Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) User Reviews

Jules Verne's novel, it's true you know?

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 5 January 2012]

Originally released in 3D (I've not seen it in that format, sadly), Eric Brevig's take on the Jules Verne novel updates it to modern day and sends Brendan Fraser, his nephew (Josh Hutcherson) and Icelandic babe Anita Briem down to, well, the centre of the Earth. Where of course peril and wonderment await in equal measure. As adventure films go it's entertaining stuff as the intrepid trio run, dive, jump and fight their way through the hazards of a hot land that's getting hotter by the hour. The kicker in the story here is that they are saying Verne's novel is true, giving birth to a collective of people known as Vernians who believe this to be so. Therefore for plot drive the book is used as a sort of tourist guide to aid them in their attempts to escape from the Centre of the Earth. Cool or what? The production design is excellent, marking the film out as being very visually appealing, while a number of the set pieces are genuinely entertaining and suspenseful. It moves along at a good clip, too, and the three actors carrying the film engage firmly on the good side of good, especially Fraser, who can do the heroic kooky act with ease.

It's far from being a truly great film, but the makers have at least tried to put their own stamp on the story, making it a sort of modern day sequel to the wonderful novel. But even with that in mind, narratively speaking it's very predictable for the most part, but speeding along as a family friendly adventure the film never once outstays its welcome. Of worth as well is that Briem's character, Hannah Ásgeirsson, is not a token female put in simply to look hot and give Fraser the push to prove his masculinity. Ásgeirsson is tough, intelligent and resourceful, working on a par with Fraser's Professor Anderson, this also sets up a running joke involving the two of them as to who saves each others lives the most times! In 2D some of the impact of certain scenes is invariably lost, though we can easily imagine what the 3D sight of Fraser unleashing a mouthful of toothpaste and water on us is like! But as it is it's a film that is unlikely to garner much love from sci-fi buffs and haters of popcorn pleasures, but kids will love it, as will the adults who don't mind letting their guard down once in a while for a bit of good clean family friendly fun. 6/10

Journey to the center of my hurting eyes

[vegeta3986 · 7/10 · 29 October 2008]

I know that title sounds a bit rough, but i did not hate this movie. quite the opposite in fact. i'm actually surprised in how much i enjoyed this movie. i really only rented it for the 3-D, but you know what? i had a lot of fun. and honestly, that was the best movie i've seen Brendan Frasier in since "the mummy". Brendan really is a lot better in action films then he is in comedy or romances. he should stick to action.

The film was a good time all in all. The characters weren't annoying as hell, it was a cute PG plot, and it taught some fun lessons.

I've been looking on the board and seeing that there's a lot of "that couldn't happen!" and "this movie is childish!" OK. look. it's a PG movie called "Journey to the Center of the Earth". It isn't a political documentary. Suspend your disbelief, sit back and enjoy it. Unless of course you want to hand me your 30 page dissertation on why Doc Brown's time machine is an impossibility. If you're not one of those sad lonely people, you'll find this movie quite a lot of fun. Not an epic masterpiece, but a lot of fun.

If i had to voice one problem is that they need to stop giving anaglyph glasses. it kind of hurts your eyes after a while. They have good 3-d glasses, don't they? they give them out in Florida for Terminator and the Muppet show, so why don't they include those? that would definitely make the movie better in my opinion.

Other than my hurting eyes though, this movie was a nice break from monotonous depressing dark plot based films.

With a fun premise, tongue in cheek humor, and decent 3-D effects, Journey to the center of the earth gets 7 glowing birds, out of 10

Jules Verne for kiddies...obviously slanted toward 3D effects...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 29 April 2012]

Brendan Fraser again is an amiable action hero with a young nephew (Josh Hutcherson) in tow for a buddies adventure that includes a pretty (but boring) female guide as Fraser's eventual love interest. Let's fact it--nothing original about the story but it does feature some neat special effects (courtesy of CGI), not all of which are totally convincing, but hey, this is a kiddie romp if ever there was one.

Josh Hutcherson is especially good as the adventurous nephew who trades quips with his fun-loving, equally adventurous uncle who is able to strong arm himself out of every incredible predicament.

The scientific angle of the film is just plain silly but the film is fast moving enough to help us ignore all the lack of credibility angles. The roller-coaster ride in the mine is probably the high point of 3D effects if you can see it in that dimension but it's equally thrilling on a big flat screen TV.

