Review: Dwayne Johnson and Michael Caine struggle with flimsy 'Journey 2'
Anemic family adventure can't find anything interesting for cast to do
- Critic's Rating C-
- Readers' Rating n/a
Dwayne Johnson, Luis Guzman, Michael Caine, Vanessa Hudgens, and Josh Hutcherson all struggle to give some sense of urgency to the tepid 'Journey 2: The Mysterious Island'
Even by the standards of family adventure movies, "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" feels completely slapdash and indifferent, a trailer for a franchise that just happens to run feature-length. It is scripted as if someone greenlit a first-draft treatment without bothering to flesh it out or hone any of the ideas, and the idea that we're supposed to care about seeing these characters return in future adventures would be insulting if it weren't so obvious that even the people onscreen aren't invested in that actually happening.
The general idea of building a franchise of movies out of the public domain works of Jules Verne is not automatically a bad one. Theoretically, I can see that working. In practice, though, this does not appear to be the right way to do it. The first film, "Journey To The Center Of The Earth," played more like a proof-of-concept reel for 3D event movies than as a real film. It leaned on whatever franchise weight Brendan Fraser was able to muster, with Josh Hutcherson playing his son in the film. This sequel does not bring back the original director (Eric Brevig), the original screenwriters (Michael D. Weiss, Jennifer Flackett, Mark Levin), or Fraser. Instead, they've refitted the movies so Hutcherson is now living with his mother ("Sex and the City" star Kristin Davis) and her new husband Hank (Dwayne Johnson). There's absolutely no effort made to explain Fraser's absence or to connect this with any sort of narrative thread to the first film. Aside from the actual on-screen title, there is no evidence that this is a sequel at all. This is an odd move, but it sort of exemplifies the approach of the entire film. It's all so incredibly painless and weightless and inconsequential.
The film opens with Sean (Hutcherson) striking a sort of angry young man pose in a sequence that feels like deleted scenes from "TRON Legacy." Once we can see just how angrily Sean rides his motorcycle, he gets a secret coded radio message, and Hank turns out to be an ex-codebuster for the military. It helps that it appears to be the easiest code in the history of juvenile adventure fiction. That leads them a treasure map that depends on a rather sizable logical leap that depends on a conspiracy between publishers and authors that makes no sense whatsoever. If you can accept that, then it's off to the races.
The script by Mark Gunn & Brian Gunn doesn't even try. I'm baffled by the "characters" they wrote for Luis Guzman and Vanessa Hudgens, who show up as the father/daughter owners of an airline charter. I love Guzman. He's one of those actors whose ongoing employment brings me genuine pleasure. But Gabato is a horrendously realized character, "comic relief" of the most cynical and calculated variety. He's a coward, his helicopter barely works, he's poor, he's adorably gay for Johnson's character, and he always does the wrong thing at the wrong time. It's like someone was angry at him when they wrote the part for him. Hudgens is given equally poor material to work with, and I'm ashamed at how I reacted to her costuming choice in the film, obviously designed to pander. Poor girl. They put her in a shirt that almost but not quite covers her little belly and her hips that are almost covered by her teeny tiny shorts. I visited the Hawaii location, and I can testify that it was just as distracting in person, and there's nothing accidental about it. There's a sequence in the film where she has to crawl through a little tunnel into the tomb of Captain Nemo that somehow feels like a dirtier use of 3D than anything in "Flesh Gordon". You can almost hear the film leering at her. Considering how blatantly this entire film seems pitched at kids, it is inappropriate.
Some of the blame for that goes to Brad Peyton. Some of it goes to the folks at Walden, who really haven't gotten significantly better at the business they're in. It seems to me that if your entire business model hinges on making a certain kind of film, then you'd learn from that process and get better at it. And yet, even after a bunch of "Narnia" films and a few of these and attempts like "The Seeker" and "The Water Horse" and "City of Ember" and "Nim's Island," you would eventually start having fun with it. Good pulp should have a sense of joy in the invention, a sense of abandon to it. It doesn't have to be a reinvention of the genre, but at least make me feel like you enjoy what you're doing.
Instead, "Journey 2" just goes through the motions. They make some obligatory references to the work of Jules Verne, to "Treasure island," to Atlantis, to things that sound like they should be exciting or interesting, but there's no pulse to it. I don't believe that it's ever anything but actors standing around trying desperately to look like they care. Michael Caine is given a thankless role as Sean's absentee grandpa, showing up in order to have a phony character arc, and when even he can't make the dialogue work, when even Dwayne Johnson with his charm turned up to "maximum" can't add energy to a scene, then you are just plain screwed.
There are giant bees, dogfights with hungry birds, a big lizard, and an electric eel, and somehow it's all sort of boring and fuzzy and poorly composited. I refuse to believe that Digital Domain is at fault for the startlingly unconvincing effects work in the movie. As I said, I went to visit the set of this film, on location in Hawaii, and it was stunning. Beautiful. A real environment. And on film, you would never know it. They do such a bad job of blending the location work with the effects work that it really does seem pointless to have ever shot location work at all. I saw the picture projected on my favorite IMAX screen in LA, where they have one of the best 3D projectors I've ever seen, and I walked away thoroughly unimpressed by the visual work in the film. I am a stone-cold sucker for that presentation in that theater, and in this case, I don't think the film stands up to that sort of scrutiny. And if you can't even just sit back and enjoy the spectacle, then what point is there to a film like this?
"Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" opens Friday. I cannot imagine there will be a "Journey 3," and if there is, I will blame each and every one of you personally.
