Took the kids today. The movie itself is a trifle - basically one long amusement park ride, but technically it's impressive. Nearly every shot takes advantage of the 3-D process and that process seems to be improving by leaps and bounds. If you've got kids or are just a big 3-D fan it might be worth your while.

I can't imagine sitting through the 2D version though. :p

. . . I can't imagine sitting through the 2D version though. :pYeah, it probably falls flat. :o

...ouch...

Let me see:

Summer, amusement park style movie, some popcorn, the kid.

Sounds like a great combo to me!

Huzz

Is it playing in IMAX?

Took the kids today. The movie itself is a trifle - basically one long amusement park ride, but technically it's impressive. Nearly every shot takes advantage of the 3-D process and that process seems to be improving by leaps and bounds. If you've got kids or are just a big 3-D fan it might be worth your while.

I can't imagine sitting through the 2D version though. :p
I've seen the trailers. I'll be sure to bring dramamine.

From what I've heard it sounds pretty dire and I don't think Jules Verne would be pleased having his great story turned into mindless drivel.

From what I've heard it sounds pretty dire and I don't think Jules Verne would be pleased having his great story turned into mindless drivel.Considering the various mediocre-to-awful film and TV adaptations of Journey to the Center of the Earth in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, not to mention two pretty bad 1997 TV versions of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and the 1958 snooze-fest From the Earth to the Moon, old Jules probably won't find it worth the trouble to roll over in his grave more than once or twice.

Considering the various mediocre-to-awful film and TV adaptations of Journey to the Center of the Earth in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, not to mention two pretty bad 1997 TV versions of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and the 1958 snooze-fest From the Earth to the Moon, old Jules probably won't find it worth the trouble to roll over in his grave more than once or twice.


Yeah, but did any previous version have multiple "Spit-Takes" (both human and dino), "Yo-Yo" shots, and sh*t jokes? I think not. Might be worth a half a turn from Mr. Verne at least. :p

[IMG-LEFT]http://library.duke.edu/blogs/music/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/verne.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]




"C'est un film de merde!!"

And let us not forget the classic musical treatment from Rick Wakeman. Wow, man. Far out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcUgVY-Jq-8&feature=related


Not to mention the Saturday morning animated TV series.

http://www.unique-visions.com/Journey%20to%20the%20Center%20of%20the%20Earth%20A nimated.jpg

From what I've heard it sounds pretty dire and I don't think Jules Verne would be pleased having his great story turned into mindless drivel.

A 3-D movie with a thin and/or goofy plot?

Didn't see that coming:cool:

My family really enjoyed it. My daughter wanted to see it so we went for an early birthday present for her. As it turned out I thought it had enough story and background plot, and I could easily imagine tie-in's to at least the old one from the 1950's? The 3D effects were very good, but some images got blurry when something came too 'close' to me. The look of the scenes and creatures was quite interesting to me, and some of the concepts were ones I hadn't considered before. There was one too-cutesy moment which took me out of the 'reality' of the story, but otherwise I very much liked the movie, and would even without the 3D. But it DID help and definitely added to the movie.

I can't imagine sitting through the 2D version though. :p

I went to a 3D movie once, but one of the lenses in my glasses fell out... After that, I could only see length...

I went to a 3D movie once, but one of the lenses in my glasses fell out... After that, I could only see length...

Thank you ladies and germs! I just flew in from L.A. and, Boy! are my arms tired!:p

I went to a 3D movie once, but one of the lenses in my glasses fell out... After that, I could only see length...Funny you should mention that. Just the other day, I was walking down the street and all of a sudden I couldn't see a thing. The prescription for my eyeglasses ran out!

Funny you should mention that. Just the other day, I was walking down the street and all of a sudden I couldn't see a thing. The prescription for my eyeglasses ran out!

thank you for that! It is 8:40 am and I just laughed out loud. I love it when I start the day this way!

You can thank Steven Wright for that one. :rolleyes:

I went to a 3D movie once, but one of the lenses in my glasses fell out... After that, I could only see length...

I'm afraid your comment (like the movie) lacks depth. :hat:

... I don't know about a 3d version. I probably wouldn't see it. I DID enjoy the movie, just not that much.
It (the regular version) was fun and payed tribute to the novel. Although anyone going in should undertand that within the film the novel exists so in a way this film is (IMO) intended as a tribute to the novel.

I told my wife that they made it hoping to interest kids in reading the classics. ;)

I saw it yesterday at work. Hooooleeey cow that was a serious stinker! The whole 3D aspect was really poorly executed! Most shots I saw were plain broken. Clearly the live action crew didn't share camera interoccular information with the CG crew because only a few shots in the entire film matched up. Gave me a headache. Bad compositing and inconsistencies were everywhere. And I don't think the actors did that great a job pretennding to look at "not there" objects on the greenscreen stage. Nor did the artists do a good job of putting those objects in space so the actors could've been looking at them.

Having worked on two orevious Imax 3d projects and working on an ultimate 3d project right now, I found this to be a new low for the medium. All of my colleagues agreed.

Then there is the inane gimmickery of the whole thing. Man you never heard so many groans in the audience everytime something was intentionally shoved at the camera to slap you in the face that this movie was, OMFG, THREE DEE!!!!! WOOOOOO!!!!

yawn. :rolleyes:

And of course the wooden acting, a plot thinner than the anorexic female sidekick, and generally poorly executed, low-budget effects. I'm amazed that this movie made 20-million in its first week. Especially considering the excellent crop of summer entertainment out there right now.

Sheesh! :(

The original movie was one of my childhood favorite classic movies.

It was a rainy day here so the whole family went to this after lunch. I have to say that IMHO the 3D effects were quite good. The image throughout the entire film was bright and sharp. Perhaps others saw this at a theatre where the projector was not properly focussed? And the 3D glasses were much better quality than the last time I saw a 3D movie.

If this is an example of what can be done, then I'd really look forward to the rumored 3D theatrical re-release of the Star Wars Original Trilogy films.

Huzz

Oh yes - you can find the original James Mason version in Wal Mart bins for a mere $5.00 in Canada - probably less Stateside.

Huzz

From what I've heard it sounds pretty dire and I don't think Jules Verne would be pleased having his great story turned into mindless drivel.

I just saw this film today and liked it for the 3D effects and it's appeal to children. The main actor was silly and continually coming close to death by not paying attention at the edge of a cliff, or somthing. He's not exactly someone you would expect to undertake a journey like this and actually survive. The film makes use of allot of CGI, but, it was done well. My 15 year old son liked it, so it was worth the money, if just for that.

Roland :thumbsup:

yawn. :rolleyes:

And of course the wooden acting, a plot thinner than the anorexic female sidekick, and generally poorly executed, low-budget effects. I'm amazed that this movie made 20-million in its first week. Especially considering the excellent crop of summer entertainment out there right now.

Sheesh! :(

Nova Designs,

I read your review of the film to my son. He didn't like your negative review. I explained to him that someone technical sees things that the average person or child won't catch. What movies have you worked on anyway? We'd be interestwed to see somthing that was made well.

Roland