Journey to the Center of the Earth (TV Movie 2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
34 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Mediocre and short budgeted rendition based on Jules Verne classic novel
ma-cortes16 January 2010
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.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Journey to the Center of the Earth: Oh come on!!!
Platypuschow24 February 2019
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
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Please, read the book.
bbernyjb27 January 2008
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.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
So Very Disappointing!
countryshack27 January 2008
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.
31 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What could have been an OK film is ruined by its final third
jimbo-53-18651125 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
If I'm being totally honest I recorded this version of Journey to the Center of The Earth believing it to be the 2008 remake with Brendan Fraser (I wasn't aware that there was a TV version till now). Having realised that it wasn't the version I expected once the opening credits started I decided to stick with it and here's what I thought....

One thing I will say is that I think it's unfair to come down hard on this film purely because it's a 'TV movie' film. The acting was pretty bad, the animal effects were laughable (they weren't great in the original, but to be fair that was made in 1959). Despite all this, I did find this TV film to be fairly enjoyable. In this TV film we are treated to a voice-over narrative from Abel (whereby he is articulating notes that he's putting in his diary). At times, I thought that this was a nice touch as it does help to give a basic understanding of what some of the characters are thinking and how they feel. This narrative is also quite informative and helps to explain some of the things that they've discovered whilst they're in the cave. Where this falls apart slightly is that it's over-used and there are occasions when it's used to explain what's going to happen next - which is pointless as we'll know what will happen eventually. This isn't a major criticism as I found the voice-over work to be more of benefit than hindrance. I also thought that it got going fairly quickly and it was generally better paced than the original. It was all OK up till this point, but then came the final third....

In this TV version of the film, our intrepid adventurers stumble across a tribe of people who have descended from earth down to the Centre of the Earth centuries ago. Just when you think it can't get any more ridiculous we then find that the tribal people are worshipping Martha's missing husband as some sort of god. I mean really? Before our adventurers met the tribes people my biggest criticism is that there was a lack of tension because no-one was pursuing them or following them like we saw in the original - alas this objection was answered at this point, but it was answered in a ridiculous and nonsensical way. The issue of food was ignored initially, but then answered when our adventurers are treated to a 'Last Supper' style feast - quite where all the food came from is a complete mystery. What I can't understand is that a film of this nature is supposed to be shrouded by mystery, our adventurers have had to use a map and a modicum of intelligence in order to get to the area that the tribe are inhabiting and yet we're supposed to believe that this tribe of people have discovered this area by mistake. It just requires too much suspension of disbelief and doesn't give the film any kind of intensity. In the original, you really felt that the team were isolated and you felt that they'd achieved something by the end, but you don't get that feeling here and it ultimately made this film a lot less rewarding and a lot less enjoyable.

Up till the 60 minute mark I did think this was an OK film - it was reasonably enjoyable without being anything special. However, it's ultimately ruined by its final 30 minutes where it descended into absurdity, implausibility and downright stupidity.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Mediocre at best, plus has a very minimal sci-fi feel ...
Vic_max31 January 2008
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.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Stink-A-Roo
windtar1 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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....
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Rather pedestrian, time passes, you age, and age, and age...
gbmcleod27 January 2008
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.
30 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Illustrating the difference between low budget and cheap filmmaking
MBunge29 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
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.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not good.
arnie_axolotl6 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very entertaining and full of fun.
mesamood25 January 2008
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.
24 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Nice anthropological variation on the old story.
hg-7637014 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the most remade stories in science fiction films. This version has a good cast and decent effects. It also adds a nice anthropological twist when the team making the descent discovers Native Americans who migrated there long before and that the white man they were seeking (Fonda) had become their god.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Remake of the 1999 Mini-Series, Rather Than the Jules Verne Novel
briantaves16 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
During the first few years of the 21st century, new versions of JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH continued to be announced but remained unproduced. Finally, in 2007, a new big budget version was made, JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH 3-D, and as so often happens, simultaneously a lower budget rendition of the same story was made to cash in on the former's anticipated popularity. In this case, the filmmakers did not return to the novel, but as with the 2005 version of MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, chose to instead remake an earlier adaptation.

