IMDb user comments for
Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 16:

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

Index

151 comments in total

---

91 out of 143 people found the following comment useful :-
See it in 3D. It's unbearable if you don't., 12 July 2008

Author: Get_Off_Spys_Lawn 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

---

61 out of 104 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.

---

50 out of 93 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.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Predictable, boring and corny., 3 November 2008
Author: Ana Cunha from Portugal

Don't watch this! No! The 3-D effects, even being quite wonderful, won't clean up all the mess. It's a quite corny and predictable picture. They took in a wonderful classic by Jules Verne and turn it into a modern action adventure with awful actors that just make crap. Well, Josh Hutcherson was young and he could make something but the rest of the cast sucked.

Let's start by the argument: horrible stuff. Really, really horrible stuff. Fantastic and mystical book by Jules Verne was destroyed by this thing. It's such a cheesy adventure that takes wonderful story by Verne as a guide. I really didn't like the plot and I am sure that everyone who isn't a kid under 10 will hate it. It's just a fantasy/adventure/ action picture that only kids can enjoy because of its insignificance and because it's entertaining. It's entertaining, admit it! You sit down and it's like okay. But when it ends, you'll be like "This thing was terrible" with those sick Fraser jokes.

The cast was awful, really awful. Nobody else surprised me, no facial expression made me think that this was great, no, I just saw the same sick facial expression every time. That Brendan Fraser is annoying! What does he do in this picture? Shows an unconvincing melancholic air and a happy and sunny face that just annoyed! The cast is terribly bad.

The 3-D effects are the big surprise! Beautiful landscapes, well done, fantastic sequences showing a total different world, cool 3-D makes you enter in the picture and feel all the beautifulness and wonderful editing work! A very good editing work, absolutely, the special effects made this picture quite enjoyable though it wasn't enough.

Don't even waste your time with this. 3-D is good but it's not enough, as I already mentioned.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Truly Pointless, 26 December 2008

Author: erostew from Canada

I went into this with pretty low expectations and I was still disappointed. It liberally steals from other, better, movies like the Goonies and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. It's like they put a bunch of scenes from successful "family adventure" movies in a hat and then made the movie with whatever came out of the hat.

This "film" has zero to do with the book or the original film. It has lacklustre special effects, terrible direction, poor acting and an incoherent script. You can tell that the director, Eric Brevig, is a special effects supervisor by trade. He seems to have very little idea of how to direct actual living people, and it shows. Surprisingly, for a movie directed by a special effects guy, the special effects are quite bad. Maybe it was better in 3-D. Without the 3-D it's a gimmick movie with a missing gimmick. Truly pointless.

The one small bright point is Anita Briem. Not that she's a great actress or anything. But she doesn't stink too badly and she looks great and has a sexy accent.

If you have kids you can throw in the DVD sometime and leave them alone to watch it. They might actually enjoy it.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
If you want to see anything half as much as you want to see this, see the first option., 30 December 2008

Author: mashaal_tiger from Australia

This movie is a complete bore. You know how you see fairy floss, all pretty and pink and special, and when you put it in your mouth, it mysteriously becomes just a mere trickle of of what it suggests? The same with this movie. I thought, hey, people are just being fussy, can't be that bad. Well, it was worse than bad, it was horrible. All the time I was waiting for the climax to arrive, saying, hey, it'll come after this bit, and then the movie ended, without so much as DOING ANYTHING. Seriously, there are no villains, no plot with a twist that brings a light of understanding of you, no ANYTHING. If you want to see this movie, then just read the title, because that would be more informative, seeing that all they do is go in and come out, nothing accomplished.

---

9 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Empty, poor, devoid of all creativity, 4 November 2008

Author: imdb-21263 from Southampton UK

When I hired this out from Blockbusters I was expecting something on par with the original film - what I got was a complete waste of 90 mins of my life.

This film was devoid of any decent creativity, it appears to have been slapped together in a matter of minutes using cheap computer graphics, cheap actors and really awful sets.

It's a shame when a good movie is replaced with a poor imitation, hopefully the original will not be not be forgotten.

Brendan Frazer - choose wisely next time your offered a movie, this movie relied way to heavily on your reputation to pull its ugly face onto our cinema's and televisions.

---

9 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
My god..., 18 October 2008

Author: j_tainha from Portugal

Bad Movie!!! Looks like the worst Disney movies i you know what i mean.

Brendan Fraser does it again.It's so bad...clichés after clichés. Don't see this movie without 3d, because it's the only thing that keeps you going.The visual effects are crappy, the script it's beyond terrible. Everything happens so fast, the characters are walking clichés.

Got hate it!

Bad Movie!!! Looks like the worst Disney movies i you know what i mean.

Brendan Fraser does it again.It's so bad...clichés after clichés. Don't see this movie without 3d, because it's the only thing that keeps you going.The visual effects are crappy, the script it's beyond terrible. Everything happens so fast, the characters are walking clichés.

Got hate it!

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Fairly Enjoyable, But Still Not Anywhere Near Great, 4 December 2008

Author: Dragoneyed363 from United States

I wasn't dreading watching Journey To The Center Of The Earth, but at the same time I wasn't thinking it was going to be the best movie ever either. Well, when it started up, I immediately became interested because it looked enjoyable and entertaining and I was being fair on it. After awhile, as the movie continued on, I got a little restless, and at points flat out bored and uninterested. It was a good movie, but a lot of things were just unneeded and uninteresting, and also they tried to hard to make a cool, awesome, totally tricked out film when they should've focused a little bit more on plot and character structure.(They tried to hard to please the audience) Well, overall, it was a nice, enjoyable film, but it's nothing that I would just praise down to the very core, because there's not much that absolutely WOWS you throughout the movie, but it entertained, and there were some pretty cool action scenes I guess. Watch with an open mind.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
A 3-D Movie Shot Flat????, 27 July 2008
Author: bobc007 from Dale City, Va

Action movies deserve the CinemaScope treatment. 3-D movies even more so. Why would anyone direct a high octane action picture and not shoot it in either Scope or Super 35? The action scenes and 3-D effects would have been much more enjoyable if they were shot in Scope so the picture in theaters could have been as wide as possible. This picture looks like it was composed for television. That is just unforgivable and ruins the movie.

Note to all directors: if you are making any action picture then shoot so the action is wider and more breathtaking. In fact, shoot everything in CinemaScope so it looks more theatrical.

I was really looking forward to seeing this in 3-D. Yes, the 3-D is terrific, but would have been even better with a picture that would have been 25% wider.

---

---

Page 1 of 16:

[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