The only real asset the film has, aside from a script that is full of some good byplay between Fraser and Hutcherson, is the fact that the center of the film is Brendan Fraser who has lost none of his appeal as an action hero. He keeps the entertainment factor alive throughout.

Fans of Jules Verne will no doubt forgive a lot of the goings on and view this as light entertainment aimed at kiddies more than grown-ups.

Forget about science or reality and enjoy the ride

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 15 January 2014]

It's been ten years since professor Trevor Anderson (Brendan Fraser)'s brother Max been missing. The university is about to clear Max's lab for storage. His nephew Sean (Josh Hutcherson) is spending 10 days with him while Sean's mother is preparing to move to Canada. Trevor is given a box of Max's stuff. There he finds the Jules Verne book 'A Journey to the Center of the Earth' which Trevor and Sean follow in the track of Max. Once in Iceland, they find Hannah (Anita Briem) who is the daughter of a deceased scientist. Max and the dead scientist both believe in the reality of Jules Verne's book. So Hannah, Sean, and Trevor follow the trail to an unbelievable underground world.

Forget about the science, this is a simple fantasy amusement park ride. Brendan Fraser is the same guy as 'The Mummy'. He's still that charming nice guy. Josh Hutcherson is pretty good, but Anita Briem is kind of cold. Chemistry isn't that necessary. It's a great fun ride nonetheless.

A Fun Movie For Kids Mainly

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 2 November 2008]

Plain and simple: this is a kids' movie. If you're an adult and you saw the previews with some genuinely-scary looking scenes and thought, "Wow, this looks cool" - be warned. Some of it is cool, but most of it isn't.

Most of it is Brendan Franser doing his "George Of the Jungle" routing of yelling and screaming, either trying to find this teen kid or in terror as he falling for being chased by something. In fact, the last half hour of this film will give you headache with all the yelling by all three major parties.

I didn't realize this film was out in 3-D. I saw it on a regular DVD and the special-effects, in 2-D obviously, looked so cheesy. Some of these scenes looked like they were right out of the Tarzan movies of the 1930s with the obvious screen in the background and the actors on a stage in front of it. So, see this 3-D, if possible, otherwise expect it took look pretty bad.

Teen girls in the audience will like Josh Hutcherson ("Sean"), a handsome young kid who looks ad sounds good, until he gets excited and his voice cracks. Ah, the joys of puberty. Meanwhile, teen boys will get an eyeful with Anita Briem ("Hannah"), a very attractive new face. Actually, Anita has a lot of credibility in this role, playing a character living in Iceland who, in real life, was born and raised in Iceland before moving to England at the age of 16.

As for the story, it's a re-make of the famous Jules Verne story about discovering a whole new world (without people) in the center of the earth, complete with amazing birds and frightening animals and fish. Despite the dumbness of the dialog, the first hour was watchable. As with many adventure stories, though, it gets totally carried in the final third of the film.

In all, the movie is fairly entertaining to the degree that adults wouldn't be bored if they took their kids. It's not really offensive except for one stupid play-on-words which is totally unnecessary. Other than that, this is a very clean film safe for kids of most age. There are parts, however, that are way too scary for the real young ones.

See it in 3D. It's unbearable if you don't.

[The_Amazing_Spy_Rises · 5/10 · 12 July 2008]

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

Dumb and silly, but pretty entertaining

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 13 July 2010]

Starting with the pros of this film, it looks fantastic. The scenery is imaginative, the cinematography is inventive the costumes are well-designed and the 3D is absolutely mind-blowing. The score is excellent, and the direction isn't too bad either. The acting is pretty decent, nothing great, but nothing awful. I liked Brendan Fraser in the first two Mummy movies and he is good enough in the lead, while Josh Hutcherson who was so good in Bridge to Terabithia is even better. Also the pacing is pretty brisk.

Don't expect a brilliant script or a big, complex plot though. The script can get a little lame and clichéd, while the plot is rather predictable with one too many silly and dumb moments. The ending felt a little rushed too, and the characters are lacking in depth.

Overall, not a masterpiece, but fun enough in perhaps a mindless sort of way. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Real D made this movie worth it

[niemand_123 · 4/10 · 26 June 2008]

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.

