Avis des utilisateurs

Yet again this adaptation of Jules Verne's classic has very little do with the source material and entirely goes off on a tangent!

Starring the always lovely Victoria Pratt, industry veteran Peter Fonda and a man I know only from the Whiskey Lullaby music video named Ricky Schroder.

It tells an entirely new tale with our party venturing to the center of the earth in search of someone and coming across a far smaller array of creatures, instead a lost civilization of "Natives". No Atlantis here, or for that matter much from Verne's tale.

With that Scyfy original feel and a weak script this simply isn't a very good movie, however credit has to be given in some areas.

For a start it looks great, it's some of the best cinematography I've seen lately and it does the movie a world of good. Though the film is low on creature effects the ones it does use are better than you'd expect due to clever use of shading, blurring and filters. What I'm trying to say is the sfx aren't great, but they've done a really good job hiding that fact.

Visually this version is a treat, for entertainment value it's more than slightly lacking.

The Good:

Some wonderful cinematography

Victoria Pratt

Beautiful settings

Time appropriate

The Bad:

Not exactly loyal to the source material

Rather dull

Lighthearted romp for kids and teenagers based upon the Jules Verne book. An anthropologist named Jonathan Breck (Rick Schroder) and his niece (Steven Grayhm) undergo a hazardous voyage hired by Martha Dennison (Victoria Pratt) to find clues of her husband Edward (Peter Fonda) who disappeared five years earlier during an expedition to the center of the earth in Alaska (at the original novel is Iceland) recently bought to Russia. The trio along with a Russkie scout descend into deep caverns and discover a way leading to the planet's center. They have to deal with numerous risks, dangers, endure torrential floods, prehistoric animals and discover a forest with a lost tribe but not the lost city of Atlantis as happens in the classic novel.

This inferior adaptation is a special version of the Jules Verne adventure yarn . There're rip-roaring action, spirit of adventure, derring-do, thrills, but results to be quite boring. It's a brief fun with average special effects , passable set decoration , functional art direction and minimum use of computer generator. Acceptable cinematography, being filmed in Columbia British , Canada and atmospheric soundtrack . Highlights of the voyage includes a roller-coaster trip, a terrifying odyssey in sailing, with appearance of prehistoric reptile such as Plesiosaurius , Pterodactilus, and many others events. The film is produced in low budget by the usual Robert Halmi Sr. and Jr. who had formerly produced another version directed by George Miller , plus financed Jules Verne's 20.000 leagues under the sea(1997) directed by Michael Anderson. The motion picture is middling directed by T. J. Scott.

Other versions about this known story are the following : Classic adaptation (1959) by Henry Levin with James Mason as Lindenbrook, Pat Boone,Diane Baker and Arlene Dahl; Spanish version (1976)by Juan Piquer with Kenneth Moore , Jack Taylor, and TV adaptation by George Miller with Treat Williams, Jeremy London and Bryan Brown and another inferior television picture (2008)by David Jones with Greg Evigan and Dedee Pfeiffer. And of course, recent and successful take on filmed in 3D, produced and starred by Brendan Fraser with Anita Briem and Josh Hutcherson. Rating : Below average.

It's always difficult for me to watch a movie after having read the book it's allegedly based upon. Anyways, I decided to try this one, and I have to say I can't find any part of it that'd be based on the Jules Verne novel (except the title, of course). It's amazing to see how professor Otto Lidenbrock from Hamburg became Jonathan Brock, his nephew Axel became Abel, how his Danish guide Hans Bjelke morphed into Sergei Petrov, and how the expedition that originally started in ICELAND at the end of June, suddenly changed to Alaska in September. But most important is the complete lack of respect for the original plot and its characters, to the point that the movie shares nothing with the book they say it follows. I do understand that most books can not be adapted faithfully to the screen, but there's a difference between taking a few creative licences and making a completely different story. So, I'd like to ask Mr. William Gray to, PLEASE, read the book before saying his script is based upon it, or otherwise take the credits (and responsibilities) of signing his own stories.

I Loved the original version in 1959 with James Mason and, since movie making has had 50 years to improve, I guess that I was expecting So Very Much More. Phew! This movie was a terrible let down. Maybe if I would have seen it on the big screen I could have given it a 3....maybe. Unfortunately, I had to watch it on TV with a commercial every 10 minutes. There is No Doubt in my mind that I would have turned it off after the 1st 10 minutes except for the fact that I was editing out the commercials for a friend of mine so that she could watch it when she got home.

I'd say that if you Love soap opera's and you are addicted to the 'Lifetime' channel, than give it a spin. However, if you are more in tune to good movie making(story, plot, acting, etc), than avoid this nonsense like the plague.

Despite its name, the movie has a very low sci-fi feel to it. I felt I was watching something more akin to a western travel adventure than anything else. Outside of that, it was pretty innocent and mild - like a low-budget family movie. Nothing great here.

Basically, this is a story about a wealthy lady who enlists the help of an anthropologist to help find her missing husband. He was on a quest to find a passage into the earth - but hasn't been heard from in 4 years. With the help of two other men, they try to retrace her husband's path.

Although there is no suspense, thrill or anything like that, the movie has a pleasant tone to it that almost makes it an "OK" way to pass 2 hours. However, unless you're looking for something to watch while you fall asleep, pass on this.

A half-baked remake of the 1959 classic, and it lacks one rather important feature -- an actual journey to the Center of the Earth! Instead, the viewer is treated to a world within a world (the Earth is hollow -- who'd have guessed?!?) where there is a sky and actual sunlight (how else would vegetation grow?? the bigger question is: how does a star exist within the center of the Earth and not burn it to cinders?) The actors are passable, not good. The characters are foolish: the main female character decides to take a swim in a lake.Nobody bothers to tell her "Strange world, stay on the land." (A lake, one asks?? Yes, if there's sunlight, how could there not be lake? If one must be stupid, well then, lets be completely stupid.A good point: the only consistency in the movie is stupidity, so go with the flow, must have been the thinking. If they'd thought less, it might have gotten better.) Then,throw in to the mix, the usual "savages," indigenous to this world and an us vs. the savages ending and you have nothing out of the normal. Oh, by the way, everyone talks in 20th century English, as usual, although it's the 19th century. Writers lack any sense of the speech of different eras, common in writers under the age of 30. Watch. Snooze.

You never know what to expect from a title like this one.

I found the movie to be entertaining and acting very good.

Ricky Schroder does an admirable job with a script that needed some more development. I liked seeing him as an action hero and explorer. The special effects were quite well done. A family movie that the whole gang can enjoy. Peter Fonda is fun as an explorer who becomes a "God" within the earth. The story has nice plot points and satisfies its intended audience. The supporting cast does an all around good job. Scenery was beautiful and production values quite high. I think the wardrobe was quite well conceived and the props looked good as well. I give it a strong 7.

Here we have yet another film adaptation of the popular Jules Verne's novel "Journey to the Center of the Earth". Here, the cast is led by Rick Schroeder as it again tells of explorers finding a passage into the core of the planet where dinosaurs, primitive people, and a whole lost world still exist. I am not that familiar with the novel or many of the movies based upon it, but this 2008 version is a poor adaptation. There were many things I had to complain about it and few to compliment about it. Performances were good, but just about everything else fell short of expectations.

The best part of the movie, believe it or not, was not while the characters were in the center of the Earth. Rather, it was while they were on the surface and even then, it wasn't that entertaining. I strongly felt the cinematography was too bright and gave the movie a feeling of schlock and no authenticity. The screenplay was rather poor, unorganized, and many scenes had little or no point. Such as this part where a bear allegedly attacks the characters and scares away the horses. We see the characters shooting, hear a bear growling, and that's all. Special effects weren't that great either. For dinosaurs, we see giant birds (not pterodactyls) and a plesiosaurus. Both were achieved with rather shoddy computer graphics. The creatures took up very little of the film and created no sense of marvel or majesty about themselves, which is what one wants to see in a movie like this. A lost world should be treated with majesty and magnificence.

Bottom line, the 2008 film adaptation of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" was a very bland uninteresting film that took its time at developing itself and made very little sense. I suppose it is worth looking at once, but I'm in no itching hurry to view it a second time.

The story is a timeless classic, and while I was dubious of seeing this version of Journey to the Center of the Earth I watched it because I love the story, and I loved the 1959 film, liked the 2008 Brendan Fraser film(though it is nothing amazing) and was marginally entertained by the 1989 version. But I found myself bored and frustrated by this version. The only real redeeming quality was the atmospheric soundtrack. Other than that, I didn't enjoy this one bit. The production values didn't really impress me, the costume and set design are okay-looking but I felt they lacked authenticity, however the photography was often too bright for my tastes. But they are nothing compared to the script, story and acting which range from bad to diabolical. The script was weak in delivery and very stilted, while the story is dull in pace, soulless in spirit and has no thrills really. The action is uninspired, either hurriedly shot, uninteresting in choreography or far too brief in length, and for anyone wondering about fidelity to the book( not always a problem with me as long as the adaptation in question maintains the spirit), forget it, only the title seems to be unscathed. The acting ranges from over-eager, Ricky Schroder tries hard but the under-par material severely eludes him, to disengaged, Peter Fonda is so dull here that a lot of the performance actually begged for a steroid shot. It doesn't help that the characters are unlikeable and in some cases underwritten and mostly made to do foolish things. Overall, awful and uninteresting, and by far the worst version to bear the name of the classic story, and the only one of the four versions I've seen so far to completely miss the point of the story. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Really disappointed with the movie after all the hype about being a remake of Journey To The Center Of The Earth. I thought with all the modern technology in movie making, it would have a lot more flash than the original. But the original with Pat Boone is still the best. I watched this new movie until the end but after wards, I thought maybe this was part one since I was still waiting for them to get to the center of Earth!! Maybe this is the start of a series??? Anyways, on top of that, ION 38 kept popping up promos for their other shows at the bottom of the screen throughout the movie. That made the movie even worse.

As Stevenson once said "to travel is a better thing than to arrive". Unfortunately, this TV movie doesn't offer neither travel nor destination worthwhile. The travel through the Earth is dull and rushed: expect no thrill and no wonderment. And when they arrive in the center of the Earth, all looks exactly the same than the surface, with a sepia tone. The last part adds to the Verne's novel a very forgettable story about Indians and a lost husband that will make us want to run away from this place as soon as possible... and to condemn the entrance of the cave to prevent from returning by mistake.

America has just purchased Alaska. Martha Dennison (Victoria Pratt) hires adventurer scientist Jonathan Brock (Ricky Schroder) to lead an expedition to find her husband Edward Dennison (Peter Fonda) who is lost in a mine near a lake under a dormant volcano in Alaska. Abel Brock (Steven Grayhm) joins his uncle leaving behind his girlfriend in search for adventure. Local Sergei Petkov (Mike Dopud) helps guide them on their journey. The mine can only be seen on one day of the year.

This is a lower budget re-envisioning of the classic story. By itself, it's not a deal breaker. It's an adventure no matter where it is set. That's really what's missing. It doesn't have the thrills of adventure or the awes or the wonder. They are trying to make a TV movie with next to nothing stretching out the story. There are lots of scenes of wilderness and underground walking. It has no tension. It gets really boring and never picks up the pace. The underground oasis is basically outside with some yellowing and slight changing of the sky. The yellowing makes the movie look even cheaper. None of it is too impressive. There are attempts at CG creatures that look 2nd rate. The whole movie is 2nd rate.

Expecting something alike Henry Levin's Journey is insane just to start, this small picture was in same level the ultimate Brendan Frasier's Journey that was a flop, with those countless blue screen, instead this tight budge was shot on location at British Columbia Canada, on a wild ground, made for TV and video, the picture is enough enjoyable, despite too compressed in 90 minutes, should be more expanded, l'd a lot of others remakes of Jules Verne's classic novel, l've know put them in their right place, but no one has the lowest grade as rated from some here, expect another masterpiece as made at glorious days at 1959 means don't understand that the times change for good, I've enjoy it as an average production, the landscape is fabulous and the story is pretty decent !!

Resume:

First watch: 2009 / How many: 2 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6.5

The film is not an amateur job and is not "so bad it's good." It's just bad. I pause after one-third of the running time, and the adventurers are STILL not into the hole. We've had a lot of backstory not found in the book or the decent 50's film, so what you may recall from those earlier works--forget it. The film begins in San Francisco, and goes downhill from there, even without having a hole to go down. The other comments indicate that it does not get better, and I can take those comments to heart if I decide to bail on the whole project. I see this film was released the same year as another misbegotten version of this story. I did see that Brendan Fraser opus and hated it. I have an image of Jules Verne spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken. Who could go wrong with the terrific story Verne wrote?

A sincere acting job by Mr. Schroder with good dialog. I enjoyed his work very much compared to the effort by Brendan Fraiser in his version of the movie. He is very serious; I found Brendan to be very goofy and I could not watch his version.

Rick Schroder's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (2008) offers a more earnest and serious take on Verne's classic, showcasing Schroder's sincere performance. In contrast, Brendan Fraser's 2008 version adds a lighter, more adventurous tone, with Fraser delivering a goofier and more comedic portrayal. Both adaptations bring unique interpretations, with Schroder emphasizing authenticity and Fraser focusing on entertainment.

I actually thought this film was interesting mainly BECAUSE it took some liberties and deviated from all the other versions of this work. It actually made more sense to me the way it was done here. I thought it looked pretty nice also and it was cool seeing Peter Fonda in a role that seemed to really fit him.

The biggest problems with the film were casting. Other than Fonda and the guy playing the Russian I felt the actor choices were not the best. I have nothing against the guy from Silver Spoons but he really seemed pretty ill at ease most of the time. He and the leading lady Victoria Platt had zero chemistry...nada. I would have liked somebody like Sean Patrick Flanery playing the lead. Another problem were the costumes worn by the Indians.....I think they could have come up with a look a bit more unique than what they did. They didn't look terrible but just seemed to me to be to much like typical Indians as opposed to a tribe that had been living beneath the surface of the earth for centuries.

I wouldn't say this was the best movie I've ever seen but it helped me pleasantly pass a couple of hours. It was pretty unique actually, some good concepts put forward. Certainly a lot better than a 4.5 which is what it scored here. I usually appreciate it when someone comes at a classic yarn with a slightly different angle than the original. This is called being CREATIVE and there isn't so much of that in Hollywood today with all the reliance on computers to dazzle folks with eye candy.