Around the World Under the Sea (I) (1966) User Reviews

Great looking but dull

[pmtelefon · 5/10 · 1 April 2020]

"Around the World Under the Sea" is a great looking movie. The photography, both underwater and above, is terrific. The set design is top-notch. The colors are so bright, they're great. Unfortunately, the script lets the movie down. There's just not enough going on to keep your interest. The cast is good but they're not given enough to do. Behinds the way "Around the World Under the Sea" looks, there is little worth remembering about this movie.

Typical Ivan Tors

[aem-3 · 5/10 · 30 March 2020]

Typical Ivan Tors- short on plot or scientific accuracy, long on reuse of B-roll material at different angles or magnifications. Miami Beach coast guard station is where the sub launches from for its incredible month long journey around the oceans without a support vessel.

slow sci-fi

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 29 October 2022]

Dr. Doug Standish (Lloyd Bridges) leads a group of scientists on the civilian research submarine Hydronaut. They circumnavigate the globe to place monitoring sensors on the ocean floor to predict earthquakes.

The premise is not exciting. The movie struggles to gain any thrills. There is some unconvincing submarine work despite some good underwater work. It's sci-fi from the 50's and 60's. It's science over story. It tries to spice it up with the addition of a pretty blonde lady scientist. It's a mixed bag of futurist sci-fi and broad melodramatic story telling. This is a slow, grinding watch.

Fantastic Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea Hunt for Red October.

[Poseidon-3 · 3 November 2004]

A familiar cast, colorful underwater photography and unintentional laughs help make this completely unrealistic adventure film palatable. Due to increased seismic activity around the globe, a team of experts is assigned to float around the oceans of the world in a tiny submarine, planting sensors that will help predict underwater earthquakes. Bridges and Kelly (who earned their fins on the TV shows "Sea Hunt" and "Flipper", respectively) head up the mission, each competing to see who can most often rip their shirt off at a moments notice in order to fix some problem. Other scientists on board are older, rather colorless Thompson, bespectacled McCallum, reluctant Wynn and curvy, brassy blonde Eaton who boards the sub in white heels and a dress with a slit up the side. They trot around the globe as if it's the size of The Gulf of Mexico, planting their sensors (which, ludicrously, must explode in order to be anchored to the ground!) and experiencing various inter-personal conflicts. Moments after the credits have ended, credibility has already been jettisoned. Kelly, in a diving bell, gets knocked by a whale and Bridges dives 150 feet down without benefit of air and leisurely peeks in the window and knocks on the door! Later, he swims down to Wynn's underwater lair and, when his tank runs out, Wynn somehow (by benefit of an unseen Bat Pole?) goes from casual street clothes to a skin tight diving suit within seconds to rescue him! Also, unbelievably, Thompson proposes marriage to Eaton, yet she's already shacked up with McCallum previous to the mission and now has her sights set on Kelly! Small world! She claims not to be leading any of the men on, yet continuously gives it the "look at my body" act, up to and including an Esther Williams-esque swim in which she swirls her blonde mane towards the sub window and extends her bikini-clad body to it's fullest extent! Term papers could be written about the many, many scientific implausibilities of the film, but it's more fun to just sit back and make fun of the hysterically bad plotting and direction. Watch as Eaton and Kelly stare longingly at each other JUST AS two fish swim by and seem to nuzzle each other before disappearing behind a rock to do God knows what. Then they share a Doris and Rock-style moment with them each in bed, back to back, aching for each other over a cigarette. Who cares if the world may explode any minute? They're hot for each other, darn it! There are two guinea pigs on board. Watch for the second time the sub pitches forward and one of them finds it's face buried squarely in the behind of the other. By the way, Thompson loses Eaton, but seems perfectly happy to have wound up with these two rodents as a consolation prize. If one decompresses his brain for two hours, the film does have some interesting imagery, creative situations and manages to have some degree of suspense wondering who, if anyone, will die. Viewers looking for logic, reality or even sense, will be highly disappointed.

Eye candy Shirley Eaton is the only creature worth watching this film for

[Ed-Shullivan · 4/10 · 24 March 2020]

The film is definitely out dated with a group of world class scientists who are brought together to save the world from an impending volcanic eruption which could take place imminently from the bottom of the sea floor. Although the director attempts to bring some level of suspense and action with large sea creatures and explosive devices that have the oceans waves hit fifty (50) feet into the air, the only time I got a rise was when the petite and only female scientist Dr. Margaret E. 'Maggie' Hanford (Shirley Eaton) on board this submarine appeared on the screen.