Robert Halmi, Sr. dusted off the script of his 1999 version of JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, compressing it back to a 90 minute telefilm for RHI entertainment that appeared on the ION network on January 27, 2008. William Bray adapted the 1999 Tom Baum teleplay, this time helmed by T.J. Scott (probably best remembered for some of the most imaginatively directed episodes in the HERCULES and XENA series). The principal characterizations and motives remained the same, only compressed and more tightly paced.

The setting remains around the 1870s but is transplanted to San Francisco and Alaska (still known as "Seward's Folly" and with vestiges of Russian influence). These locales and a center of the Earth that resembles it were all a result of the Vancouver location shooting determining production design. However, the switch to an American background also gives the adaptation more of a natural, domestic, and less of an exotic feel–distinct from previous versions, which is a strength, but also familiar types of scenery, such as a western-style Alaskan town and costume. While director Scott makes the most of the backgrounds, the fact that the center of the earth looks almost exactly like the world above makes the narrative ultimately less convincing. Far more memorable were the unusual visuals achieved by the 1999 version.

From the first scene it is clear that this is little more than a retelling of the earlier film, with the basic characters and situation remained as before. Neither Rick Schroeder or Steven Grayhm, respectively, are as appropriate for their roles as were Treat Williams and Jeremy London in 1999. By contrast, the female lead this time is incarnated this time much more vigorously and convincingly by Victoria Pratt. She has a decade of female action roles to her credit and is also the wife of director Scott, and they have a long list of collaborations together. She has a map leading to a mine shaft which goes to the center of the Earth, down which her husband had descended four years earlier and never returned. As before, part of her motive is to redeem her role in a marriage gone sour.

Central to the rapid unfolding of the story is the reliance on the first person narration ostensibly from the diary kept by young Abel, who dedicates it to his fiancée, angry at his departure on the journey. Most intriguing is the change in the Hans character from the novel; the new version offers a Russian outlaw, Sergei, whose brother had descended with the husband. This provides an appropriate shift of character that merges with the new locale, and also, unlike all previous versions, a compelling reason for the "guide" to descend with the others. Sergei is also vital in helping the expedition reach the lake where, according to the map, on a single July day of the year the sunlight will point out the location of the mine.

There is an attenuated telling of the journey to the underground lake. The only marker among the caves is one at the beginning, in Russian, telling them the correct initial cave to take. On the way, the remains of Sergei's brother are found.

By the shore, trees freshly felled with an axe indicate an earlier traveler, and they decide to also make the journey by raft. Prehistoric birds and a pleisiosaur attack the raft, creatures described as extinct since the ice age. The use of effects is brief and has little impact on the story. Subsequently the film veers in new directions, as in the 1999 version, leaving Verne's novel behind.

An encounter at the shore with a wrecked raft leads to natives who resemble Native Americans, leads, predictably, to finding the husband (Peter Fonda, a modest improvement over the 1999 film's Bryan Brown), who has taken advantage of superstition and made himself king. Some warriors are resisting Edward's rule, and when they unite in opposition, Edward leads the way to a cave reputed to be the way out. Unlike the 1999 version, he is allowed redemption by sacrificing himself to save the others by staying behind to guarantee a dynamite charge that will block the cave. Water overcomes the foursome until finally they are sent to the surface of a lake in a waterspout. They decide to save the tribe from further exploitation by the above-ground world and Abel will keep his diary secret, or in fact, say–as he does in the final sentence–that it is merely a piece of fiction. Meanwhile, Jonas and Martha have realized their attraction for each other.

In this version, the more rapid pacing does not allow the viewer to be quite as aware of the hokeyness of the subplot with the tribes as in the 1999 version. Still, the principal question remains why the producers thought the script of the 1999 version was good enough to deserve a remake. Likely, as in the choice of the Vancouver location, it was simply a matter of the most budget-conscious way to proceed. Still it remains a valid question for audiences to ask.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
slow, uninteresting, and mediocre adaptation
TheUnknown837-122 March 2008
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.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
in response to countryshack
mrpayne7112 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Countryshacks' review should be taken with a grain of salt. This version was a made for TV version, and was not released in theaters. I don't know about countryshack, but I don't expect the same level of effects out of a made for TV movie that I expect out of a full blown Hollywood production. The budgets are no where near the same.

I found the movie fairly enjoyable, the effects pretty much on par with what I'd expect. The story is a bit soap operaish as countryshack stated. I wonder if countryshack thought he was taping a prerelease of the Brendan Fraser movie by the same name that was released later that year, and would have been heavily promoted about that time.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Waste Of Time
moyjames728 January 2008
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.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Journey to the Center of Boredom!
TheLittleSongbird30 March 2012
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
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Rotten To The Core
zardoz-1323 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Veteran television director T.J. Scott's made-for-cable spin on Jules Verne's venerable crackpot classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" qualifies as lackluster juvenile nonsense. Apart from the use of Verne's name, the title of his novel, its 19th century setting, and some isolated incidents from the text, including an encounter with dinosaurs, this movie shares little in common with Verne's text. This version relocates the action to Alaska in the 1870s so that it initially looks like a hybrid western. No, The protagonist, a financially strapped San Francisco-based archaeologist Jonathan Brock (Ricky Schroder of "N.Y.P.D. Blue"), proves he is no armchair academician. The first time we lay eyes on Brock, he is slugging it out with an opponent in a bare-knuckles boxing match. As it turns out, this is how Brock raises money to fund his expeditions. Whenever actor Ricky Schroder gets near a boxing ring, you cannot help but remember one of his early and most memorable roles as a kid who hung out with a championship boxer in "The Champ." Jules Verne's protagonist, German-b0rn Professor Liedenbrock, was nothing like Brock. Liedenbrock was a professor of, as Verne wrote, "chemistry, geology, mineralogy, and many other ologies." Once he triumphs over his knuckle-headed adversary, Brock and his young nephew, Abel (Steven Grayhm) who dreams of life as a journalist, return home. A wealthy, blonde, heiress Martha Dennison (Victoria Pratt) approaches Brock about a proposition. She has been trying to locate her missing husband, Edward Dennison (Peter Fonda of "Easy Rider"), who vanished about four years ago searching for a passage to the center of the earth. Actually, Dennison discovered a passage through an abandoned mine, though Brock believes that no such mine exists. In any case, in Verne's tale, no woman like Martha approaches Liedenbrock about a rescue mission to the center of the Earth. Martha offers to fund his expedition to East Indies if he will help her find her husband because the two men think alike. "I'm no detective," Brock point out. "I'm a scientist." Martha retorts, "I'm looking for a man who can put himself in Edward's place, an adventurer who can think, strategize, and execute a plan as he would. A man who can discover and follow the trail he would have taken." Our heroes travel by ship to Alaska, ride like hell over rugged terrain, climb a lot of ropes, and waggle their jawbones. Eventually, they reach a point where they have to calculate how to enter the Earth's crust to access the interior world. Scott and writers Thomas "The Manhattan Project" Baum and William "Prom Night" Gray stage a scene where our heroes arrive at their destination punctually in ten days time to determine where the sun's rays penetrate the Earth so that they can locate the hidden mine shaft. This serves as their point of departure for the center of the earth. They emerge near a lake at the base of a volcano. Martha goes skinny dipping while the three guys are away, and she gets the crap scared out of her when something underwater touches her. Jonathan, Abel, and their guide—a Czarist refugee Russian called Sergei Petkov (Michael Dopud of "The Pathfinder") who had earlier saved Brock's life— fabricate a raft out of timber left-over from Dennison's expedition. The best part of this lowbrow thriller occurs on the lake when a prehistoric serpent appears in several shots and some of the worse looking prehistoric birds are there, too. There is a good shot of the serpent from the bottom of the lake looking up at the raft that our heroes are sailing. Unfortunately, unlike Verne's tale, the producers couldn't afford a second prehistoric creature so that they could replicate the fight in Chapter 30 of Verne's novel.

Essentially, Dennison's story resembles Rudyard Kipling's tale "The Man Who Would Be King" where two Englishmen enthroned themselves as monarchs until one bled and the villagers executed him and exiled the second. Dennison rules a tribe of Native American Indian types that rely on bows and arrows. These people have migrated to the center of the Earth. The finale with our heroes fleeing from fierce Native American-like primitives is ho-hum. It seems that Dennison rigged up a trolley system of ropes in the trees, and our heroes and heroine slide down these ropes ahead of the pursuing redskins on hand-clinched trolleys. Scott never conjures up any suspense because you know that Brock, Martha, Abel, and Sergei are going to survive the myriad perils. The most surprisingly scene occurs when Dennison shoots a warrior in the head in the manner of an execution. A furious Martha strikes Edward for killing the warrior in cold blood and the sight of blood turns Edward's people against him and forces our heroes to flee for their lives. Earlier, Dennison's wife Martha and Brock squabble about a variety of things, while Abel—maintaining a journal of their experiences—hints at the romance burgeoning between them. At one point, Martha explains that she was been married to Edward for a year. Edward has little use for her when they reunite at the center of the earth. Once they escape from the center of the Earth, Martha—Liedenbrock's housekeeper in Verne's novel had the same name—wants to accompany him on further adventures.

Scott's version of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is strictly disposable. Peter Fonda isn't worth the wait and his character—like the rest of the characters—are far from memorable. The Canadian scenery lends some splendor to our heroes' shenanigans, but the shoe-string budget often undermines the film's epic quality. Lenser Philip Linzy's cinematography is the best thing about this execrable adventure.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
lacks thrills and excitement
SnoopyStyle24 January 2015
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.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Reasons to stay at home.
guillenpascal4 December 2017
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.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Whatever Journey to the Center of the Earth, I'm in !!!
elo-equipamentos24 June 2019
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
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Journey to the center of vocal fry.
mark.waltz25 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Once again, modern actors play dress-up but never convince that they're in the time period this is supposed to be set in. Everything looks good until they start speaking, and you wonder why they filmed the dress rehearsal and didn't force the actors to really seem like they were in the 1860's. Victoria Pratt gets to wear some beautiful period costumes and even has period appropriate hair, but acts the part like she's part of an alternate story in "The Devil Wears Prada". Her voice annoys from the start, and instead of coming off as strong and commanding comes off as pestiforous and demanding. She argues not out of any common sense but just the desire to be difficult.

As for Rick Schroeder, he is a bit more tolerable but I found him completely miscast and out of his element. He should have watched Brad Pitt in "Legends of the Fall" or Leonardo DiCaprio in "Titanic" as to how modern style of acting needs to be altered in period films and how to blend into that era. His narration is laughable. Steven Grayhm, Mike Dopud and of course Peter Fonda do better jobs at conveying a realism in their performances.

This follows the structure of the Jules Verne novel, and while I didn't expect a recreation of the 1959 masterpiece hoped for some substance. The big screen version the same year is so much better, but this at least surpasses the same year's direct to video Asylum film which only has the title and nothing to do with the novel. The landscapes are pretty and it at least tries for adventure, but weak leads ruin the impact which should have been stronger.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
interesting take on the classic book
asinyne13 July 2008
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.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Save yourself!!!
peggynic9910 January 2021
No matter how badly you want to do it, do not watch journey to the Center of the Earth, with Ricky Schroeder and Peter Fonda. By far the worst adaptation of a classic novel I have EVER seen. Bad acting by everyone (except Sergei), bad visual effects, bad plot variance complete with plot holes, hokey situations where you'll find yourself saying "Come on" so many times you'll lose track. List goes on. If you can imagine a world where Peter Fonda and Ricky Schroeder share the same stage, this would be the hell of that society. 2001 a Space Odyssey would be an improvement. I want to curl up into a ball in a corner and shove my thumbs into my eyes.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing even with lowered expectations
fredit-4300428 April 2024
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?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed