Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D 8 out of 10 Posted: 09/08/08   Running time: 2:05 MPAA rating: PG for intense adventure action and some scary moments Peruvian rating: Apta para Todos   Cast: Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson, Anita Briem. Director: Eric Brevig Script: Michael Weiss and Jennifer Flackett & Mark Levin, inspired by the novel by Jules Verne Photography: Chuck Shuman Score: Andrew Lockington Distributor: New Line Cinema

Journey to the Center of the Earth is the first feature film to take full advantage of the 3D technology, but it's not my first 3D experience. That's not to say that I had seen anything similar to this movie before - my previous experience with 3D had been with park rides in Universal Studios or Disneyland. Nothing too fancy, but I must admit those rides were as short as they were fun. Maybe that's the reason why I wasn't so sure about Journey - I knew this gimmick works perfectly with theme park rides, but would it work with a 90-minute motion picture? Would characters, screenplay and story be sacrificed for pure eye candy? Would my eyes get tired of wearing stupid 3D glasses? Well, I'm happy to say that a.) Journey does work beautifully as a 3D movie, and that b.) the glasses are surprisingly comfortable, at least better than the ones you're given in theme parks. (They're made of seemingly-durable plastic.) While characters are a little flat and the script is by no means revolutionary, the actors' charisma along with the surprisingly good CGI and the fun of the 3D effects make Journey to the Center of the Earth one pleasant surprise: a gimmick flick that works.

Despite its title, though, the film is not based on Jules Verne's novel. (Not that it needs to be.) It actually tells a story in contemporary times, years after the novel's hero, Professor Lidenbrock, made the trip described in the book. The film has three protagonists - Professor Trevor Anderson (Brendan Fraser); his nephew, Sean (Josh Hutcherson); and their mountain guide, Hannah (Anita Briem) - who, not unexpectedly, follow the clues left by Lidenbrock in the book and find themselves falling through a tunnel in a mountaintop in Iceland that leads to the, well, the Center of the Earth. Once they get there, they discover a cool-looking world full of stranger creatures and plants, dinosaurs, magnetic rocks and lava, but also decide they must escape as soon as possible because temperature is rising - if they stay for too long, they might be burned alive.

I know, I know, the plot is nothing remarkable. Actually, I was surprised by the fact that three screenwriters were needed to pen the script for the movie. Granted, there are a couple of scientific terms here and there, but the movie is for the most part pure fantasy and action, something that could be written by someone my age with relative success. This doesn't matter, though, because the plot itself doesn't matter. It's only an excuse to take our heroes to the center of the earth, and that's what it does, so why should we demand more? One doesn't go to a film called Journey to the Center of the Earth-in-friggin'-3D expecting deep plotting and an Academy-Award-deserving screenplay. The film works because it looks good, because the 3D effects are fun, and because many of the action scenes are exciting.

Now, what I do wonder is why the movie was released in conventional theatres. Journey is tons of fun because of the 3D effects, but if you remove them, all that's left is lots of CGI and a couple of cheap thrills. Remove the 3D, and you're left with a third-rate, video-game-looking adventure flick. The 3D was impressive, though, and the image quality was superb (since here in Peru all movies are projected in film, the 3D ones being the only digital ones, I was pretty surprised by how crisp and clear everything looked), as well as the sound and all those technicalities. The movie reminded me of those 3D rides in Disney and all the other studio theme parks, and I had the same amount of fun - if not more - than in those rides. That's what the film is - not a conventional motion picture, but an exciting ride, something that appeals to the child inside you, that part of you that only wants to have fun. Yes, we have a screenplay, but it's barely noticeable. Yes, there's some science, but it's all ridiculous. Yes, we do have characters, but they're all archetypes.

Not that performances are bad. Brendan Fraser is his usual charismatic self, providing with the same charm that has made the Mummy trilogy so successful. Josh Hutcherson doesn't have much to do (he was much better in Bridge to Terabithia), but is nevertheless likeable as the "boy hero" of sorts. Anita Briem is easy on the eyes and seems to have some kind of hidden talent which, unfortunately, she can't use in a film like this. Still, she acts determined at times, heroic at others, showing that women can have cool scenes in seemingly-macho or kid-oriented flicks. A damsel-in-distress she ain't, sometimes acting more sensible or being better prepared for the fantastical circumstances than her male counterparts.

So yeah, I could go on talking about the film, saying how the CGI looks so good beneath the 3D effects (I'm pretty sure that when seen in 2D all the digital stuff becomes much more obvious), how the screenplay, despite being pretty ordinary, does contain a couple of witty moments, or how our heroes manages to get attacked by a giant T-Rex. When I saw the movie the theatre was full of kids, geeks and a couple of grownups, and everyone (yes, not only the kids) seemed to be having tons of fun. There was a lot of laughing, shouting, and clapping, and the moment the end credits started to roll, everybody seemed satisfied. Journey is a different experience, a gimmick movie that works because it's fun and because it uses the 3D technique to good effect. I'll be looking forward to watching more 3D flicks in the future (the U2 concert is yet to be released here in Peru, for example). Film purists won't like Journey to the Center of the Earth but, you know what? Those guys aren't always right.

BACK