The cast was decent enough as was the cinematography. What blew it for me (no pun intended) was the continual bombardment and use of explosions in a useless attempt to build action and adventure when none was present.

I was disappointed in both the story line and film's lack of any meaningful plot as well as the over abundance of meaningless explosions all in a failed attempt to build suspense and danger. It just did nothing for me except for the appearance of eye candy Shirley Eaton, who was the only worthy film presence.

I rate it a dismal 4 out of 10

a favorite from the Ivan Tors team

[modern_fred · 7/10 · 6 June 2010]

I have fond memories of this film, and watching it now they come back as strong as ever. Not only does lovely Bond girl Shirley Eaton make an appearance, but the stars of many of my fave shows of the 60s are present and accounted for: Lloyd Bridges (Mike Nelson of Sea Hunt), Brian Kelly (dad to Flipper), Marshall Thompson (Daktari himself), and David McCallum (the ever-cool Illya Kuryakin of U.N.C.L.E.). Along with the superb Keenan Wynn these cast members make a good compliment of aquanauts traveling in a futuristic sub on a mission to plant earthquake detecting devices around the globe. There's a solid script, just enough tension, and assured performances that supply a fun and diverting story. What really shines are the excellent underwater sequences courtesy of the Tors unit that set the standard for underwater action sequences (such as their Bond film sequences). Photographer Lamar Boren and director Ricou Browning do some of their best work here. The sub here is a real one (I found it decades later lying by the side of the interstate highway in south Florida next to an amusement park). It was built in 1956 by Martine Diving Bells of San Diego. Another nice part of this film are the great special effects by Project Unlimited (TV's Outer Limits and the props from the original Star Trek). While all the film seems quite dated now, it was believable action in its day, the sort of thing that was a not-so-guilty pleasure for a kid like me back then, and still very enjoyable today. Note the excellent score by Harry Sukman, which was released as a soundtrack LP that is a rare find these days.

Dull, dull, dull!!!!

[bayster912 · 1/10 · 17 October 2005]

I have seen this film only once - it was part of a holiday double bill with (I think, Captain Sinbad which starred Guy Madison). I must have been eleven at the time, and remember that my mother had agreed to take my younger brother and myself to see it at the ABC Haymarket cinema in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (happy days), on the strength of having seen the trailer, which made it look good. I remember to this day how I looked forward all week to seeing it, and how disappointed I was when I actually saw it. Seldom have I seen a film to compare, in terms of promising a lot and delivering nothing. Nothing happened of any consequence, until a scene between Lloyd Bridges and David McCallum - I recall the dialogue, something like 'where there are smaller fish there will be bigger fish' (sounds pretty innocuous now, I'm sure there must have been more menace in it than that). It must been pretty poor for me not to like an adventure film at the age of 11! And of course my poor Mum yawned her way through it too. She must have regarded it as a huge waste of money.

What version survives today?

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 10 July 2014]

"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.

Forgotten film deserves it

[ChungMo · 2/10 · 12 November 2005]

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.

Decent but unremarkable undersea adventure movie.

[Koosh_King01 · 7/10 · 8 August 2012]

Following the destruction of much of coastal Turkey by a massive tsunami, American scientists Dr. Doug Standish (a mugging Lloyd Bridges) and Dr. Craig Mosby (Brian Kelly playing kind of a sexist jerk) lead the crew of the submarine Hydronaut in a race to plant seismic sensors along fault lines on the ocean floor to create an experimental earthquake detection system in order to prevent other coastal countries from suffering the same fate. The crew consists of geologist Orin Hillyard (Marshall Thompson), electronics expert Dr. Philip Volker (David McCallum doing a hokey German accent) and marine biologist Margaret Hanford (the fetching Shirley Eaton as what basically amounts to eye candy). Also along for the ride is reclusive survival expert Hank Stahl (a delightfully curmudgeonly Keenan Wynn).

While at times enjoyable, Around the World Under the Sea is, alas, a bit on the boring side. It isn't that badly written, not for a movie of its type, anyway, but in its apparent drive to depict the science fiction elements as realistically as possible (in a "this is totally plausible" sort of way), it tends to bog down. We spend far too much time focusing on the Hydronaut crew planting the various sensors that midway through the film a montage of them doing it gets the bulk of that out of the way to make way for... well, not undersea adventure, that's for sure.

There is some of that, but it's few and far between and mostly, when the movie isn't methodically showing us in detail how they do various scientific tasks, it basically plays out like a soap opera set on a submarine: Volker wants to do a salvage dive for some valuable crystals but is opposed (for some reason the movie never bothers explaining) by Stahl, and the two have an epic chess game to decide whether they'll do it (Volker cheats!); Hanford is ostensibly Hillyard's girlfriend at the start, but starts falling for Mosby despite him being kind of a sexist pig, and on top of this she's Volker's ex and there is unresolved tension between them. The movie seems to think that this is all more interesting than giant eels and erupting undersea volcanoes. It would be wrong.

One thing of note is the sexism against Dr. Hanford that Craig Mosby has, and, to some extent, so does the movie. With comments like "she's as good with a skillet as she is with a scalpel," it at times feels like a movie from a much earlier film, far less tolerant of women in the workplace. When Hanford is late for the Hydronaut's takeoff, the chief concern regarding her is that they can't set sail without a cook (!). If nothing else, at least the poor woman gets support from Standish if no one else, who points out "She's a scientist and so are we" and doesn't find the idea of female astronauts at all unusual, and hires her on the spot even once he learns the mysterious and overqualified "M.E. Hanford" is a woman, whilst it is Mosby who objects to having a woman aboard the sub. Still, most of it just seems like lip service, as, despite Standish's insistence in her abilities, all supposed marine biologist Hanford ever really does is "woman" stuff like serving coffee while Stahl (who isn't even a scientist) does most of the specimen collecting and lab work.

This nonsense aside, it has its moments. There's a close call where Hillyard is burned by an undersea vent and has to be rescued by Volker, as well as a giant moray eel which attacks the sub, and a fairly satisfying climax involving a giant underwater volcano and a rock slide which buries the sub, trapping our heroes and forcing them to use their quick wits to escape. Recommended for viewers with lots and lots of patience. For a far better and more enjoyable undersea adventure flick, see either 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

Accurately captured the ideal of an era

[simnia-1 · 8/10 · 14 September 2014]

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.

There's more than just shakin' goin' on under the sea.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 28 April 2020]

On a submarine filled with two pet hamsters and a group of scientists and experienced seamen (and one woman), the efforts to make predictions of when underwater earthquakes will take place are made which leads this important voyage into all sorts of danger. In addition to a friendly dolphin, schools of exotic fish and a curious manta, there's also an extremely large manta ray as well as a powerful underwater volcano where the submarine gets stuck on. Under the command of Lloyd Bridges, this all important voyage also features the beautiful Shirley Eaton, David McCallum, Keenan Wynn, Brian Kelly, Marshall Thompson and veteran actor Gary Merrill. The gorgeous underwater photography is stunning and the dangers are real and natural. Little attention is made to the crew member's personal lives (although Eaton does get herself intertwined between two of the younger members) so the focus is on what is happening outside the submarine. Bridges gives a truly commanding performance, and it is no wonder as undersea exploration was one of his great life passions. Wynn, as a grizzled old seaman, doesn't overdo the comedy, although he does get the best lines, and Eaton is nice to look at although not distracting. This is a perfect look at a part of our world we don't always get a chance to see, and realize that the dangers above ground are often small potatoes when compared to the dangers in our massive seas.

Have you got the answer to Hydronaut's question?

[hitchcockthelegend · 5/10 · 5 November 2015]

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

puerile pseudoscience... pelagic & pathetic

[CG-8 · 5 June 1999]

This is a truly incredible film - by which I mean it isn't the least bit credible. Anyone who knows anything about diving or oceanography (or for that matter, science in general) will howl at the dozens of mistakes and improbabilities.

In a small, Beatles-style yellow submarine that seems barely big enough for 4 testosterone-fuelled men's men and one pretty woman, our heroes are required to travel around the ENTIRE WORLD and place 50 earthquake sensors at strategic points on the seafloor to create a warning system of the impending destruction of the earth by seismic forces! They manage to do this in just one month! The sensors are "anchored" to the seabed by making them explode!

The first sensor is placed at the bottom of a trench 6 miles deep. The guy (for some reason I've forgotten) actually leaves the sub in his diving suit! At this depth, his entire body would implode instantly from the pressure. Incredibly, the seabed at this depth is light and swarming with fish! In reality, it would be totally dark and devoid of life.

