No thread on this Walden production, which opens this Friday. It stars Brendan Fraser as a scientist who travels to the title location with his nephew and a young, attractive, blonde-haired scientist.

Lots of special effects. Someone told me the budget was $150 million, but I haven't confirmed that.

Right now, Rotten Tomatoes has the film at 89% "fresh", including advance reviews from the likes of John Anderson and David Edelstein.

Oh -- it's in 3-D.

I know trailers never tell the whole story (or even the right half-story), but I groaned audibly during the one for this movie. I like Brendan Frasier, but it felt like he was playing a mish-mash of all of his other roles (especially the one from the Mummy franchise).

It might be neat in 3D, though; would we get those cool specs to watch it in?

Jason Panella wrote:
: It might be neat in 3D, though; would we get those cool specs to watch it in?

It's in 3-D in "select theatres", so I don't know how widespread it will be in that format, but yeah, they were handing out "Real D" glasses at the press screening yesterday. This is the first movie I have seen in this format in Vancouver, though I hear that a couple of recent cartoons (e.g. Meet the Robinsons) were also released in this format in other cities over the last few years.

Question: Has any other 3-D movie showed people and/or animals SPITTING at the camera before? I ask because it happens no less than three times, here.

Three times? I remember only the mouthwash scene.

Christian wrote:
: Three times? I remember only the mouthwash scene.

That's the first. Then the boy tries to drink from a puddle on the beach, and he spits it out -- at the camera. And then the dinosaur lets one nice gob of drool fall right into the camera.

Ah, right, forgot about those.

I'm thinking of doing some spitting in my review.

It's down to 68% at RT. Still fresh -- for now.

John Fithian fires back at Warner Bros.
Is exhibition or distribution to blame for the slow rollout of digital 3-D cinema?
Addressing the opening today of "Journey to the Center of the Earth," Warner Bros. domestic distribution president Dan Fellman said Thursday that "3-D is the future, so why is exhibition dragging its feet? I'm pleased 'Journey' will be the biggest digital 3-D release to date. But it is disconcerting that since November, the 3-D screen count has only gone up from 660 (for 'Beowulf') to 854 noncompetitive locations for 'Journey.' "
John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, immediately responded, saying, "It is particularly ironic and frustrating that a senior executive from Warner Bros. would accuse exhibition of 'dragging its feet' on 3-D when Warners has been the absolutely slowest of all major studios to come to the table with support for the d-cinema rollout. If Warners believes there are an insufficient number of 3-D screens in the marketplace today, they have no one to blame but themselves, and they know it."
Hollywood Reporter, July 10

- - -

Of course, Journey to the Center of the Earth was a New Line production, originally, and Warner is involved in the film's distribution now only because New Line got folded into Warner a few months ago.

Wait a minute. Walden produced the movie, right? Warner Brothers signed on to distribute it. I would think Walden was the group that pushed for 3-D. Wasn't it "filmed in 'Real-D'"? I'm not sure what that means, but I thought the process was somehow inherent to the film's production, not just its post-production and distribution.

But the film is obviously screening in 2-D most places, so I guess it wasn't "shot in Real-D." Hmmm...

BTW, "Journey" has held on to its "fresh" rating, now at 66%. I thought it would dip, but the critics have been remarkably kind to this movie. I'm in Ebert's camp.

Christian wrote:
: Wait a minute. Walden produced the movie, right?

Along with New Line, I think, yeah.

: Warner Brothers signed on to distribute it.

I don't think Warner was involved at all until New Line was basically shut down by Time-Warner, and someone had to distribute it in the United States. In Canada, the film is distributed by Alliance, because Alliance's contract with New Line is still good until the end of the year.

: But the film is obviously screening in 2-D most places, so I guess it wasn't "shot in Real-D." Hmmm...

Oh, it was shot in Real-D all right, but as with all 3-D movies (which are shot using two cameras), you can always release just one camera's version of the film and put it out in 2-D if you want.

Ah, so that's how it works.

I have to say, based on this film and Beowulf, if 3-D is the future of cinema, we're all screwed.

I can't say I'd argue with that ... yet.

BTW, was the Warner logo at the beginning of the American version of this film 3D? I ask because the Alliance logo at the beginning of the Canadian print was a regular, flat 2D, so it was obviously tacked onto the film. The New Line logo, of course, was a magnificent 3D.

I remember the New Line logo, but not the WB logo. But it might have been there. Just can't remember.

You were too bedazzled by the amazingness of the movie to remember, right?

Hah! Actually, I remember that part of the New Line logo "broke off" and floated toward the screen, and I didn't have my 3-D glasses on. I wasn't sure if the logo always did that, or if it was done that way for this movie only.

