Badmovies.org Forum

I had heard nothing about this movie before today. My daughter wanted to go see it, so we went. Brendan Frasier stars as Trevor Anderson, a scientist (he does science; you can trust him) who goes to Iceland to search for clues as to what happened to his brother. His nephew tags along, because every adventure movie needs a kid in it. Add in a hot Icelandic babe/guide, and you've got your formula characters. They accidentally find the entrance to Vernes' "Center of the Earth" world, and wackiness ensues. I'm putting this in the "Good Movies" category because it is fun, but only if you turn your brain off and don't watch it too closely. If you were turned off by Indiana Jones' "escape a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator" stunt, then you probably shouldn't go see this movie; it is full of similarly impossible action. There are also several set-ups that never pay off--e.g., Trevor gives Sean a yo-yo and tells him that yo-yos used to be used as weapons. Sean spends time playing with the yo-yo on screen, and then it just gets dropped. Several details like this occur through the course of the movie, which tells me that either the writers were incapable of writing a tight script or that a lot of material ended up on the cutting room floor. I might have to get ahold of the DVD to see the cut scenes to find out which.

I do wish that there was more of Fraser's goofy antics (a la The Mummy or a toned down George of the Jungle). The movie would have benefitted from more of the comedic stylings that Fraser is so good at. I wouldn't want an out-and-out comedy, but Fraser is very good at mixing comedy and action, and his character seemed too straightlaced overall. There are a few moments, but his scientist-guy character is a little too by-the-numbers.

Sigh . . .
I'll probably end up seeing this one eventually -- maybe 5 or 6 years from now -- but I've still got a real knee-jerk reaction to "adaptations" of literature that take so many liberties with their source material.  I still get rage attacks thinking about "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen".
What I'd love is for someone to simply shoot Verne as Verne wrote it.  I would think it would be engaging enough without love interests, chimpanzees, small children, mariachi bands, or whatever else the modern film-maker feels compelled to add on to "improve" the story.
This one is supposed to be in 3-D, yet you make no mention of that.  Was this a 2-D version, or was the 3-D business so unspectacular that it plumb slipped your mind to address it?
peter johnson/denny let's add strippers!!

This one was the 2-D version; I hadn't heard about the 3-D version. And for the record, this isn't really an adaptation of Vernes. It uses the novel as a starting place (Trevor's brother is a "Vernesian" believer--i.e., that Vernes actually wrote a true account rather than a fictional story), but the movie is its own story (although the Vernes story is undoubtedly better told). I get the impression that the studio hopes this one does well enough to make a sequel--the ending is very much a "Wait for the next exciting adventure of Trevor Anderson" type of deal.

Argh, I hate it already. I don't think any movie will ever top the 1959 movie for me in terms of spectacle, plot and characters. Their reasoning for including a token female was actually handled well, and they actually killed off the cute animal sidekick (!).

Also funny you should mention Indiana Jones, considering the '59 Journey to the Center of the Earth had a giant rolling spherical boulder sequence long before Raiders of the Lost Ark.

And funny you should mention Indiana Jones borrowing a stunt from JttCotE, because this new one pretty directly rips off one of the stunts from Temple of Doom. I won't say which one so as not to spoil anything for anyone, but it is pretty blatant.