At one point, they are in a very rich area of ocean, where the "minestrone" of available food biomass attracts millions of fish. We get the warning that "little fish attract big fish", so we expect maybe a 20-foot shark... But no, the sub is attacked by a mutant conger eel that must be at least 100 feet long! It totally dwarfs the sub. This is so ridiculous, as you can tell from the way it moves it's just a very tiny eel in a tank. In the exterior shots of the sub, it's so obviously just a small lightweight model in a fishtank. The special effects budget of this movie must have been nil.

The best line is this movie is when Shirley Eaton's character says of the female sex, "We have men to thank for our freedom, but sometimes we don't know how to handle it!" I think this was in response to the suggestion that women lead men on sexually, sometimes to their downfall. Well, she may be a scientist, but at least she isn't some crazy feminist! ;-) This film is so dated in general, it's amazing it was made as recently as 1966! There's a palpable mid-to-late 50s feel. The woman is there for the sole purpose of creating tension with the men who lust after her and fight among themselves. In fact, most of the movie's drama comes from the effect this bimbo scientist has on her crewmates' testosterone levels. She is actually wearing stiletto heels when she boards the submarine.

The end of the movie is the most hilarious part. The sub is half-buried by a volcanic rockfall, so the captain suggests blowing the buried half off with dynamite to free them! They all accept this rational-sounding theory without complaint. Dozens of sticks of dynamite and plastique are wired INSIDE the sub. They blow the back half of the thing clean off and stay safely sealed in the bridge compartment. How ridiculous! But the front of the sub is still not free! So Lloyd Bridges must venture outside and burn through what looks like a 6-inch cable using a flare! They have to "equalize the pressure" inside the half-destroyed sub by opening the hatch, while trying to prevent too much water rushing in! They're running out of air fast, yet deem it sensible to waste bottled O2 on the pet guineapigs.

The crew take about a minute to return from the seabed to the surface. Conveniently enough, there's a chopper already there to rescue them! The joy that other viewers must have experienced (in realizing this film was finally over and they could do something worthwhile instead) was not shared by me. I realized that, with such a rapid ascent and no decompression chamber onboard the chopper, they would all certainly die an agonizing death from decompression sickness. Ah well.

The movie totally lacks suspense or thrills, but is mildly enjoyable for its unintended humorousness. David McCallum's performance as the menacing and creepy blonde European type you can never trust is, as usual, entertaining.

Entertaining for an 7 year old

[rdevine_az · 3/10 · 22 December 2008]

I remember seeing this as part of a summer movie program in 1963. I got to see 11 movies for $1.00. One movie was shown each Tuesday. So I paid nine cents for it. That was fair.

It was great entertainment for the 7-13 year old crowd. Lloyd Bridges was known for Sea Hunt. Keenan Wynn had been in some TV Westerns so he was a known entity. Flipper (Kelly), Daktari(Thompson) and Man from Uncle(McCallum) hadn't even been broadcast, so most of the cast was unknown.

Bad acting, bad science, great special effects. Everything a 7 year old boy looks for.

Okay it's a little slow

[dukeb0y · 7/10 · 2 July 2021]

But the most interesting part is they use a real submarine. It's called the Hydronaut. It's on display in Miami if you want to look it up. Originally designed for exploring for oil lines in the ocean. Today they are inspected by remote control submersibles.

Certainly Entertaining. Also Ridiculous & Dumb.

[Idiot-Deluxe · 3/10 · 24 April 2016]

This ones worth watching once.

Around the World Under the Sea is somewhat distinctive and unique, yet at the same time below average in most respects. It's strong suits are the striking underwater photography and it's ample servings of unintentional humor that it frequently dishes out at it's viewers. When watching this goofy movie you're never any more than 8 to 10 minutes away from yet another ridiculous eye-rolling implausibility, where the laws of physics don't apply and when convenient for the plot pseudo-science intervenes and saves the day, time and time again. There must be a solid 10 or 12 extreme implausibilities in this movie (i.e. making it up as they go along), but that's also part of the reason why it's a fun film to watch. With all the ridiculous, unrealistic and illogical moments that this movie packs, it's rarely, if ever, dull. Around the World Under the Sea is one of the ultimate examples of high-tech being used in the most unrealistic of ways, completely by the whim of the writer and director - and you know what, because of such creative license it's often hilarious! By the looks of it I don't think they hired a single technical adviser when they filmed this flagrantly unrealistic underwater adventure farce, if they did they turned a deaf ear to them.

Lloyd Bridges stars along with several marginal actors, including the "gold paint chick" from Goldfinger Shirley Eaton; also the ever versatile Keenan Wynn and a few other no-namer's. Wynn's character has to have one of the most unusual and entertaining entrances ever seen in any movie (watch the movie and see what I mean).

