IMDb user comments for
Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 11:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

103 comments in total

---

49 out of 59 people found the following comment useful :-
See it in 3D. It's unbearable if you don't., 12 July 2008

Author: TransSpyberian from United States

First off, let me say that I'm VERY glad I saw this movie in 3D. If I hadn't, I might have walked out. The instant strength of this film that comes to mind is the great use of the 3D technology. It has plenty of surprises, and it doesn't over do it at all. HOWEVER, this does not excuse the blatant cheesiness, stupid typical one liners from Brendan Fraser, nor the underutilization of such a fantastic concept.

The story isn't really based on the book by Jules Verne, it's more based on a group's adventure that uses the book as a guide. It's certainly a fantasy adventure that kids will enjoy, but adults may find themselves getting restless by the time the third act reaches us. I also have very strong complaints about the predictability of the film, which was so bad that I could predict what the characters would say, in addition to what was about to happen on screen. That's bad. It's a classic case of flashy visuals, horrid plot execution. It's a wasted concept that could have been a lot better had the film-making branched out from the narrow scope it obviously uses. In fact, I could see this exact premise working PERFECTLY in a Guillermo Del Toro or Tim Burton type horror film.

We really only got three characters in the movie (and less than ten speaking parts), so a lot rides on our three leads. First, our headliner and box office draw, Brendan Fraser. He may not be the best actor, and he may say some pretty stupid one liners that get old after the 800th time, but he still has the same charm that makes him likable in the Mummy films. I really think that this film is further proof that Josh Hutcherson is THE best young American actor. He's blossomed into a great young actor, after a stunning turn in Bridge to Terabithia, in addition to great shows in Zathura and Little Manhattan. I've never seen a kid (especially a boy, as the girls tend to be better performers at ages 10-16) show so much emotional range, not only in this movie, but throughout his already prolific career (he's 15 and has 24 acting projects in his career). He's one to watch for a very long time. Our third lead is Icelandic actress Anita Briem. She neither added or took away anything from the film, though I suppose that can be blamed on the script, as she is not well developed. Seth Meyers (yes, THAT Seth Meyers) provides some laughs at the beginning and end of the film.

I felt that the chemistry between performers was very good, and was one thing that kept me interested. I came to care for all three of them, and they worked well together. Fraser and Hutcherson in particular worked well as uncle and nephew. While I was disappointed in the narrow scope of the film's vision, what was contained within said scope was well done and entertaining. The 3D really made it better. Without the 3D, this film is nothing but a mere C-class fantasy adventure that will bore anyone above age 10. However, the chemistry of the actors and the 3D save it from somewhat disaster, and make the film a bit enjoyable. It's worth the price of admission to a 3D theater, for sure, but I advise you to bring a younger person with you (who knows, maybe you'll feed off their energy). To put it simple, every kid under 10 or 11 will love it, then watch it again in 10 years and go, "what was I thinking?".

WITH 3D: 5/10 WITHOUT 3D: 3/10

---

30 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
Silly, but surprisingly enjoyable anyway, 13 July 2008

Author: bopdog from Cardiff, Wales

The reviewers of "Journey" are probably all correct: the logic is spotty, the premise is silly, and the requirement of the audience to suspend disbelief is beyond a typically successful film. However, despite all of that, I liked it! I went to see it because in my small town the offerings are rather slim, and I had seen everything else (is it me, or did this summer's films seem a bit clichéd and lame?).

Brendan Fraser has always been a great actor, with an agreeable presence. That he was the star here helped a lot. As did the newcomer actor, the Icelandic lady- Anita Briem. Somehow, one never seems to think of film stars as coming from Iceland. But she is comely and interesting to watch, and she looked good with Fraser. The supporting cast (and there wasn't much of them, as it was mostly CGI stuff, and not really populated with many humans, except for brief appearances) was also adequate, albeit they had little to do.

Overall, then, this was science fiction with an emphasis on the "fiction." Little here was even remotely believable. Yet taken together, it made an interesting visual contemplation of "what if?" and an enjoyable couple of hours at the cinema (for example, the characters free-fall to the "center of the earth," which would be 4,000 MILES down. Allowing for the rather slap-dash explanation of "magma envelopes" and all, we are nonetheless asked to believe they fell thousands of miles in a few seconds. The lava tube they fell down, fake as it was, was kind of evocative--- it did bring to mind a sense of mystery, and the powers of nature that are WAY beyond our everyday experiences, even if it was rather silly).

Oh, BTW, an obvious logic flaw--- if there really was a magma envelope surrounding the interior ocean and lush tropical paradise--- why didn't the free-fall take them through that, it being a sphere and all? Don't even think about it! Just enjoy the fairy tale.

---

24 out of 33 people found the following comment useful :-
Big, dumb, Summer Fun, 12 July 2008

Author: Simon Parker from United Kingdom

I first saw the trailer for Journey to the Centre of the Earth last Christmas when I watched The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-d. I also remember clearly thinking what a load of rubbish it looked like. It appeared to be a gigantic gimmick, cashing in on the latest 3-d technology. The various TV spots and images I saw of the movie in the past few months has done absolutely nothing to dispel this notion. However this past week something happened I didn't really expect, the critics were giving it quite decent reviews, most praising it as ridiculously good fun. I was still sceptical, but also in some way intrigued, perhaps the trailers were just poorly done. So I went to see the movie today, of course in 3-d (more on that later) and was absolutely amazed at how entertaining the movie really is. While the movie does feel like a gimmick at times, do we really need that yo-yo scene, the movie also does seem quite well made. The performances too were good for a movie that really could just have been a cash in, Brendan Fraser is surprisingly likable and good in the movie, and Josh Hutcherson continues to deliver performances that all Hollywood kids should be delivering as good as. But most importantly its so much fun, the action sequences looks incredible in 3-d, and the landscapes of the actual Centre of the Earth do look beautiful. This is a 3-d movie, and make no mistakes by thinking it is worth watching in 2-d, it really isn't. The movie is a kids movie, and so we get an all too happy ending, but there is a brief moment of darkness before the end, and that too makes the movie all the better for adults.

So onto the performances. Brendan Fraser as I have said delivers a decent performance here. He seemed to have disappeared in recent years, but with both this and The Mummy 3 arriving in cinemas this year I am sure we might be seeing some more of him over the next few years. While he does have to deal with a lot of clichéd lines in the movie, he does also ooze charisma and seems a genuinely nice bloke. He also does a great double act alongside Josh Hutcherson as his nephew. Hutcherson really is an A-lister in the making in my opinion, while his performance here doesn't match what he did Bridge to Terabithia, he still makes a potentially average brat into a likable characters with genuine motivations. His characters transformation neither feels forced nor corny, and one moment with Fraser in front of a sunset is one of the many highlights of the movie. Anita Briem is also surprisingly good as the "Best mountain climber in the world." Once again this could be a run of the mill plot device character, yet she makes it a much more interesting one. The script gives her some good moments and she does have considerable chemistry with Fraser.

But of course the main attraction of the movie has to be its effects and of course the 3-d. The early part of the movie does feature the most gimmicks of the 3-d, we get the yo-yo scene, the spitting scene, etc. While they get the kids excited they're not the most exciting things to watch in the world and certainly don't make a good movie. Its when the trio go up to a mountain the 3-d really does work. Not only does the scenery look beautiful, but it feels alive as it pops out of the screen at you. Nightmare Before Christmas didn't do the 3-d too well, but Centre of the Earth really does it brilliantly. A mine cart chase is the cinematic equivalent of a roller coaster ride and really does get the adrenaline pumping. The much promised T-Rex sequence does not disappoint, and a surprisingly tense magnetic rock sequence (don't ask) looks all the better for the 3-d. The script is also much better than it really should be, in fact it actually works better than your average blockbuster to be honest. But as I keep saying do not waste your money on the 2-d version. I understand why they're releasing it in 2-d, the producers do need their money back, but it really will not be the same thing. Having seen Beowulf in 3-d and 2-d I know how much a disappointment the 2-d version can be after seeing the beauty of the 3-d.

Overall Journey to the Centre of the Earth may very well be the biggest surprise of the summer, and quite possibly the year. While it won't win awards it does entertaining, and the hundreds of kids who were in my screen today seemed just as impressed and entertained as I was. Also the promise of a potential sequel at the end of the movie didn't horrify me, in fact I'm ashamed to admit I'd quite happily watch another one if its delivered with the same quality.

