of names, this "updated" story is a total disappointment. Contrived story line, horrible dialog, horrible plot, and even worse acting. This is a dog fish if ever there was one. Real shame too, they could have done so much more with this premise if they'd only tried. It's like a really bad Deep Space Nine episode, only torturous drawn out and pointless. I gave it 3 stars out of pity. Don't waste your time with this one. The best description of this would be Dr. Strangelove meets Jaques Coustou, only without any of the humor or cinematography of either.
-
I'm a Producer who enjoys B Movies, and I've probably seen most of the Lorenzo Lamas flicks out there. I mean he probably isn't going to be on anyone's Oscar list, but he has a certain "personality" that I enjoy. So, when I rented 30,000 leagues I was in awe. Not about the plot, or the acting but about the production, in this case LACK of production. What we're they thinking? Honestly I've never seen a movie cut or edited like this does the Cameraman ever hold still? Using a Hand-held Camera with a STEADYCAM would have eliminated this, and they go for as low as $300. Honest, no more DTs shake on the closeups. It's another big strike against anyone using their ON CAMERA microphone for a finished audio track in a movie. This explains the audio changing in the same conversation with 3 people at different distances from the Camera. The other problem is that an ON CAMERA microphone 6 feet away just doesn't get the same nuance in a crowded set as a $4,000 German Shotgun 12 inches from the actors mouth on a boom. When you hear distortion throughout the movie, it's the lack of headroom on the ON CAMERA microphone preamplifier acting up. Actually the acting and the plot we're within the guidelines of what I was expecting. All except the female lead, who looked as if she would have preferred to be anywhere else but at this taping. MEMO to the female lead, Dental work is a GOOD thing, even if you're from England. Lorenzo usually has fun, sexy co-stars, not someone with bad teeth, more makeup than anyone in recent memory, and absolutely no figure was all. I mean, how much is a miracle bra, $20? Anyway, the movie worked fine in general, but the lack of production and lack of execution of the basics just killed it in it's tracks.
-
one wonders why the authors of the movie needed to float around for 10,000 leagues more -- i mean, seriously, what _more_ could one add to the original book and why would one do that anyway?it turns out a lot can be added. one can add "modern technology", bland actors, lotsa clichés, semi-hot chicks with diving phobia and attitude, and a happy looking geezer with two stars on his neck, who seems to be related to Nemo the way Austin Powers is related to Bond, sans the humor.it also turns out one can remove a lot of what makes the story fun. one can remove the dramatic scenery, the innumerable fishes, the long voyage around the world, all adventures under water and on the various islands; one can even cut out the trip to the pole and the final maelstrom.so, what is left then? well, 1 hour and 25 minutes of unadulterated waste of time.enjoy.