Contributed by Mike Fishman
After a week of sun, quiet, and good food in South Florida, I was not particularly thrilled to be back in Times Square, hostling and jostling with the tourist crowd. But I knew had to catch Journey in the theater in 3-D, and so there I was, weaving my way through hot dog vendors, wax statues, and people gawking and on cell phones; it put me slightly on edge, so that when I entered the mostly-empty theater, faced with an overabundance of seat choices, I wound up moving twice before finally settling in for the journey, in the middle, three-quarters back. This was the second all-3-D movie in as many years and was much more pleasant, if less ambitious, than last year’s Beowulf. I went in with low expectations, based on the reviews I’d read, but, having long been fascinated with the book and Rick Wakeman’s far-out musical interpretation, naturally I had to go; if any summer movie called out for being seen on the big screen, this was it. (Yeah, yeah, The Dark Knight, blah, blah, blah.)
And for the most part, a very pleasant ride. A bit too weepy at times (come on, Josh Hutcherson, buck up already); Brendan Frasier annoyingly alternately playing a weak and strong character; and the music clichéd and uninspired/uninspiring; but Icelandic actress Anita Briem is a breath of fresh air as the resourceful guide and eventual (if unlikely) love interest to Frasier’s Prof. Trevor Anderson. Quite frankly, it would have been more believable, and satisfying, to have Briem plant a kiss on Hutcherson’s Sean Anderson (Prof. Anderson’s nephew) than Frasier’s at times goofy/at times heroic/most of the time screaming for help action figure. In truth, the (adventure) film would have better served with dispensing of the romantic-comedy subplot in favor of more believable science. Er, science fiction.
But, I wasn’t there for story; this is, after all, a very Hollywood take on a classic sci-fi novel, so don’t expect subtle plot or character development. It’s all about the effects, and generally speaking, very good effects they are. Unlike Beowulf, however, the effects are used in annoyingly obvious ways, too often objects and liquids propelled towards the viewer. What decade are we in, anyway, the 1950’s? I mean, seriously. What made Beowolf so interesting was the use of 3-D technology to enhance the every-day world (the beach, the drink, the food, along with the fight scenes). Here, the effects are in your face obvious, often tongue-in-cheek. To make an effect humorous is to remove the possibility of true suspension of disbelief. We are not in the underworld, we are watching a movie about the underworld. A not terribly well-acted movie, at that, Brendan Frasier being no James Mason.
Still, it was a ride and an enjoyable one at that. Some stunning visuals, enough to satisfy most sci-fi fans. More subtle use of the 3-D technology to place the viewer squarely in the action would have made it more an experience than simply a ride. As with Beowulf, what’s disappointing is that we know this story will not be told again, on the big screen; this was the one shot to make a modern classic and once again, the filmmakers have failed to do so. Worth seeing? Definitely, but mostly for sci-fi or action fans. Could have been better? Easily. I'm sure I'll watch it again at home, on DVD, sans the 3-D.
Look for Anita Briem in the forth-coming fantasy The Storyteller, written and directed by Robert A. Masciantonio.
For a nice clip of Rick Wakeman in all his flowing-robe, Journey glory: click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment