Voyage au centre de la Terre

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.

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.

This film tries to adapt to the cinema the sci-fi novel "Journey to the Center of the Earth" by Jules Verne. Book and author are even abundantly referred in the film. However, it creates a new story around the book that is a far cry from what was written by Verne. To begin with, this film doesn't happen in the nineteenth century but rather during our time and the original novel was about a scientific expedition into a volcano, not an occasional incident that runs by chance. The script is pretty basic and far-fetched, runs over science in favor of dramatic effect and abuses the usual clichés of adventure movies, with poorly constructed and undeveloped characters escaping from certain death always at the last moment. There is a lot of silly stuff in this movie and it harms it's quality. The film has a nice cinematography and the fast pace that it takes, along with its short lenght, helps to make it more enjoyable because we forget mistakes and failures that we would be thinking about, focusing on what is happening.

About the actors I can only say that the cast is regular, tries hard but doesn't have much quality material on which to show talent. Brendan Fraser is the sounding name here, but it doesn't surprise the audience. His character is similar to what he had in "The Mummy", reason why it doesn't require a major effort of the actor, whose career fell into the doldrums after his sudden success. Anita Briem is a perfect stranger to me but plays the hot girl contested by the good guys while Josh Hutcherson is the revolted teenager.

In short, this movie is the typical adventure movie in which nothing is credible but makes the public have fun, with appropriate doses of humor and action, some silly romance and a forgettable story. Worth watching if you just want some quick entertainment.

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

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