One thing I noted is, I could have sworn I heard some music that sounds as if it where lifted -directly- out of the movie "Jaws", but this movie pre-dates that (infinitely better) movie by 9 or 10 years. Did John Williams see this movie and takes notes? That's another thing, the soundtrack occasionally offered up some effective and provocative music, which seems to be a consistent trend when speaking of nautical adventure films, even the bad ones often have good music.

Ultimately "Around the World Under the Sea" is just flat-out ridiculous and illogical nonsense from start to finish, which amusingly enough, I don't think was the intent of it's creators at all, because you often get the feeling that they were striving realism - but fail.

I must say that if you Do Not take this movie with any degree of seriousness (turn off your brain) you'll more than likely enjoy it, thoroughly. I know I did.

Eminently Miss-able

[hagan_family · 2/10 · 20 April 2020]

Many years ago a critic wrote the following in reference to the play "Mourning Becomes Electra. I believe it applies to this film: "The play began at 8:00. Three hours later I looked at my watch, and it was 8:15."

I've seen better plot in laxative commercials

[bigshoe1 · 1/10 · 24 March 2003]

The summary alone should tell you to rent this "god help us all if this is available to rent" ONLY if a) your an insomniac, b) masochist or c) a masochist who has trouble falling asleep. The 'acting' is sub par, the characters are one dimensional and the plot.... well, it just proves that one can indeed write a movie script inspired by a box of corn flakes. Wait, that's not fair, corn flakes would make a better movie. The plot of the movie is this team of 'experts' travels the oceans laying down seismographic monitors to detect underwater earthquakes. Near the end, surprise, they get into trouble and have to think of a clever way to escape. The viewer on the other hand, has a much easier way out, change the channel to the Home Shopping Network in search of better entertainment. As for the cast, the only way they could have pulled some of those actors is by making this a contractual obligation or maybe blackmail.

If you are a fan of "diverting natural disaster" films – you will enjoy this one.

[Charlou · 8/10 · 13 November 2005]

Enhanced by beautiful underwater cinematography – complements of Clifford Pollard – Lloyd Bridges gave a spectacular performance recapturing my fond memories of "Sea Hunt". I seem to be giving this film the only positive comments however, I really did enjoy the adventure, suspense, and even the somewhat "campy" personal interaction between the characters. Also, excellent performances by David McCallum and Brian Kelly – whom I remember very fondly from "Man from Uncle" and "Flipper". I found the plot as plausible as other "diverting natural disaster" type films both present and past. As the film begins, increased seismic activity throughout the world is threatening to produce more frequent and stronger earthquakes. Lloyd Bridges and his well trained crew – scientists and experts in their own fields – borrow a submarine from the military to place sensors in the ocean for early worldwide earthquake detection. Going along for the ride with the 4 men and 1 woman crew were 2 scientific experimental guinea pigs. Disaster threatens the mission a couple of times when a giant sea inhabitant becomes entangled in the sub after trying to eat one of the crew. Also, an underwater volcano erupts burying half of the sub in molten lava. However, quick thinking and fast action from our heroes bring a happy ending to the story. If you are a fan of "diverting natural disaster" films – you will enjoy this one – however – you need to catch it on TV because there is no DVD available and VHS is very limited.

Really neat cinematography in an otherwise humdrum movie.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 31 October 2022]

"Around the World Under the Sea" is a film best enjoyed for its amazing underwater cinematography instead of its plot. The story is just so-so.

There is a plan to install underwater sensors all over the ocean floor in order to better prepare for earthquakes. Using the sensors, they can predict when to evacuate much sooner and save a lot of lives. So, Dr. Standish (Lloyd Bridges) and his friends set out on a voyage to install them....and deal with problems as they arise. The biggest of these problems seems to be the sex drive of Dr. Volker (David McCallum)!

Folks in the 21st century will groan as some of the film. This is because pretty Dr. Hanford (Shirley Eaton...from "Goldfinger") comes along and Dr. Volker is so distracted by her pulchritude that he nearly kills everyone. Later, Dr. Standish yells at her and blames her for being such a hot tamale! Talk about sexism!!

Overall, a plot that really disappoints at time...not just because of sexism but because it's actually a bit dull. But the film is a must for scuba fans, as you rarely see such nice underwater footage.

