Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Journey to the center of the earth 2008

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Journey to the center of the earth 2008

    If I recall, this film got fairly well trashed when it came out.

    I just watched it, and frankly you just can't please some people I guess.

    I found it funny, well paced, the scenes were fun, the film was over all not bad. Frankly I liked it more than the older film we all likely have seen.

    Only thing missing was the already there bad guys, otherwise it followed the feel of the other film more or less. Just had better looking sequences.
    Life is change. Built models for decades.
    Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
    I didn't for a long time either.

  • #2
    All depends of how you feel about remakes... The original captured the look and feel of Jules Verne's story telling - the remakes didn't.

    This one has been done and over-done to death. When I see a director or producer involved in a remake, my first question is always: "why couldn't he come up with something original?"
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 27 Jan 09, 10:30.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      I watched it and I liked it.

      Ya, it's an inferior remake. But at least it is an inferior remake that is much more entertaining, with a lot of neat special effects.

      And at least the director understands that it is the characters that drive the movie, and not the special effects (George Lucas, I'm talking to YOU!)

      I won't give it an A, but it is definitely worth watching at least once.

      Comment


      • #4
        The best part of the movie was when it ended.

        Comment


        • #5
          I know the movie wasn't too great on characterisation and such but it was fun - as an amusing time-waster I give it top marks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
            I watched it and I liked it.

            Ya, it's an inferior remake. But at least it is an inferior remake that is much more entertaining, with a lot of neat special effects.

            And at least the director understands that it is the characters that drive the movie, and not the special effects (George Lucas, I'm talking to YOU!)

            I won't give it an A, but it is definitely worth watching at least once.
            Ah... the "special effects" mantra. The best movies ever made were made before special effects, by guys like Hitchcock, Ford and others, who used lighting, direction and excellent acting to tell a good story. Special effects today is used as an excuse to avoid decent acting, decent story lines and pretty much everything else by substituting razzle-dazzle, car chases and fireballs. Ever notice that that nothing explodes anymolre without a big fireball? Ever notce that it doesn't happen except rarely in real life? Ever notice that all cdfra crashes nowe involve the infamous barrel-rolling car? You can see the ramps built into the "scenery" to make it happen. That's because it almost never happens in real life.

            The Bourne films were superb because they avoided fireballs, rotating car crashes and all the other fairy tale stuff, and substituted gritty reality for all of it. What special effects were used were highly realistic, except perhaps for the third film, which started getting a little goofy in places.

            If Hitchcock had made Jaws it would have literally terrified us, and we never would have seen the shark at all except perhaps for just a glimpse or too of a fin in the distance.

            You can make a good film terrific with the proper use of special effects, but you cannot make change a stinker no matter how much is spent on the razzle-dazzle.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Ah... the "special effects" mantra. The best movies ever made were made before special effects, by guys like Hitchcock, Ford and others, who used lighting, direction and excellent acting to tell a good story. Special effects today is used as an excuse to avoid decent acting, decent story lines and pretty much everything else by substituting razzle-dazzle, car chases and fireballs. Ever notice that that nothing explodes anymolre without a big fireball? Ever notce that it doesn't happen except rarely in real life? Ever notice that all cdfra crashes nowe involve the infamous barrel-rolling car? You can see the ramps built into the "scenery" to make it happen. That's because it almost never happens in real life.

              The Bourne films were superb because they avoided fireballs, rotating car crashes and all the other fairy tale stuff, and substituted gritty reality for all of it. What special effects were used were highly realistic, except perhaps for the third film, which started getting a little goofy in places.

              If Hitchcock had made Jaws it would have literally terrified us, and we never would have seen the shark at all except perhaps for just a glimpse or too of a fin in the distance.

              You can make a good film terrific with the proper use of special effects, but you cannot make change a stinker no matter how much is spent on the razzle-dazzle.
              I totally agree with you about the Bourne movies. It all got a bit out of hand with the third movie. It was a pity, as the first two were really strong movies. I got hooked on Jason Bourne because of the two, but now don't really care whether there would be a fourth movie.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X