To me, this movie is perfection.

The Worst Film Ever

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

A forgotten aquatic based sci-fier from an era that loved them, Andrew Marton's film isn't extremely bad exactly, it's just that it plods along without ever really reaching exciting heights.Cast features Lloyd Bridges, Brian Kelly, Shirley Eaton, David McCallum and Keenan Wynn, who are tasked with traversing the world's ocean beds to plant sensors that will warn mankind of impending earthquakes. A tricky task for sure, especially after we have been told at the start that the depths of the ocean is more inhospitable than anything in space.The science is of course nutty, as is the effects and photography work on show. Much of the film is taken up with talk, be it sci-fi boffins or heroes in waiting, or a burgeoning romance (Eaton locked in a submarine with a load of men, what a shock!), the chatter promises more than the film ultimately delivers. The expected perils arrive, a couple of beasties of the sea, some submarine damage threatens to scupper our heroes, which asks us to hold on to see how it will pan out. Thus who will survive etc? The end of the world core of the story, the earthquake science et al, is interesting to a cerebral degree, but it plays out like a screenplay that Irwin Allen read and threw in the trash can because it wasn't exciting enough. 5/10

All those reviewers who disliked this film are largely correct: this film is largely geared toward boys, it's unrealistic, the science isn't sound, the acting might be considered weak, some effects are weak, and so on. But I still love it. So what are all those reviewers missing? Well, it turns out there is a lot more to a film than just plot, acting, effects, soundtrack, and realism. Here's what negative reviewers are missing: This film accurately depicts a Utopian lifestyle of sorts, even in today's world. It fires the imagination. Imagine going on a round-the-world tour aboard a glass-ported submarine with elite scientists, an elite engineer, a beautiful blonde lady, being the first to explore new parts of the underwater world, playing chess (and winning!) against a state-of-the-art computer, going on a high-tech treasure hunt, working with state-of-the-art equipment, saving lives around the world due to your efforts, interacting with sea animals (via dolphin communication), and incidentally having adventures along the way. I can't think of *any* other underwater film, old or new, that realistically captures this feel of the ideal of living underwater as this film does. ("The Core" (2003) comes close to capturing the same cozy feeling of a state-of-the-art ship manned by elite scientists, but that was underground, not underwater.)Films like this offer a visionary ideal for living, especially in this modern age where some people really believe that hedonism and materialism are the ultimate good, and that intellectualism and science are to be ridiculed and avoided since being "cool" is antithetical to intellectualism. The film also has some decent humor, and a nice, realistic mix of sexism and promotion of women's equality.There are numerous other likable things in this film. The underwater scenery is beautiful, Shirley Eaton is beautiful, the equipment is cool, the inclusion of a chess game is terrific, the capturing of the daily submarine routine (planting sensors, playing chess) is great, and the constant presence of science provides an intellectual atmosphere.Also, each the characters is likable in his/her own way. I especially liked Hank Stahl, whose mature insights into the ugly side of human nature are standard nowadays, and he is about the only character who is not foolishly chasing after Maggie the entire time. Also, although I'll admit it's puerile, I loved the guinea pigs, even though they were probably included just for humor and for young viewers. I even bought some guinea pigs as pets for the first time in my life as a result of re-watching this film as an adult!There are a number of coincidences throughout that were probably accidental, but are either charming or humorous, depending on your taste in '60s movies and television: (1) a brief, repetitious, 2-note, Jaws-like musical theme in one underwater scene of the Hydronaut; (2) an UNCLE communicator-like 2-tone beeping from an alarm that goes off while David McCallum (Illya!) is in the scene; (3) a spherical sub streaming yellow dye, reminiscent of James Bond in the final underwater fight sequence in "Thunderball"; (4) a helicopter rescue of floating survivors at the end, reminiscent of the rescues at the end of "Thunderball" and "You Only Live Twice"; (5) entering into a briefing room where a monotone-voiced narrator is speaking, reminiscent of Number 1's briefing in "Thunderball."Some other delights for '60s fans are: (1) footage of the J. Neville McArthur Engineering Building at the University of Miami, with its charming, white waves facade; (2) Lloyd Bridges incessantly leaping into the water to try to be a hero at every opportunity, usually without enough air or without proper equipment, "Sea Hunt" style.The chess match alone deserves some comment. You could view the inclusion of chess in the film only as an appeal to young adolescent males, but then you would be overlooking the Conshelf II underwater habitat of 1966 as depicted in National Geographic magazine, which had one well-known photo of two men playing chess next to a porthole with fish swimming outside. That photo, in turn, probably inspired the scene from the EPCOT ride Horizons that had two men playing chess beside a porthole in a futuristic underwater habitat. And that's not to mention the HAL-Bowman chess game aboard the spaceship Discovery One in the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968). There is something about chess that is a good match with futuristic living quarters. Maybe it's the heavy intellectual component in both the game and the design of any such habitat, or maybe it's the contrast of ancient with futuristic (or should we say "hypermodern"?). Also, inclusion of the computer chess program in the film was an interesting, realistic, and historically significant. Even today online chess players on Yahoo often get caught cheating when they resort to their home chess computers for suggested moves, which is against the rules, so that twist in the plot was ahead of its time. Also, it wasn't until the 1980s that chess programs became strong enough that they could reliably beat most human players, therefore when Hank Stahl won the chess match even when Dr. Volker used a computer against him, that was realistic and ahead of its time.The late '60s, despite its problems, was beginning to approach an ideal that was captured extremely well in this film. Everything from the pervasive white color of equipment (such as in the sub interior, ships, and helicopters) that gave a sense of cleanliness, to the orchestral score, to the constant scientific background (which was also prevalent throughout Disneyland in that era), to a simultaneous acknowledgment of women's strengths and weaknesses, gave a sense of progress, community, and balance of the physical, emotional, and intellectual. It shows us a paragon of human society that is realistically achievable. Acting skill or realism of the non-decompression scenes is irrelevant to this bigger vision.

"Around the World Under the Sea" (1966) has both its admirers and its detractors. The truth, of course, lies between these two extremes. I agree, however, that there is no excuse for a shoddy print. M-G-M did not release the 70mm version in my home city, but the print I saw of the 120- minutes (sic), Panavision and Metrocolor version on first release back in 1966 was very good. I liked the cast too. I thought Lloyd Bridges had the knack of making both his heroics and clichés passably convincing. And, of course, I loved Shirley Eaton. She is one of my favorite stars. I agree that some of the other acting was not the best, and it was very disappointing to find Gary Merrill in such a small and unrewarding role. Nevertheless, Andrew Marton's direction, although typically straightforward, was pretty well on target so far as the action episodes were concerned. In all, back in '66, I thought the movie made a fair diversion for underwater-thirsty action fans.

This is a gem of disaster from the waning days of MGM. It seems there was a decision that the only way to beat the loss of ticket sales to television was to out-stupid it. With a logic straight out of "Rocky Jones" and a script from Ignoramus Inc., this film busts the audience's tolerance and drives over it. This film must have been dumped by MGM towards the end of production. Listen to the sound. All the scenes at the home base of the sub team have incredibly bad sound for a major studio release. They must have decided that it wasn't worth the cost of rehiring the actors to re-dub their voices so they left the terrible sound.The guinea pigs were so embarrassed by this film that they never acted again.