---

13 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
It wasn't bad at all !, 20 July 2008

Author: desire_911 from Qatar

Brendan Fraser plays a scientist and school professor who studies the earths core, magma and seismic changes and yearns for a life outside of the lab.

He has a knack for these adventure movies as he has in the Mummy movies, and the kid who plays his nephew Sean link up for family time to uncover some of the mysteries of the notes Seans father left in his journey to find a Lost land.

They decipher the notes and their adventure takes them to Iceland where they meet the other member of this trilogy a mountain climber who has the energy and smile to melt any glacier and keep up with the boys.

The CGI and graphical were probably more effective in 3D so I'll let that go but the story has fun and the relationship between the character evolves with every adventure they encounter.

7.5/10 For Entertainment

Overall: 7.5/10

---

14 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
3D was the only good part, 27 July 2008

Author: tmcona-1 from United States

This movie was another movie in the long line of only good because their in 3D movies. The story and acting was awful, and it felt like I was watching a cheap imitation of Indiana Jones. Brendan Friser's charm can't win this one (hopefully the Mummy 3 is better). The script is just awful and the movie was boring 10 minutes in. The movie was only about 90 minutes and it felt like it dragged on for hours and hours. The plot and some of the things that happen are just stupid and almost like a farce even for a Verne novel. My best bet, don't spend the extra fee theaters are charging for this 3D waste. The 3D effects are awesome, but wasted in this golden turkey.

---

53 out of 100 people found the following comment useful :-
Real D made this movie worth it, 26 June 2008

Author: Fabian Melchers from Netherlands

So I just got back from a screening and I thought the movie was OK. Overall, it was just the regular adventure-movie. The actors weren't bad, but I had seen better performances of them. The story is kind of a standard one. A guy with no close relatives has to watch over a boy and goes on an adventure with him. I'm not gonna spoil the ending, but I'm probably not gonna be able to... Now, I do have to say that I wasn't bored during the movie; it was acted out well enough, and it had its thrilling moments. But those things wouldn't be enough to recommend it for, though. My main concern was that some scenes were just too obviously made to make the movie adventurous. (like a 'rollercoaster-ride' in a mine). The only thing I would recommend it for would be the Real-D. It's a huge difference with the regular (IMAX-)3D. The image is crystal clear, and it all looks very realistic, and it seemed like some shots were especially made for the 3D-effect (which really made me jump sometimes). So, if you're interested in new techniques, go see it in 3D, it's an interesting experience. The movie itself is just not really worth your money. It's a regular adventure-movie with good SFX, but nothing original or special in it.

---

26 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) Movie Review from The Massie Twins, 11 July 2008
Author: joel massie (MoviePulse_dot_net) from www.MoviePulse.net

While Journey to the Center of the Earth will readily appeal to its target audience of youngsters and the easily impressed, its ridiculous story won't earn the respect of any longtime Jules Verne fans. The jokes alternate between rather amusing and blatantly failed, but the creative implementation of 3D effects pleasantly surprise, balancing out the whole Journey into a much more palatable affair.

Everyone knows you can't travel to the center of the Earth. Everyone except for publicly criticized science professor Trevor Anderson (Brendan Fraser), who journeys to the mythical "world within a world" to unravel the mystery surrounding the disappearance of this brother. Accompanying him is his nephew Sean (Josh Hutcherson) and their pretty mountain guide Hannah (Anita Briem) who will join in his fantastic adventures in a lost land of terrifying creatures and prehistoric danger.

Glowing hummingbirds, magnetic floating rocks, and giant carnivorous plants may sound pretty silly, and that's because they are. However, when such creations are thrown into a 3D movie they become spectacular moments of visual brilliance. Except perhaps the floating rocks. But Journey does well in its main reason for existence, and generates an ample amount of creative uses for its medium. From things jumping out of the screen, to more things jumping out of the screen, Journey wastes no opportunity to throw every manner of object or deadly creature at its audience, resulting in an abundance of visual stimulation and a noticeable absence on solid storytelling. At least the former was expected.

