my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND 2012

Author Topic: JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND 2012 Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 02-13-2012 03:59 PM                        I had planned to see the 3-D converted STAR WARS, Ep. 1 this past weekend but changed my mind after reading the negative reviews about the subtle 3-D and sound and saw JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND instead at the Regal's Pearl Highland. I saw the first showing of the day because it was the preferred 3-D version. I cannot understand why JOURNEY 2 is referred to as a sequel to JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH because it has nothing to do with that movie. From what I saw, the movie is actually based on another Jules Verne classic MYSTERIOUS ISLAND and the movie title states that. J2:TMI also has elements of another Jules Verne classic, TWENTY THOUSAND LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. After seeing the trailer in 2-D for JOURNEY 2 about a month ago and the poster in the lobby during the past couple of months, I was not too excited about seeing this movie but I am glad I did because it was a lot of fun especially in 3-D (RealD) . The movie was created in native 3-D and it is excellent. I was saddened to see a long line of people waiting in the lobby to see the movie in 2-D partially because our local film critic said to see it in 2-D instead of watching it with smudgy dark glasses in 3-D. In my opinion, all these people who saw the movie in 2-D lost out because the 3-D made the movie more fun to watch. The critic also severely panned the movie. JOURNEY 2 is no CITIZEN KANE or LAWRENCE OF ARABIA because it was never intended to be taken seriously. It is movie filled with a lot of lighthearted fun and all one had to do was to check one's brains at the door and sit back and enjoy. Not only was JOURNEY 2 fun to watch but so was the added Loony Tunes short in fantastic 3-D that featured Daffy Duck singing a song based on the melody from Franz Liszt's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody in D Minor and Porky Pig with a shot gun setting it off at the end. BTW: After the movie, I snuck in and saw about ten minutes of STARS WARS which was in progress next door and I am glad I did not pay to see the movie. The 3-D was very flat and the image on the screen looked like it was made from a very badly faded negative with no restoration effort made on it. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 02-13-2012 05:38 PM                     Yeah the Looney Tunes short is fantastic and the Tech 3d works great on it!  |  IP: Logged Kurt Zupin Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 989 From: Maricopa, Arizona Registered: Oct 2004 posted 02-13-2012 11:00 PM                     While this movie isn't anything to write home about, its not horrible either. Just a lot of missed chances, however I really liked Dwayne Johnson's (The Rock) and Michael Caine's banter. Some good one liners dished out between the two of them. However, I have to whole heartedly disagree with the both of you on the Looney Tunes short. It was horrible, the CGI versions of the characters looked horrible. They don't have any of the charm of the hand drawn versions. Not an ounce of it, at least with the last one with Tweety it was cute. This one I couldn't wait of it to end. Also at the end it wasn't Porky, it was still Elmer Fudd. I can get the mistake though with the shoddy CGI, I mean he looks like the cigar smoking baby from Roger Rabbit at the start when he's getting in his seat. Journey 2: 2.5/5 Looney Tunes short: 10  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-14-2012 11:26 AM                        quote: Claude S. Ayakawa I cannot understand why JOURNEY 2 is referred to as a sequel to JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH because it has nothing to do with that movie. From what I saw, the movie is actually based on another Jules Verne classic MYSTERIOUS ISLAND and the movie title states that. Claude, the answer to your question is: Marketing. It's easier to market a sequel (even if it really isn't a sequel) than a whole different title.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 03-02-2012 12:14 AM                     I saw this IMAX-Digital yesterday and I have to say I thought the presentation was so hit and miss, close-up shots were sharp, the 3D worked and was fun, but a lot of film notably long shots and/or the backgrounds looked really out of focus (I found that visually distracting) -  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-14-2012 07:57 PM                        I am kind of on the fence about the Looney Tunes short. While I agree it has none of the charm of the old hand-drawn shorts, it is kind of funny and inventive. The 3-D is used inventively in it. I'm kind of surprised that they were allowed to get away with all that gun-in-the-face stuff, given the anti-violence mentality for cartoons. I would be in 7th heaven if WB would just reissue one of the classic Looney Tunes on each of their movies. They've all been digitally mastered so it should be easy. A lot cheaper than making new ones too.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.