News From Our Partners
-
What to Watch Tonight: The Office's Big Farewell and the Season Finales of TVD, Elementary, and Five More
The CW's 2013-2014 Schedule: Supernatural Switches Nights Again, The Vampire Diaries Pairs With Reign
Watch the Trailers for The CW's New Series, Including The 100, Star-Crossed, and Reign (VIDEO)
-
Hulu.com: Is The Office the Definitive TV Show of the '00s?
Craziest 'Simpsons' Couch Gag Yet?
Denied By PBS?
-
One Direction Announce Where We Are Stadium Tour for 2014
Miley Cyrus Wants Everyone to Know She's Still Engaged by Posting This New Pic
Most Anticipated Album Release for June 2013 – Readers Poll
-
'Star Trek Into Darkness': The Reviews Are In!
Emma Watson In 'The Bling Ring': The Early Reviews Are In!
'Star Trek' And Klingon: Learn The Language Of The Aliens!
-
The Telefile - Modern Family: The Best Lines of the Night
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
The Telefile - TNT & TBS Upfront 2013: Reaping What Other Networks Sowed
-
Weekend Movies: 'Star Trek Into Darkness,' 'Black Rock,' and More
Bruce Willis Set for 'Expiration': Actor Will Play Hitman in Next Movie
Emma Watson Says She is in No Rush 'To Be Seen as a Woman'
-
State of Decay, TMNT Release Dates Leaked by Gamestop
Watch 'The Hangover 3′ Stars Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong Perform Stand-Up Together in 1998
'Pacific Rim' Trailer: When Man and Machine Become One
-
Total Recall: Star Trek Movies
Parental Guidance: Star Trek Into Darkness
In Pictures: The Stars of Star Trek Into Darkness
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
Plus we look back at a more spirited encounter with the comic actorThursday, May 16, 2013
-
The Channing Tatum/Mila Kunis science-fiction action movie is shooting nowThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Hollywood's busiest alien spends a little more time with StarfleetThursday, May 16, 2013
-
David Twohy's latest looks lean and meanWednesday, May 15, 2013



Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signupbubbatwo420
February 9, 2012 at 11:28AM EST Reply to CommentWill we get the new Amazing Spider-Man trailer in IMAX3D though? that's what i wanna know
KlarkKent
February 9, 2012 at 11:37AM EST Reply to CommentYour description of Vanessa Hudgens in the film ALMOST makes me want to see what is obviously a terrible kiddie film that someone wrote over a weekend.
Mary
February 9, 2012 at 12:00PM EST Reply to CommentJosh Hutcherson's character in the first movie was Brendan Fraser's nephew not son. So it is very likely that he would still be living with his mother and not his uncle. Do your research propertly.
NaughtyBearJew not like it matters much...why angry?
February 9, 2012 at 3:24PM ESTPrettok
February 9, 2012 at 12:12PM EST Reply to CommentThere is a long American tradition of childrens entertainment containing 'inappropriate' content. People may express shock at the time. But once they're older, kids tend to be pretty nostalgic over it. Look at bikini-slave Princess Leia or Tinkerbell-as-animated Marilyn Monroe.
KlarkKent Not just American. Most of the classics of childrens' literature, from Treasure Island to Harry Potter, are steeped in violence, death and murder. Which is why when I was figuring out the tone of my all-ages adventure comic, I decided I wasn't going to be afraid to go to those places. Thus far sex/sexiness hasn't entered into it, since the protagonist is a girl of approximately 12 years of age, but if I ever do a Burrough's style adventure, I'll definitely be throwing in a fur-bikinied jungle girl for the sake of awesomeness.
February 9, 2012 at 3:50PM ESTMonty Jack
February 11, 2012 at 12:31AM EST Reply to CommentHey Drew, you consider Vanessa Hudgens in short-shorts to be "inappropriate" for the film's young audience, yet you allow your kids to watch those HORRIBLE Chipmunk and Smurf movies, laden with thinly-disguised sexual references and overall vulgarity ("Munk Yourself!")? Ariel wears nothing but a clamshell bra and a smile throughout most of The Little Mermaid, so should children be shielded from that?
drew Not the point I was making at all. There's a world of difference in the Leia costume Prettok mentioned or Ariel's outfit in "Little Mermaid" and the scenes in this movie where the director jams a 3D camera about four inches from Vanessa's muff which is packed into shorts so tight I can read her lips. I found the shameless use of Hudgens as nothing but eye candy to be disturbing, and not just because they dressed her in as little as possible, but because that's all they did. It is overtly sexual and more than anything, I'm offended by how lazy it is.
February 11, 2012 at 12:53AM ESTBut I didn't rant and rave about "shielding the children," so I'm not sure what your point in calling me out was.
Monty Jack Maybe you didn't "rant and rave", but it seems odd you'd complain about the appropriateness of a character's wardrobe, yet you refer to movies like The Smurfs and the Chipmunks as "harmless", despite the fact they teach kids to emulate vulgar adult phrases with thinly-disguised substitute words. Funny, I don't recall classic Disney movies featuring characters imitating porno music or telling each other to "Munk off!". Is it okay if it features crudely-animated CGI figures making crude comments instead of actual actors?
February 11, 2012 at 5:46PM ESTjack
March 1, 2012 at 12:23AM EST Reply to CommentWhat an idiot..Guzman isn't supposed to be gay..he has a kid..and nothing inapproipriate at leering at that girl..hell, I'd nail her