Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

Is it actually possible that our distributors are this brainless, cheap, or just straight-up incompetent? They can't even manage to get a single 3D copy of this movie?? I mean, let's be real, the movie is total trash, but since it was shot specifically for 3D in the first place, isn't it pathetic that these guys can't even show it in 3D? I don't get them... 😢

Wait, seriously? I had no clue they actually released that in 3D. Honestly, if you’re going to go that route, you might as well make it a gimmick people actually remember—like, use the tech for something! I mean, look, the movie is basically just one giant pile of clichés stacked on top of each other, but hey, it’s still worth a watch if you’ve got the time.

In case anyone is looking for this, here’s the trailer:

Journey to the Center of the Earth

And here’s the poster:

Samuel Ortiz3 said:Are you serious? I had no idea they even released that in 3D. Honestly, if anything, that should have been the one thing that stuck in my mind. I mean, the movie is just one massive pile of clichés, but hey, it's still worth a watch if you have the time.

Why is that?

briskbison41 said:But why?

I mean, just look at everything—starting with the dialogue (especially those cheesy, comedic lines). It's like... nobody actually expects anything more than that typical Hollywood nonsense, and honestly, that whole vibe just practically screams clichés from the jump.

?

Samuel Ortiz3 said:It’s really everything, starting with the dialogue—especially those comic relief bits. I mean, nobody expects anything beyond typical Hollywood nonsense, and that alone practically guarantees a pile of clichés.

You have a point in some ways, but you have to consider that the lead is B. Fraser.
If you're okay with him being the face of the movie, then I don't see why the rest of the film wouldn't work for you.

briskbison41 said:I mean, you’ve got a point there, but you gotta remember the lead is B. Fraser.
So if you're cool with him being on screen, I don't see why you wouldn't dig the movie itself.

Look, all I'm saying is—it's nothing groundbreaking, just your standard flick, but it's worth a watch. A solid little family movie night kind of thing.

Samuel Ortiz3 said:Look, I already said it—the movie isn't anything groundbreaking. It’s pretty formulaic, but it's worth a watch if you want something standard. A solid family flick.

I'm with you there; it definitely fits that family movie mold.
Personally, I think it'll turn out alright. Worth checking out.

briskbison41 said:You make some fair points, but you have to consider that the lead is B. Fraser.
So, if you're on board with him, I suppose there's no reason to dismiss the movie itself.

I don't really see how one actor dictates the entire vibe of a production. Are we actually choosing movies based solely on the cast? It seems a bit much—like rushing to the local video rental shop just to borrow something because Timberlake shows up for maybe thirty seconds.

Mark Lewis4 said:What possible connection could an actor have to the overall impression of a film? Do people actually watch movies just for the actors? It’s not as if anyone is rushing to a video rental store just to borrow a movie where Justin Timberlake pops up for a mere 34 seconds.

If Jowan would let me step in and answer this on his behalf (and he would, wouldn't he, 😬?)...

Setting aside Justin Timberlake and how striking he looks in the "four minutes" music video, the idea that an actor's presence dictates film quality has nothing to do with those hypothetical video renters. The point is that Fraser is an actor with a very specific niche that defines his career. Most of his roles follow a pattern—he plays these slightly bewildered, yet quite intelligent, albeit eccentric individuals who stumble into various predicaments, much to the delight of anyone looking for a lighthearted comedy. His characters essentially provide their own comic relief. Therefore, one can reasonably expect a certain level of predictability based on his previous work.

And to be perfectly honest, yes, I do occasionally choose a film based on the cast. If Jack Nicholson is in it, I generally assume the film will be of high caliber.

Casting is a direct reflection of a film's quality. While there are certainly exceptions, when I am selecting what to watch, I rely on actors whose track record suggests they don't make poor choices regarding the projects they join.

anyone got a link where I can actually download this movie?

Chris Palmer3 said:If briskbison41 would let me jump in and answer this for him (which you probably would, right 😬)...

Setting aside Timberlake and how great he looks in that "four minutes" music video, this whole idea that an actor's presence dictates movie quality has nothing to do with the stuff we were talking about earlier. It’s really just that Fraser is an actor who follows a specific niche and sticks to it. Most of his roles are pretty much the same—he plays these slightly confused, fairly intelligent, yet eccentric characters who constantly stumble into trouble, which is exactly what fans of lighthearted comedies are looking for. His characters provide their own comic relief. So, when you watch one of his movies, you basically know exactly what kind of ride you're getting based on his previous work.

And honestly? Yeah, I do sometimes pick a movie just because of the lead. If I see Jack Nicholson is in the cast, I’m assuming there's at least some level of quality involved.

Casting is a huge indicator of a film's caliber. Sure, there are exceptions, but personally, when I’m deciding what to watch, I rely on actors who have a track record of making smart choices about the projects they sign onto.

Anyway, feel free to weigh in.😉

As for everything else, I'm just echoing what was said word for word.😉
I couldn't have put it better myself.

Hold on, was this actually based on the Jules Verne novel, or is it just some standalone script that happens to share a similar title with his book?

Honestly, that movie was a total dud; I mean, calling it Jules Verne is a huge stretch, it felt more like something you'd put on for toddlers and their moms

slyrider16 said:Is it actually possible that our local distributors are this clueless, cheap, or just plain incompetent? I mean, they can't even manage to secure a single 3D print of this movie?? Look, let's be honest—the film itself is total garbage—but since it was clearly designed from the ground up specifically for 3D, isn't it a bit pathetic that these guys can't even provide that experience? I just don't get them... 😢

I certainly don't get them either. At the end of the day, we're going to watch it regardless, and honestly, I'm assuming the standard version is way cheaper anyway.

Steven Anderson64 said:That movie was total garbage. What even is Jules Verne? For moms and kids.

Haven't watched it yet, but from what I can tell, that's exactly what they were aiming for.☕

I honestly think this movie is just gonna be eye candy, and nothing more...

Really hoping it at least has half the charm of the original Mummy...

Honestly, looking at how critics and audiences reacted, the movie definitely beat expectations... it hit about 60% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6.4/10 on IMDb...

Anthony Smith3 said:If you look at how critics and audiences actually received the movie, it definitely exceeded expectations... we're looking at roughly a 60% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6.4/10 over on IMDb...

Honestly, those are pretty decent scores to start with.