Fairly enjoyable, but still not anywhere near great

[Dragoneyed363 · 6/10 · 4 December 2008]

I was not dreading watching Journey To The Center Of The Earth, but at the same time I was not thinking it was going to be the best movie ever either. I was simply ready to be entertained. Well, when it started up, I immediately became interested, because it looked enjoyable and entertaining and I was being fair on it, no matter how much it was against my nature to try and bash 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 have focused a little bit more on plot and character structure. (They tried to hard to please the audience, as far as I could tell.) The performances were decent enough, I should add, as well.

Well, overall, it was a nice, enjoyable film, but it is nothing that I would just praise down to the very core of the film, or really care to watch again, because there is 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.

3D was the only good part

[tmcona-1 · 4/10 · 27 July 2008]

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.

Silly, but surprisingly enjoyable anyway

[bopdog · 9/10 · 13 July 2008]

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.

A flawed, but entertaining action ride that you'll never want to miss!

[gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297 · 7/10 · 8 August 2012]

To be honest, I've never heard of the 1950s movie based on the book by Jules Verne (I've read it by the way) nor the other adaptations that came out at that time and I've regretted not seeing this in theaters, but after watching this nearly three times in a row on a DVD copy, I actually thought this is a pretty good.

But, don't expect a more complex plot than most action films have because there are a lot of flaws with this movie. The story started out very well in the first few minutes, but later it becomes too obvious with some dumb and silly moments throughout the film. The character depth was lacking at times and the ending felt pretty rushed. The fourth flaw that is even worst is it's clichéd script.

With those flaws aside, everything turned out great. The scenery is very imaginative, the costume designs are perfect and the music from Andrew Lockington is excellent. The acting is pretty decent. Nothing great, but nothing awful. Brendan Fraser did excellent as the leading role, Josh Hutcherson did very good as his nephew and Anita Briem did great as the scientist. The dialog is OK, but nothing special, but the strongest aspect is the visuals for it's sheer excellence in detailing the look of what it's like in the center of the earth. The directing is decent and the pacing is very brisk.

Overall, this movie is flawed but an enjoyable action ride that you'll never want to miss!

Lots of missed potential

[milehighjc · 4/10 · 23 July 2008]

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.

Amusing and lighthearted romp for kids and teenagers based upon the Jules Verne novel

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 5 January 2010]

A scientist(Brendan Fraser, also producer) and his niece (Josh Hutcherson) undergo an hazardous voyage to find clues of his father, along the way they face numerous dangers and risks. During the trip, the scientific and his niece hire a wealthy scout (Anita Briem) to find the father who disappeared several years earlier during an expedition to a center of the earth at Iceland. The trio descend into deep caverns and discover a tunnel-rail system leading to the planet's center. They have to deal with lightning storms, endure torrential floods, volcanic eruptions, prehistoric animals and discover a forest of giant mushrooms, but not the lost city of Atlantis as happens in the classic novel.

This spectacular adaptation is a special version of the Jules Verne adventure yarn . There're rip-roaring action, spirit of adventure, derring-do, thrills and results to be pretty entertaining. It's a great fun with nice special effects , breathtaking set decoration and impressive art direction but with excessive use of computer generator. Lavish utilization of 3D cinematography and superb, imaginative soundtrack . Highlights of the voyage includes a roller-coaster trip, strong storms, magnetic rocks, a terrifying odyssey in sailing, prehistoric reptile, a Tiranosaurius Rex, and many others.

Other renditions about this know story are the following : Classic version (1959) by Henry Levin with James Mason as Lindenbrook, Pat Boone,Diane Baker and Arlene Dahl; Spanish version by Juan Piquer with Kenneth Moore, and TV adaptation by George Miller with Treat Williams, Jeremy London and Bryan Brown.

Pretty good stuff

[masterofsillythings · 6/10 · 2 August 2008]

Don't go and see 'Journey' if you're expecting either a solid interpretation of the Jules Verne novel, or a thrilling summer blockbuster. 'Journey' is light hearted fun, but as a piece of light hearted fun, it excels.

The story centres (no pun intended) around publicly abhorred professor Trevor Anderson (Brendan Fraser) whose lab in New York faces closure just as things are getting exciting (cough cough) with his research into volcanic something or other, a project derived from his obsession with the unexplained disappearance of his late brother. To further complicate things Trevor gets landed with his smart alec techy nephew Sean (Josh Hutcherson) and thus premieres a generic 'odd couple' relationship as the stuffy academic trades words and yo-yos with his post-mod companion.

Anyway, as soon as this gets underway, Trevor finds an excuse to jet off to Iceland where for one reason or another he descends two hundred feet into a volcano and after one big 3D disaster leads to another, he finds himself (big shock) at the centre of the earth, wherein he, Sean and annoying Icelandic guide Hannah (some unknown Icelandic actress making her unconvincing debut) encounter all manner of 3D perils and wonders including carnivorous plants, troublesome fish, massive great geyser thingies, and the impending doom threatened by an up and coming volcanic thermal heating up whereby everything gets roasted...oh, and a dinosaur...he's cool :D.

The good stuff? The storyline is a lot more cut to the chase than I've made it sound, the 3D effects are cracking, and despite being landed with the name 'Trevor', Brendan Fraser makes for a great lead. I've always been a casual fan of his since seeing the Mummy as a child, and whilst this role isn't much of a challenge for the erstwhile Fraser, he commands the screen when he's present and is thoroughly entertaining throughout. The kid who plays Sean is decent support as well. There are some truly great visuals, and although the mine cart chase disappoints, the raft ride does not; it's a visual feast and a great action piece that would be perfect if not for the 'we're on a fishing trip' line thrown in by Hutcherson.

The bad stuff? Hannah Asgeirsson is cringeworthy as the love interest/ guide figure, a character it is impossible to like or even find interesting. The storyline is pretty predictable, and in terms of story and set pieces, 'Journey' doesn't really offer anything that hasn't been done before, and often better. A couple of the jokes fall flat, and the 3D glasses are pretty annoying, although probably not nearly as bad as the film would be in 2D; I can only assume it loses much of its merit.

So 'Journey' is never going to compete with previous genre flicks such as Jurassic Park, but it never really sets out to, which is the salvation of the film; everything is done with a casual wink to the audience; we're all in on the joke that the film is a bit naff. Whilst you're in the cinema it's great fun, but on reflection 'Journey' is little more than a memory jog of better films. Go for the 3D cinema experience, but don't bother with the DVD, because the more you watch this, it's probably going to become more and more tired.

Ultimately, Journey to the centre of the earth is a solid family film that thankfully never tries to be anything more. Good summer fun, and the finest effects you'll see this summer.

Complete waste of time, avoid seriously....

[adam-1093 · 1/10 · 29 March 2009]

Watched that film after reading some good reviews and expected to get a simple adventure movie kind of entertainment, but sadly this movie does not even deliver anything.

Film plot does make a sense in the beginning and main characters try to create some kind of comic dialogues and then slowly discover a mystery behind past events narrowly mentioned. Then film rolls on with out any sensible plot and with number and boring dialogues and even absurd geological ideas. Still, it's a Hollywod production but even a small children know that boiling water must burns and so does lava. Any physical reasonable laws are awfully denied by scenes and then you start to think that whole story does not make any sense at all. Film refers to Indiana Jones and perhaps some other great adventure movies done in 80s but it only copies it badly with some lame blue screen effects. In addition you watch an unexpected love affection plot with poorly dialogues and acting. Perhaps only good thing about that film is a few CGI scenes but that is just a narrow part of a film.

This film for sure will entertain children between age of 5-9 but no one else. Please, save you precious time and use it watch Indiana Jones series again instead of this one.

Entertaining Adventure

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 13 November 2008]

Professor Trevor Anderson (Brendan Fraser) receives his teenager nephew Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson) that will spend ten days with him while his mother Elizabeth Anderson (Jane Wheeler) prepares to move to Canada. She gives a box to Trevor that belonged to his missing brother Max Anderson and Trevor finds a book with references to the last journey of his brother. He decides to follow the steps of Max with Sean and they travel to Iceland, where they meet the guide Hannah Ásgeirsson (Anita Briem). While climbing a mountain, there is a thunderstorm and they protect themselves in a cave. However, a lightening collapses the entrance and the trio is trapped in the cave. They seek an exit and falls in a hole, discovering a lost world in the center of the Earth.

This nth version of the classic novel of Jules Verne is an entertaining adventure. The characters are nice and there is a strong chemistry between Brendan Fraser and the unknown Anita Briem. However, the strongest part of this enjoyable movie is certainly the special effects. I have just seen this movie on DVD, but for those viewers that saw it in 3D in the movie theaters, the impact was certainly bigger and bigger. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Viagem ao Centro da Terra" ("Journey to the Center of the Earth")

Cute movie, not to be taken seriously.

[TxMike · 22 November 2008]

The DVD has both the regular version of the movie, and on the flip side the 3-D version, and 3-D glasses are included in the package. The 3-D is fun to watch, especially the scene where the weird fish were coming at you, but you sacrifice a lot in detail and color. So we watched the whole movie in the regular version.

Brendan Fraser is Prof. Trevor Anderson who has been studying a theory for a number of years, without apparent progress, and he is about to lose his funding and lab space.

His young nephew is Josh Hutcherson as Sean Anderson, whose dad, Trevor's scientist brother, disappeared 10 years earlier. Sean is dropped off for a 10 day visit with Trevor and then the fun begins. They travel to Iceland to pursue a theory about Jules Verne's book being more than just fiction.

In Iceland they meet young, pretty Anita Briem as Hannah Ásgeirsson, the daughter of the deceased scientist Trevor traveled to see. But she offers to be their guide to the mountain to check on one of his remote sensors. Then the real fun begins.

They all get trapped in a cave, which then leads to an old mining operation, which then leads to a cavern of exquisite, large, pure diamonds, which leads to a fragile floor, which leads to a free-fall down a very deep shaft. They end up in a pool of water, in an underground paradise, just as was described in words and drawings in the book.

So the movie is their quest to find a way out, and in the process they find the remains of Sean's long lost father.

Not a very meaningful movie but still fun to watch, especially because the three main actors are very likable.

SPOILERS: They eventually figure out that an underground geyser can get them back to the surface, and when it does they get spit out of a volcano in the Italian wine country. Sean had managed to pack away a pound or so of the giant, pure diamonds so with his new-found wealth Trevor was able to plan for his own lab to pursue his studies, with Hannah at his side.

Real-D (3-D) has a future and this film is a glimpse of it ...

[Vic_max · 5/10 · 25 July 2008]

Real-D, 3-D, is coming and this film is the first live action movie that showcases the technology. Many more such films are on their way, fortunately.

This film is really great for young children. They were the ones in the audience that were having the most fun: gasping out loud at the 3-D effects and clapping after the show was over.

For everyone else though, it has some problems. The 3-D special effects and underground set designs are great, but the story and characters are aimed at kids (not the parents and their kids, just the kids).

The story is basically about a professor that goes searching for his missing brother at a volcanic site in Iceland. Accompanied by a female mountain guide and his young nephew, they accidentally become entrapped in a cave. When they start looking for a way out, they end up falling deep under the ground and discover an underground realm ... and the story progresses from there.

As reasonably straightforward as the story sounds, there is no way to describe how full of plot holes and unrealistic depictions of reality are present. These are a problem in almost every scene. Perhaps the most memorable one is when the young nephew gets a cell phone call from his mom while he is at "the center of the Earth". That's really great cell service, sign me up.

While Brenden Frasier can be fun to watch, his character here is just not interesting. He's more a kid's version of an adult than a real one. In fact, the best acting seems to come from the kid (Josh Hutcherson). However, his character is about as predictable and clichéd as the other two. (If you're a young kid in the audience, this doesn't matter.)

The only thing this movie has going for it comes from the production end. Many of the special effects are like a ride at Disneyland. The very effective use of 3-D in lots of fun scenes is terrific - the roller-coaster-like mining cars scene, the hovering magnetic rock scene and more were all great. Also, the beautiful set designs of just about everything in the underground world was fantastic to look at.

So: if you you're a very young child, you have it made - this is like a ride at Disneyland. For everyone else ... it really is like Disneyland. Expect to get on the Dumbo ride; if you don't think too hard, it can be a little fun.

Entertaining schlock

[funkyfry · 6/10 · 1 November 2009]

Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is probably one of the last sci-fi classics that really was screaming for a new 21st Century film version. While Hollow Earth sci-fi was extremely popular in the late 19th Century, its implausibility is generally apparent at this point even to the unwashed masses. Who knows why the producers decided to pick this particular story? Maybe it was in the public domain. It's certainly not sacrosanct, but seems a bit silly.

Granted that the premise is silly, the treatment is thankfully goofball enough that it's all of a kind. If they had tried a more serious treatment, the film itself would be a total joke. But it's full of winking and nodding, not exactly "camp" but definitely cheezy. I enjoy these types of stories, so I didn't mind watching the film at all. I had a few good laughs, saw some decent action scenes, etc. The love story seemed pointlessly grafted onto the story, even objectionable in the fact that Anita Briem really does look closer in age to Brendan Fraser's movie nephew (Josh Hutcherson) than to Fraser. Hutcherson himself has very little to add to the film, but I wouldn't mind seeing more of Briem.

Basically I didn't think the movie was much better or worse than similar recent films like "National Treasure." I'm sure the 3D effects enhanced it in the theater, but I didn't see it in that presentation. For my money, Brendan Fraser is perfectly fun in these types of movies. He reminds me of people who used to do this type of film like John Agar and Doug McClure. People who enjoyed him in his "Mummy" movies will enjoy him in this. Those who find him annoying will find nothing new here to redeem him.

The movie scores some points for being slightly unpredictable (I was sure that the boy's father would end up being alive, and turned into a mad villain of some type). It's not an ambitious film, so I would say that it hit the marks it was trying to hit.

Dumb, Predictable 3 -D Vehicle

[qormi · 1/10 · 28 July 2008]

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.

Big, dumb, Summer Fun

[simonparker1990 · 8/10 · 12 July 2008]

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.

It's not a remake of anything

[bousozoku · 6/10 · 12 July 2008]

Sure, they're on the Earth's surface and then, they're inside. That's where the similarities end.

There is a story attached to it and the book by Jules Verne is only a part of the story, not the story itself.

How many times have we seen the reluctant, sometimes sarcastic teen dumped on relatives to end up being a better, more rounded person? That's what happens here. Through progressive struggles, Sean ends up being ready for anything and even has closure concerning his long lost dad.

The dad, it seems, was part of a secret society of people who believe that what Jules Verne wrote was fact, not fiction and it turns out to be true.

The characters were real enough to make the audience feel for them, though maybe a bit thin and it's really only about the three principal characters plus the missing dad/brother. They build some haphazard relationships between themselves. Perhaps, it was stronger than that but my cynicism sees it as a bit thinner.

The actors did a reasonable job with the computer generated bits and pieces and the CG bits and pieces were nicely integrated. It was obvious that the film was made for 3D but worked just fine in 2D. It didn't look like the typical film where they spent 99% of their time pushing the 3D effects on you. I only wish the local cinema had the 3D equipment.

It wasn't great (not much is) but it was worth watching.

Bad. Only good thing is the 3D

[setolovesmoney321 · 4/10 · 31 July 2008]

I was really disappointed in this movie. Now, most kids are gonna say, "Oh Dude, It's the best Movie ever! Go see it right now!" Okay, I'm 12, and I heard that from almost everyone. I was VERY disappointed. The only good thing was the 3D. The acting, script and Plot, were pretty bad and Outdone! Hell, the best thing was that the new 3D glasses won't make you dizzy or blind! The movie, is pretty boring, like I said. The glasses are kinda nerdy, but if your going to a movie and expecting some sorta new, awesome glasses to look "cool," then your in the wrong place. Overall: If it's in 3d, go see it JUST for the 3d. If it's not... AVOID!!!

Score:

3D: 4/10 Normal: 2/10

Fairly enjoyable, but still not anywhere near great

[alexpeychev · 7/10 · 23 March 2023]

I was not dreading watching Journey To The Center Of The Earth, but at the same time I was not thinking it was going to be the best movie ever either. I was simply ready to be entertained. Well, when it started up, I immediately became interested, because it looked enjoyable and entertaining and I was being fair on it, no matter how much it was against my nature to try and bash 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 have focused a little bit more on plot and character structure. (They tried to hard to please the audience, as far as I could tell.) The performances were decent enough, I should add, as well.

Well, overall, it was a nice, enjoyable film, but it is nothing that I would just praise down to the very core of the film, or really care to watch again, because there is 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.