Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

MBunge Back in 2008, there was a big budget remake of Journey to the Center of the Earth. It starred Brendan Fraser, had computer generated dinosaurs and was in 3D. As has become common, someone decided to do a low budget version of the same story. This one stars Ricky Schroder, has the gorgeous scenery of the Canadian wilderness and is very much in 2D. Unlike most of these "mockbuster" knockoffs which stink out loud, this version of Jules Verne's classic tale is a mostly competent piece of family friendly entertainment. If you're looking for something just as wholesome as the 1959 original with James Mason, but with a more modern sensibility and less frenetic than the Fraser rendition, you'll find it here.In late 19th century America, shortly after the purchase of Alaska from Russia, a headstrong heiress (Victoria Pratt) hires an adventuresome anthropologist (Ricky Schroder) to lead an expedition to track down her missing husband (Peter Fonda). With only a handwritten map to guide them and joined by the anthropologist's enthusiastic nephew (Steven Grayhm) and a Russian expatriate (Mike Dopud), the group discover a hidden mine in the hills of Seward's Folly that leads them down into the Earth and a subterranean world of dinosaurs, primitive tribesmen and a prehistoric zip line. After a weirdly-faithful-to-its-setting relearning of the old lesson about the perils of playing god, our intrepid band of terranauts must flee for their lives in a not-that-desperate bid for the surface.Now, while this telling of Journey to the Center of the Earth is low budget, it's not "hand-held camera, made for about $67.29" cheap. All the sets and costumes meet the standards of your average TV movie and director T. J. Scott makes great use of his locations to give the film a much bigger feel and appearance than it could otherwise afford. The budgetary restrictions are noticeable in the rather sedate and basic nature of the film's action sequences. Without the resources to stage very complicated scenes of fighting or other physical peril, director Scott has to resort to other means of generating excitement. He's mostly successful, except for the previously-mentioned prehistoric zip line. That's one of those low budget movie scenes where the filmmakers do it because it's inexpensive and sounds good in theory but turns out to look rather silly on the screen.Ricky Schroder and the other 3 actors in the main roles give quite likable performances, which is good because they're on screen for virtually the entire film. Peter Fonda seems a little disconnected from what's going on, but maybe he was just having some 60s drug flashback during production. The script is completely adequate. It's not especially smart or clever but neither is it grating or insultingly stupid. Director Scott does a good job managing the pace of this essentially G rated melodrama and tries to give the characters a teeny, tiny bit of emotional depth. Given its financial limitations, this Journey to the Center of the Earth is a largely admirable effort.While I think it's the best of the lot, the 1959 James Mason movie is going to be dated in tone and technique to many of today's viewers. If you'd like the same sort of storytelling with a more contemporary style and don't want to be visually assaulted by big budget Hollywood crap, take a gander at this motion picture. You might be pleasantly surprised.

windtar may contain some spoilers, skip if you don't want movie tidbits i expected some good adventure just like the other movies with the same title, but this version of - journey to the center of the earth was pure boredom even the scenes where excitement should of ran high with a viewer, made me just yawn and wonder why....over half the movie was pure boredom, unless u count rick shroeder chasing a thief, which looked like it was filmed in 10 minutes the decent through the earth could have been made so exciting, but in this version, it was like watching a documentary on A&E. WHERES THE ACTION, SNAKES, BUGS, CAVE-IN???? 1 little fall off a ledge, heck, I've had more dramatic falls on vacations, lol why in this age of computer wizardly cant a movie put more excitement and creativity into itself.a bear supposedly attacks horses, they show a 2 second clip of a bear roaring, thats it! horses scatter and after looking for the horses for 2 minutes they say horses are gone? i mean come on, show some mauling prehistoric birds attacking, well, what a joke. i see more action on 1970's land of the lost TV show.the only good graphic in this entire movie was a sea creature jumping up and eating a bird, a whole 10 seconds total.lets talk about the acting.....if they let rick shroeder be more exciting in this flick, it would have been more fun to watch. seems to me they held him back, with poorly written script and directing the woman, martha, did a OK job, but again, script kept her boring now, PETER FONDA! oh good lord, the only reason i think he was in the film was for his name to market this movie. fonda actually ruined this film to the point of fast-forwarding the DVD. he was so boring, so un-emotional, so... blah!! to me he seemed drunk or on medication as he filmed. i coulda found a more exciting and better actor than peter fonda at the local old folks home. and paid him 1/100th as fonda!! this version of JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH was made to make money off its jules verne title alone, cuz the only award it will win from this reviewer is = STINK-A-ROO !!! that being said, its worth a watch if your bored, but if you see another movie on at same time that has a fun sounding title, id choose it over this 2007 version of jules vernes journey to the center of the earth learn by your mistakes Hollywood....

countryshack 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.

arnie_axolotl I cannot help feeling that this was originally a remake of The Lost World which someone changed at the last minute. The plot is much closer to The Lost World and the early scenes look more like night time above ground action than underground. Take away the narration and the plot could easily be one where the characters emerge from a mine into a lost valley rather than a subterranean world.Certainly this has nothing in common with the Jules Verne novel other than the title and the idea that everything takes place underground.With a weak, nonsense-ridden plot( having just discovered an unexplored, underground lake would you immediately send all the men away and go bath in it ? ), poor screenplay, wooden acting, cheap effects( a series of stills to signify travel along an underground river ? - college students can do better ) this is definitely a modern B movie.