Saw it this afternoon with my sister, in 2-D, which was disappointing, I guess, except that we were both really only there for Brendan Fraser (who may well be a vampire, but who cares!) and we don't enjoy heights or things-jumping-out-at-you.

Many shots and sequences were obviously there purely for the benefit of a 3-D version, or for the future amusement park ride, but it could have been SO much worse, and Brendan is not only handsome, he can act and deserves better movies--even if he did co-produce this one. The parts of the movie that included dialogue and characterization weren't too clever, but also weren't ridiculous, crude, gross, or otherwise repellent. And it wasn't too long. So I give it .

Beth, I'm reluctant to take any issue whatsoever with any post here at A&F by a female, but your post reminds me that I've now read several somewhat kind reviews of this movie that note the (female) reviewer's fondness for Brendan Fraser.

What is it with this guy? My wife thinks he's sexy.

That's what it is. Right? I'm reluctant to say the guy has no charm, or can't act -- he was good in Gods and Monsters. I like to think I hold no grudge against the guy.

But the kind words for the guy's performance in this movie seem way too kind to me.

Christian wrote:
: What is it with this guy? My wife thinks he's sexy.

As do my wife and my sister, as I'm sure I must have mentioned in some thread somewhere before. (My sister, in fact, finds SEVERAL of the men in the first two Mummy movies "hot".)

: But the kind words for the guy's performance in this movie seem way too kind to me.

Yeah, he had at least two scenes where he just kind of stood there and dully (that's dull-ly, not duly) recited a line of dialogue, and I couldn't help thinking, "Oh, if only this film were directed by a director -- someone who's used to working with actors -- and not by a special-effects technician."

Perception of attractiveness is bound to be subjective. I certainly don't expect most of you guys to find Fraser (or George Clooney, David Strathairn, or Ioan Gruffydd, for example, etc., etc.) attractive. OTOH, I and most of the few women A&F'ers generally refrain from commenting when any of you wax poetic regarding the charms of various female actors.


Perception of acting skills is another area that seems to be very subjective. What one person perceives as "dull" another might view as "restrained" or "subtle." But I didn't claim that Fraser's acting in this particular movie was his Best Performance Evar. I did think that the movie would have been worse without him.

As they say, "Dying is easy, comedy is hard." Fraser is best known for his action and comedy roles, and some of those comedy movies aren't worth much (e.g., Monkeybone, Dudley DoRight). But he's the best thing in Bedazzled (yes, better than Elizabeth Hurley in her various getups), playing six or seven different characters in the different wishes (even more so than Dudley Moore in the 1967 version, which otherwise I prefer). He is completely convincing in Blast from the Past. And although The Air I Breathe is a mess, Fraser's role in it is serious, so worth a look, if you liked him in Gods and Monsters.

But if you don't get an actor, you don't get him/her. I, personally, haven't been impressed by Natalie Portman since she was in The Professional (aka Leon).

For the record, I have a heterosexual man-crush on Frasier. I've liked most of the stuff he's been in if only for him. (Next up, the third in the Mummy franchise!)

Is there any parallel with this film to either the classic film version, or the novel they're both based upon?

You beat me to it, Jason. "Attractiveness" and "desire" are two very different things.

Beth: You're right, of course, that A&F guys sometimes go on and on about female appearance. Although now that I think about it, I'm the chief offender, I think. No argument here. I pointed the finger at you and had four pointing back at me.

I've just been surprised to see what, to me, is a pretty obvious conflation of Fraser's looks with his acting ability. But I wouldn't count that out as an influencing factor. When there's not much going on otherwise, it's nice to have something to look at that's pleasing to the eye.

So I see that this movie made $20.5 million this weekend, and I've read movie-guru types call this a "fair" take -- not good, not bad. Didn't this movie cost $150 million to make? How can an opening weekend of $20.5 million be deemed anything other than a major disappointment? I don't know the science of box-office projections, but it's hard to see this movie getting past $75 million in North America.

I'm not eager to dance on Walden's grave, but that's not good.

BethR wrote:
: Perception of attractiveness is bound to be subjective. I certainly don't expect most of you guys to find Fraser (or George Clooney, David Strathairn, or Ioan Gruffydd, for example, etc., etc.) attractive. OTOH, I and most of the few women A&F'ers generally refrain from commenting when any of you wax poetic regarding the charms of various female actors.

Hey, I'm all for contrarianism. Quibble away.