The true "Verneian" will be dismayed to learn that little remains familiar between this latest adventure to the Earth's core and the original novel. And while it may be unfair to compare it to the book or even the 1959 film, director Eric Brevig's vision often feels like an excuse to use a famous title rather than a sincere adaptation. Goofy comedy replaces earnest, though far-fetched, explanations and the unfriendly locale thrives on stereotypical monstrosities designed specifically for dimensional effects. Odd musical bouts aside, the '59 version utilizes a human antagonist for an extra layer of depth on a film already submerged deep within the Earth's crust, and a race for discovery accompanies the challenge of survival. This new Journey substitutes in a young boy for a young man, a bumbling scientist for a genius professor, and an animated avian for an Icelandic handyman, but at least the female protagonist remains, this time in the form of a mountain guide. Unfortunately all elements of drama and romance take a backseat to the outlandish action and phosphorescent birds.

If curiosity (or the kids) gets the better of you and you must take this Journey, make sure you see it in 3D. Otherwise, once the story rapidly tires, the only thing you'll be able to fall back on is the headrest of your theater chair.

- The Massie Twins

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Lots of missed potential, 23 July 2008

Author: milehighjc from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Over the years, I've come to like the 3D format, even though every film I've seen falls into a trap of "cheeseball" 3D tricks. Having seen IMAX Polar Express 3D a couple of years ago, it seemed like the format was finally beginning to mature.

I had high hopes for Journey based upon the trailers that I had seen - finally a real adventure movie with legitimate acting talent shot in 3D. Could it be a 3D movie that would finally exploit the format without going for the cheap "poke something into your face" tricks? Sadly, Not this time.

From the first scene, it was obvious that the cheese was still there - Trilobyte Antennae sticking out of the screen --- Toothpaste spit splattered on the screen - and it kept up throughout the movie. I guess its fun for the preteens in the audience (I heard a lot of giggles and Eeeeew's behind me), but It left me wanting a real movie that used 3D instead of yet another 3D trickfest.

There was potential in the plot line, but at least for me it was lost in the 3D trickery. Its too bad Chart didn't stay on as Director and make a true 3D adventure. I never quite got to the point of caring about any of the characters and after about an hour found myself bored.

If you are looking for a fun movie that you can take your kids to, munch on popcorn and have a few laughs, its not a bad option, but there are much better movies in the genre that have come out this summer.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Dumb, Predictable 3 -D Vehicle, 28 July 2008

Author: qormi from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Brenden Fraser and co. were capable and amiable enough to pull it through. The 3-D was a lot of fun. The movie itself was a joyride - a mindless joyride, that is. Just what do these people have to do to get hurt? I could slip in the bathroom and be out of commission for days, yet this fearless trio can literally fall thousands of miles down a hole and not get so much as a bruised hiney! They can speed over 60 mph on a rickety 60+ year old mine car without being derailed and jump farther than those Duke boys could in the General Lee! They can out run a T-Rex on the open field, explode through a volcano thousands of feet, cling to the underside of a rock like a fly, endure 130 degree heat without breaking a sweat, eat trilobites and not get the runs, and crash a hang glider from a thousand feet without skinning an elbow!!! At least the 1950's version retained some veneer of plausibility. These people even survived fiery explosions without a blister, found each other over scores of miles using a compass, and all in one and a half days? Yeah, I had fun watching it, but later on, you realize it may just have been the stupidest film you've ever seen! At least the script didn't call for the actors to take each other seriously, but this also robbed the film of any suspense whatsoever. Kind of like in a Spielberg film - you just know the kid's not going to get hurt no matter what. This film needed a villain or two because you just knew none of these three morons were going to get hurt. Just a 3-D vehicle for the sake of 3-D stunts.

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
needs more science, less fiction, 20 July 2008

Author: VigintiTres from United States

While the 3D special effects were cool, they don't add anything to the bad writing and acting. The storyline was terribly predictable and bland, basically throwing in everything a 7 year old would love to see, whether it makes sense in the story or not. It leaves many questions unanswered, so its best to not question it and just accept that its all founded purely on imagination. Fraser, while his acting was mediocre in this movie (compared to his other work that i enjoyed much more) it was still a highlight for me. Hutcherson, however, seems to ruin every scene he's in with his either lack of expression or over-acting. Something about it just seems so unnatural and dissonant. If you're 6 and like to see good 3D effects, no matter what the movie is, i would suggest this movie. If you're anybody else, don't waste your time.

---

---

Page 1 of 11:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history