Mike W
This is one of the many movies that should not have been made. It was poor and boring. Victoria Pratt offered the only glimmer of shine. Peter Fonda was there as a token, and did not contribute anything but name in the credits.
Rated 1.5/5 Stars •
Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars
04/28/24
Full Review
James L
Awful. Simply awful. I had relatively high hope for this work, as there was clearly a budget dedicated to its production, and the cinematography, costumes, and sets for this hapless work of inane adventure were all reason to give hope to the undertaking... Unfortunately, the most important ingredients of any great film; the script and some talented actors with which to carry it, were both painfully absent. The production staked it's success on the charm and likeability of its main character, Dr. Brock, who is as wooden and unromantic a character as I have witnessed, and was unable to generate any real chemistry with the other cast members. The script spent far too much time moving the narrative, and took so many ridiculous leaps in logic (would you strip off your clothes and go for a leisurely swim in an unknown subterranean lake? Of course you would). Anywho, this film was particularly upsetting because it had so much potential. Given a better script, better direction and better actors...wait, what's left?
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
11/27/23
Full Review
Audience Member
For a made for TV type of movie this wasn't bad, but as such it just isn't going to have the blockbuster action or effects. Somebody expecting that will be disappointed. Its main weakness is that it is a bit slow. It seemed like it wanted to be an action movie but just didn't know how, and too many scenes which should have been exciting action were rather dull. It has a decent cast. They probably could have made a better movie if they focused more on that. It was supposedly set in the 1870s and it did have some interesting sets and costumes. A bit laughable, though, when they bust out flashlights.
Rated 1.5/5 Stars •
Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars
02/25/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Lazy, hazy Jules Verne adaptation - this should seem like grand adventure, not a weekend outing. They had no budget so the actual trip down and especially the trip back up are absurdly short, the bulk of the movie takes form in the planning stages (excitement!) or among a clan of natives who found their way to the earth's core from the surface - seems the writer got this story confused with Conan Doyle's <i>The Lost World.</i> But that's the one major departure, besides the character names most of the other events stay true to the book. Certainly comes a lot closer than Disney's latest release with Brendan Fraser.
But faithful adaptation alone does not a thrilling film make. The actors don't give any more effort than the director. And why should they? Victoria Pratt is the heiress financier of the journey to find her husband (another similarity with <i>The Lost World).</i> She looks good as ever, although her chiseled physique, out of place amongst ladies of the Victorian era, is well hidden beneath rugged clothing, and sadly she only throws one punch. The big chuckle comes when Peter Fonda as Pratt's husband enters wearing a stack of fur pelts giving him the appearance of a mangy Wookiee. I think he got the part only because first choice David Carradine was dead, so he somnambulates in his place. Oh Peter, how low can you go - about 10 miles under the earth's surface, it turns out! (I thought of that joke the minute he showed up and couldn't wait to stick it in this review.)
I recently watched Shannen Doherty in a similar made-for-crap special in <i>Lost Treasure of the Grand Canyon,</i> and while this movie might be slightly technically superior, at least that one's indefatigable boneheadedness kept things partially entertaining. This <i>Journey</i> is about as exciting as a trip to the grocery store.
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
02/23/23
Full Review
Audience Member
This is my first version of Journey to the Center of the Earth I've seen,and I really disliked it. It was so slow moving and uneventful that it seemed like a history documentary. On a positive side,the acting was great. Negative again,the effects were bland,but still quite interesting. I know this movie has SOME good in it so I won't COMPLETELY bash it. That and I couldn't even finish it...
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
01/21/23
Full Review
Audience Member
The new one is way better...
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
02/25/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