(BTW, David Strathairn? None of the other names surprise me, but Strathairn? Really? Is there a female fanbase for him? Because if so, I don't think I've ever heard of it. Note: I am not questioning anyone's tastes, just my awareness levels. I'm not asking why anyone would climb a mountain or think it pretty, only whether there is a mountain before my eyes that I have somehow never seen before.)

: I didn't claim that Fraser's acting in this particular movie was his Best Performance Evar. I did think that the movie would have been worse without him.

Oh, I like Fraser, don't get me wrong. For a certain kind of movie, he's perfect. And quite frankly, given the kind of movie this is, I think capital-G Good acting might have been a big mistake. It's enough to see him crack those "WHY ARE WE STILL FALLING!?" lines. (Which, when you think about it, is curiously similar to his "WHY AM I LAUGHING!?" line in the trailer for the new Mummy movie -- especially if the airplane in that scene does fall out of the sky at some point, as the pilot seems to hint it might.)

: But if you don't get an actor, you don't get him/her. I, personally, haven't been impressed by Natalie Portman since she was in The Professional (aka Leon).

I first saw her in Beautiful Girls, which was one of her first films after Leon, and I thought she was magnificent in that. But then the Star Wars prequels came along and killed her reputation, at least for a little while. Her tiny role in Cold Mountain was the first hint that she might be able to act again, post-Lucas.

Jason Panella wrote:
: Is there any parallel with this film to either the classic film version, or the novel they're both based upon?

"The" classic film? I'm guessing you mean the 1959 film with James Mason (a veteran of Jules Verne films, having done 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea a few years before) and Pat Boone? There have been others, though I think a lot of them were for TV or straight-to-video.

Anyway, the new film is about "Vernians" who treat Jules Verne's book as though it were a historically and scientifically accurate guide to the underworld. So the new film doesn't even TRY to borrow any plot points, per se, from Verne's novel; just the settings.

Christian wrote:
: So I see that this movie made $20.5 million this weekend, and I've read movie-guru types call this a "fair" take -- not good, not bad.

It is also the best opening weekend of Fraser's career, outside of the Mummy franchise.

: Didn't this movie cost $150 million to make?

$60 million, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com. Where does the $150 million figure come from?

- - -

3D IS THE FUTURE
The success of Warner Bros’ Journey To the Center of the Earth will likely pressure exhibitors and distributors to find ways to roll out digital presentation systems more quickly. Journey delivered an opening weekend gross of $20.58M, with 57% of the gross coming from theatres equipped to show the film in Real D 3D.
Steve Mason, Fantasy Moguls, July 13

3-D Movie in the Top 5 at Weekend Box Office
“Journey to the Center of the Earth” — promoted as the first live-action feature shot in a new digital 3-D process — sold a modest $20.6 million in tickets at North American theaters over the weekend, placing third among the five highest-grossing films for the period.
During a weekend of intense competition that included “Hellboy II” reaching No. 1 and an Eddie Murphy film that couldn’t crack the top five, the estimated total for “Journey” was diminished by a shortage of movie theaters capable of screening the movie in its intended 3-D format. The producers had hoped there would be a minimum of about 1,400 auditoriums with the technology. But theater owners have moved more slowly than expected to install the expensive system. By Friday, when “Journey to the Center of the Earth” opened, there were only 954 screens.
As a result, New Line, the recently slimmed-down branch of Time Warner that released the $54 million picture, had to scramble to tweak the marketing for the film — going so far as to drop “3D” from the title — and implement a standard two-dimensional release in tandem. That may have confused moviegoers.
Still, there were hints buried deeper in the box-office returns suggesting that 3-D is well on its way to becoming a force at multiplexes. Auditoriums screening the movie in 3-D sold more than three times as many tickets as those showing the standard version. . . .
New York Times, July 14

Yes, that's the one.

$60 million?? That's it? Hasn't that become the *average* for a feature film these days? I don't remember where I came across the $150 million figure, but there's no way I would've guessed that the budget on this one was so low. Not having any big-name stars (except Fraser, who's salary probably isn't all that huge) helps, obviously.

Of course things that PTC has never heard of don't exist!
Go here and download the clip from episode 16 of The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd (1988-91) to see one reason why David Strathairn has at least a few female fans. But of course, whether that performance impresses you or not is still a matter of subjective perception.

Wow. Boxofficemojo shows the budget was $60 million. Wow.

Walden's not so bad off on this one.

How Journey to the Center of the Earth Got Its Title
Contrary to reports in the LAT and NYT, it was not an unanticipated shortage of 3-D screens that forced Warner Bros. and the producers of Journey of the Center of the Earth to change the film's title, which was supposed to be Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D. . . .
The problem was, Twentieth Century Fox had control of the title Journey to the Center of the Earth and was unwilling to give it up to New Line. By appending "3-D" to the end, New Line could avoid that legal hurdle.
So why did Fox change its mind? It's no secret that digital 3-D is in its infancy: the digital 3-D filmmaking community is small and close-knit. They all know that what affects one 3-D release affects all that follow. Fox has its own very expensive live-action 3-D tentpole coming: James Cameron's Avatar. So Fox has an interest in making sure the 3-D brand isn't sullied in the 18 months before that epic unspools. . . .
David S. Cohen, Thompson on Hollywood, Variety, July 14

I didn't know MCN's Len Klady did anything other than the site's Weekend Report of box-office figures, but here he is reviewing Journey to the Center of the Earth:

Journey to the Center of the Earth is the first live action feature length film to weigh in to the sweepstakes. If it is any indication of what can be expected in future endeavors then 3-D will once again record an ignominious chapter. Other than some capable visual effects it is an inane, singularly uncompelling action yarn aimed at the family audience. ...

Either the credited screenwriters were under the delusion they were adapting a Dick and Jane primer or the director decided to dumb up the script. Both cases translate into that sinking feeling when dialogue is spoken. There may have been some thought given to keeping the cast members down and viewing the effects as additional characters. It's the sort of notion that makes sense only in development meetings. The absence of a human threat in this instance is crippling and just one of the factors that made the equally liberal adaptation of Journey to the Center of the Earth in 1959 superior. It didn't have 3-D effects but the level of engagement was such that my visual memories of it are keener than those of a 2008 film still wet from the lab.

Funny to hear someone describe a DIGITAL movie as "still wet from the lab".

I actually liked this film. Yes - it had many, many special 3-D effects just for the fun of it - which I think should die out as this art-form moves from Jr. High to adulthood - but for me it worked. The human connections also worked. The bonding/adventure/attraction worked (except for a beautiful lady actually living alone in the middle of Iceland) and I appreciated some of the science fiction of it. I am glad they did not find MAX alive, like some kind of Robinson Crusoe or Swiss Family Robinson (I was afraid of that when I saw the treehouse). That would have been too much - but for me they played the right note.

I also liked the presence of the luminescence birds - like guardian angels watching over their trip. I liked that the creatures were not imaginary, but just beings who were extinct.

Does anyone know how true the experiences are to the original book? I've never read it.

Denny

FWIW, with a 23.7% drop between last weekend's gross and this weekend's gross, Journey to the Center of the Earth had easily the smallest percentage drop of this weekend's Top 20.

I have to cheat slightly to make that statement, since one film -- Tell No One -- actually went UP a tad, a mere 7.2%, because it expanded from 55 theatres to 77 theatres (a 40% increase in theatres, in sharp contrast to the fact that Journey and virtually every other movie in the Top 20 played in LESS theatres this week than last week). But if it went UP, then it's not a DROP in the first place, is it?

And of course, three films opened in the Top 20 this week and thus could not have dropped since last week even if they'd wanted to.

But of the other 15 films in the Top 20, all dropped between 32.2% and 77.4%.

So, Journey would seem to have "legs".

And, with $60.2 million in the till so far -- $9.4 million of which was made in this, its third weekend -- I wonder if it stands a chance of surpassing Charlotte's Web (2006, $83 million) as Walden Media's top-grossing movie (not counting the Narnia films, which are a phenomenon unto themselves).

Journey at the Center of the Earth

I know this happens, but not too often. Brendan Fraser had two movies in the top five at the box office this past weekend. Mummy 3 and Journey.

Roger Ebert on why he does not like 3-D:

There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground.

[ snip ]

Our ancestors on the prehistoric savannah developed an acute alertness to motion, for the excellent reason that anything that moved might want to eat them. Movement perceived against a static background is dominant, a principle all filmmakers know. But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie.

[ snip ]

In my review of the 3-D "Journey to the Center of the Earth," I wrote that I wished I had seen it in 2-D: "Since there's that part of me with a certain weakness for movies like this, it's possible I would have liked it more. It would have looked brighter and clearer, and the photography wouldn't have been cluttered up with all the leaping and gnashing of teeth." "Journey" will be released on 2-D on DVD, and I am actually planning to watch it that way, to see the movie inside the distracting technique. I expect to feel considerably more affection for it.

I agree that the stuff leaping at the camera is a bit annoying, but what really impressed ME about the effect, as used in this film, was the way it was used sometimes to create vast open spaces. As I said in my review, "As Trevor, Sean and Hannah hike up an Icelandic volcano near the beginning of the film, we can see the other mountains and the landscape stretch for miles around them, and it's almost enough to make you wonder what an epic, scenic film like, say, Lawrence of Arabia could have looked like if it had been produced in 3D."

My mother-in-law recently gave us an old View-Master and a bunch of old View-Master discs. The discs are falling apart, alas, but it's fun to revisit the stereoscopic toys of my youth, and to share them with my own kids; and I wonder what Ebert has made of THAT. Is 3-D always a bad idea? Or only when it is used in a motion picture?

FWIW, I posted a couple items at my blog last night that touch on this film. One, it is one of only four movies so far this year that have incontestably grossed four times their opening weekend; and two, the success of this film may explain why the newest Real-D movie Fly Me to the Moon has had a hard time finding theatres in which to open.

Oh, and yes, this is now definitely Walden Media's biggest movie ever, except for the two Narnia movies of course.

Who wants to bet that this movie will end up with more money than The Mummy 3 when all is said and done? Domestically, at any rate. The Mummy 3 has been raking it in overseas -- not surprising, given that it's set in China and all.

Now that I have a family of my own, I thought I might be settling for middling junk like "Journey" and "The Mummy," but no, I don't plan on watching them again, with or without my kids. The stuff that people -- families, presumably, although I don't know for sure that it's the family audience that's driving the grosses of these films -- will pay to see continues to surprise me.

This kind of critique is a purist view - that all films have to be a "pure form" and in this instance a 2-D. I agree that 3-D is still trying to figure itself out, but to say that it has to be the same as our actual 3-D experience misses the opportunities that it can give us to emphasize certain things over others - like the use of focus in a scene. Just because this film doesn't do it well yet doesn't mean that we throw out the whole technique.

Denny

The point of 3D is *not* to simulate reality. It's to add a third dimension to the two-dimensional projection screen. Just because we actually live in a 3D spatial universe (for the sake of argument), that doesn't mean that 3D cinema is somehow better equipped to make us feel like we're watching real life. Until we have holographic cinema (which is being researched and prototyped)--or neural projection, for that matter--I don't expect an immersive simulation.

3D is the scratch-and-sniff of movies. It just adds a fun dimension, that's all.

Similarly, full 7/8/9/whatever channel surround sound's purpose isn't to "simulate reality," but to create an immersive entertainment experience.

This line of inquiry also assumes a cinema verite basis for 3D, which is ridiculous IMHO. Has there been a serious, successful art film that has used 3D for artistic effect? Is there a common understanding of how mis-en-scene applies in 3D? For that matter, is there respected film theory for 3D (i.e. has anyone here taken a film theory class that seriously discussed how to apply film theory to 3D)?

Alan Thomas wrote:
: The point of 3D is *not* to simulate reality. . . .
: This line of inquiry also assumes a cinema verite basis for 3D, which is ridiculous IMHO. Has there been a serious, successful art film that has used 3D for artistic effect? Is there a common understanding of how mis-en-scene applies in 3D? For that matter, is there respected film theory for 3D (i.e. has anyone here taken a film theory class that seriously discussed how to apply film theory to 3D)?

I certainly haven't, but now I'd like to. I wonder what Bazin would have said about this particular form of "realistic" cinematography.

Side note: Ebert mentions above that Journey is coming out on DVD in 2-D. Is it coming out in 3-D as well? Since the Real-D projectors are digital, and since home entertainment systems are increasingly high-def and all that, I am wondering if we would increasingly see Real-D movies being released on home video in a format that is virtually identical to what gets played in theatres. It would probably be a much smoother transition than what we got in the old days, where a movie was projected on a filmstrip in the theatres and then, maybe, released in 3-D on VHS.

Has anybody talked about taking some of the old 3-D movies and digitizing them for the Real-D process? I am thinking, for example, of Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, which, if memory serves, was produced in the early 1950s but was not released in 3-D until the early 1980s; the 3-D fad of the '50s flared up and died out so fast that, by the time Hitchcock was finished editing the film, he didn't think there was any point in releasing it in 3-D, so he simply released it in 2-D instead; but then 3-D became a fad all over again in the '80s, especially with the rash of horror-movie threequels that came out around then (Jaws 3-D, Friday the 13th Part 3-D, Amityville 3-D), and so Universal (or whichever studio) re-issued Dial M for Murder, this time releasing it in the 3-D format that it had been meant to have all along.

Anyway, I mention Hitchcock because he, at least, has had a lot of critical attention over the years, so he represents perhaps the most obvious nexus between the arthouse and the sort of commercial environment in which 3-D thrives.

While I did see the 1959 version before reviewing the new film, I somehow neglected to watch THIS adaptation: