Login
''Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the center of the Earth.''
On a quest to find out what happened to his missing brother, a scientist, his nephew and their mountain guide discover a fantastic and dangerous lost world in the center of the earth.
Brendan Fraser: Prof. Trevor Anderson
Journey to the Center of the Earth will readily appeal to its target audience of youngsters and the easily impressed, its a biaare far teched flight of fantasy story won't earn the respect of any long term Jules Verne fan.
The jokes alternate between rather amusing and unsuccessful attempts, but the creative implementation of 3D effects pleasantly surprise, balancing out the whole Journey into a much more digestible plater.
Most people know it isn't possible to travel to the center of the Planet. 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 his brother. Accompanying him is his nephew Sean (Josh Hutcherson) and their attractive mountain guide Hannah (Anita Briem) who join in on his adventurous exploits of discovery and wonder, in a lost land of terrifying creatures and prehistoric threats.
Glowing hummingbirds, magnetic floating rocks, and giant carnivorous plants may sound pretty silly, and that's because they kind of are. However, when such creations are thrown into a 3D movie they become spectacular moments of visual brilliance. Except perhaps the floating rock hybrids.
Journey manifests its main function for existence, and generates an ample amount of creative uses for its medium. From things jumping out of the screen, to more things leaping forth from the screen, Journey wastes no opportunity to throw every manner of object or deadly creature at its perspective 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 a young boy for a young man, a bumbling scientist for a genius professor, and an animated avian for an Icelandic Guide, 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.
The 3D in this film is probably of a better quality, but it basically works in the same way as Spy Kids 3D and Sharkboy & Lavagirl. Once in a while, something will really stretch out of the screen (most often a hand) but most of the time the 3D adds a more real depth to the image, I guess you could state. The effect is certainly interesting, but is it really better than watching a 2D movie? Is Journey in 3D better than Journey in 2D? I couldn't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure it is, the 3D that makes it stand out. But what I mean to say is this: would the Indiana Jones films be better in 3D? or the Die Hard films? etc... Honestly I don't think so. Perhaps when watching a 3D movie on a really humongous screen could it really give a heightened sense of realism, but it would really have to be huge, because the screen I saw it on was already pretty damn big. Thus, I'm really doubtful that 3D is the next big step in cinema. It's fun and cool to see a 3D movie and to have some come out from time to time, but I think 2D should remain the mainstream and I'll even go as far as to say that I believe 2D can be more involving than 3D. After all 3D still isn't that interactive just like 2D, we are still just spectators and watching proceedings. Just like the fact that special effects aren't need to make a masterpiece of film. They are all relevant points in the long run and scheme of things.
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 in a state of boredom and complacency.
If you are looking for a fun movie that you can let your children or young friends watch, and have a few laughs, its not a bad road to take, but there are much better movies or alternatives in the genre.
6/10