By the way, I laughed at one scene. Hank (Keenan Wynn) is living in a deep underwater house. In order to do so safely, he's have to use a helium-oxygen mixture to breath...and he and anyone visiting would talk like Munchkins due to the helium. Here, however, they missed their chance and everyone talked normally...which isn't realistic though few in the audience would have noticed.

Also, Lloyd Bridges was undoubtedly chosen for the lead after years of experience on his TV show "Sea Hunt" where he dove week after week.

Fine cast, less fine story

[lor_ · 23 December 2023]

One of my sci-fi/horror/fantasy reviews written 50 years ago: Andrew Marton directed for producer Ivan Tors and MGM Pictures release. Starring Lloyd Bridges, David McCallum, Shirley Eaton, Brian Kelly, Marshall Thompson, Keenan Wynn and Gary Merrill.

Despite its major studio theatrical release, this film has the false glossy look of a telefeature. Accentuated by the presence of a solid lineup of TV castoffs, the crew of the hydronaut vessel goes around planting electronic gadgets designed to give warnings of impending tidal waves. They must deal with typical catastrophe emergencies along the way. The emphasis is on scientific adventure in this flick, rather than sci-fi.

Was looking for some silly 1960s sci-fi / disaster flick, and got this bore-fest....

[lee-96696 · 2/10 · 19 July 2020]

Stupid me! I thought MGM and sci fi would = something like Forbidden Planet. Or at least some high-production-values Irwin Allen schlock. But wow. This clunker!

The premise is that after an earthquake in Turkey, and not-very-dramatc tidal flooding, the world needs a seismic warning system: basically sensors that are dropped onto the sea bed, and then, through an explosion, somehow anchored in place. So the U.S. assembles a five-person crew of "experts" -- one female and four males -- to take a mini-sub around the world to plant the devices. Boredom ensues.

There's a running joke about a chess game. Some murky past affair between David MaCallum (Man from U.N.C.L.E's Illya Kuryakin) and Bond girl Shirley Eaton. A low pressure (PSI < 2) romance between Eaton and Brian Kelly (of Flipper fame!). Long stretches off stock footage of wales and fish. A 50-square foot set. And two hamsters getting tossed about in their glass enclosure.

There was no physical jeopardy of any consequence by 1 hr and 1 minute when I surfaced and crawled out the hatch of this snoozer. (I actually fell asleep; should have brewed some strong coffee). The world was not in danger. Nor the crew. Failure to finish the mission would result in, well, what? A sternly written letter from the government's contracting department and some unpaid invoices? Maybe the plot picked up in the last 50 minutes? I'll never know. I doubt it.

Just avoid if you are looking for schlocky, fun sci-fi or just simple adventure. As one of the other reviewers wrote, this was made at MGM's nadir, so maybe that's it.

Great empty scenery

[searchanddestroy-1 · 8/10 · 14 December 2022]

It is beautiful, it is generous, it may be spectacular but it is unfortunately empty and boring. I thought about Irwin Allen's VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA made five years earlier. Which was far far more interesting. This one is destined to all audiences, even kids who seek some kind of wonderland, fantastic visions, especially underwater sequences. I am lucky enough to have this in LBX instead of nasty panf..and scan...But it was a bit boring for my taste and I am sure that today's audiences would leave long before the end. Andrew Marton did not surprise me with this film, adventure movie, which was his trade mark, but he also used us to something better: CRACK IN THE WORLD, GREEN FIRE, THIN RED LINE, American part of THE LONGEST DAY.... So, this film is not useless but only a charming adventure movie, mainly for old timers. No Andy Marton's trademark but surely Ivan Tor's....

attempt to combine science fiction with disaster film

[oscar-35 · 12 September 2009]

*Spoiler/plot-1966, Around the World Under the Sea, A crew of ocean scientists are trying to find the reason the Earth is breaking apart. They go to find out the problem and meet a giant eel that attack their atomic submarine.

*Special Stars- LLoyd Bridges plays the lead undersea mariner. David 'Illya Kuriakin- UNCLE'

McCallum, Keenan "Great Race' Wynn and Marshal "B-film male Lead King ' Thompson play crusty scientists and sub crew members.

*Theme- the ocean is still unexplored for a very good reason.

*Based on- Jules Vern early sea stories.

*Trivia/location/goofs- Mr Bridges has become type cast as the consummate frogman since his Sea Hunt days in the late 50's. He has done better since in comedy like Zucker Bros "Airplane'.

*Emotion- A strange attempt to combine science fiction with big hit disaster movie of the times. The addition of a monster under sea eel attacking the cast is the only interesting element of this flat film of wooden actors.