Avis des utilisateurs

Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.

I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.

I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you.

One of many many adaptations of the Jules Verne classic Journey to the Center of the Earth it's also the sequel to Alien from L.A (1988).

It's easy to make it randomly a sequel to some dodgy film as it has about as much to do with Verne's work as E.T (1982) does with Alien (1979)!

It tells the story of three young people who find themselves trapped in a cave system when a nearby volcano erupts. Forced to go further in to try and find a way out they come across the lost city of Atlantis and all the drivel that came with the previous movie.

To its credit it does follow Alien from L.A fairly well, but that's pretty much all it has going for it. It's yet another cheesy mess that lacks in pretty much every area of entertainment value.

To make matters worse there is a dream sequence that has nothing to do with anything and the scene that builds up to the finale seems to have been removed entirely!

If you can get past these issues and so very much more than you might find some level of enjoyment watching the two movies as a pair but as a stand alone it's devoid of anything and everything.

The Good:

Follows on from the previous movie well

Some neat pop culture references

The Bad:

The application of bioluminescence is still stupid

Not even remotely an adaptation

Pointless dream sequence

Very dishonest cover art

Ending feels unfinished

I'm the named director of the film. Only the approximately first 8 minutes of the film were written or directed by me. The remainder of the film is actually the sequel to "Alien In LA" which was tacked on and renamed "Journey to the Center of the Earth" in order to fulfill contractual commitments by the production company to foreign distributors. The remainder of the footage I shot (my film) has never been seen by the public (and few others) due to the lack of funds at the time to shoot and insert the many special effects shots required. The storyline of my version/script is entirely different from that in the above-titled film (the released version).

Just when I thought I seen it all here comes this nonsensical movie arriving on its bull crap. This is just a tangled up mess and I am still waiting for someone to tell me this is a joke.

This movie should win or be in the category the worst film ever made. I cannot say anything good about it at all. The acting, writing, direction, scenery, and everything else is just so poor. However, I would actually recommend that you see this film just to believe that it was made. The first half of the film is about the journey to the center of the world. Then people go missing, some without any reason. Then the second half is about the lost city of Atlantis which I believe is the 2nd half of another film which they obviously thought would work together. It didn't. If you like B movies then it might be funny to you. But, to anyone else, it really sucks. Gave it 1 out of 10 because there is no option of 0 out of 10.

Don't waste your time. Run away as fast as you can from this movie.

Supposedly this is kind of a sequel to "Alien from L. A.", that I haven't seen, but I very much doubt that it would make more sense if I had watched the previous film. What starts out as a kind of 80s teenage version of Verne's novel, quickly transforms into a psychotronic Sci-Fi film that adds the myth of Atlantis and some punk rock attitude to the proceedings in a spectacular mess impossible to describe. Again, we are in the territory of very bad films, but with the Cannon seal of cheesy entertainment that makes for a very fun crazy product with the right frame of mind.

This film is the worst film I have ever seen. The story line is weak - I couldn't even follow it. The acting is high-schoolish. The sound track is irritating. The attempts at humor are not. The editing is horrible. The credits are even slow - I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this waste of film. Don't waste your time even thinking about this attempt at acting.

Sequel to the campy, much maligned Kathy Ireland vehicle, "Alien from L.A." This time Nicola Cowper (dressing like a 1980's Cyndi Lauper/Madonna clone) stars in the lead (Kathy has a cameo) doing an "Adventures in Babysitting goes to the Center of the Earth" type of thing. Whatever you liked (or hated) about the first film, be assured there's more here. 1980's punk rock version of Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" can be taken for what it is but the plot at the end is very difficult to follow and ultimately falls apart. I liked the Brady-Bunch-goes-to-Hawaii theme at the beginning but the creeps at the center of the Earth (about 300 feet below the surface actually) were boring if anything at all. Looking like a live-action Saturday morning TV show from the early 1970's (think H.R. Puffenstuff) this is the type of film best watched while doing something else with a bunch of other people. Maybe a better title would be "Is This Still On?"

Fans of Jules Verne's timeless adventure story should take heed of early signs of impending danger in this train-wreck of a movie and immediately turn back: Journey To The Center Of The Earth '88 is extremely tough going and many pitfalls lie in wait.

The first indication that this is going to be a disastrous expedition into the unknown comes with the introduction of the film's heroine, British nanny Crystina (Nicola Cowper), an unappealing, androgynous looking young woman with a very nasty haircut. Things get worse when Crystina takes a job in Hawaii, looking after a dog for wild rock singer Billy Foul (Jeremy Crutchley), and her path crosses with two irritating, American teenage boys, Richard (Paul Carafotes) and Bryan (Ilan Mitchell-Smith), and their younger sister Sara (Jackie Bernstein). By now, it's perfectly clear that this film bears little resemblance to Verne's novel.

When the kids go exploring volcanic caves on the island, with Crystina following (having had her dog basket put in the back of their jeep by mistake), the group find themselves plunged into a subterranean world where they discover Atlantis, home to a Brazil-style dystopian society of bizarre 80s punk-styled characters.

This charmless mess of a movie was started by writer/director Rusty Lemorande, but when Cannon films refused to cough up the cash for his intended special effects, the film was eventually completed by tacking on material shot by B-movie legend Albert Pyun, whose abysmal Atlantis based footage ostensibly serves as a sequel to his earlier movie Alien From L.A. (which was also loosely based on Verne's classic).

The diabolical, incoherent narrative, cheap sets (complete with polystyrene rocks), and wooden performances from Cowper and Mitchell-Smith make the whole sorry affair difficult to endure. After much aimless Atlantis-based action in which the youngsters (minus Richard, who mysteriously vanishes) try to avoid capture by the villainous General Rykov (Janie du Plessis), who plans to invade the Earth's surface, the film ends abruptly with a completely pointless montage of earlier scenes set to a crappy 80s pop/rock tune.

Supposedly a sequel to "Alien from LA". But not really anything. No plot. Not ending. Nothing. Why did actors take this job? Were they that short of money? Producers must have been pretending to fulfill a contract obligation, but produced zero budget garbage. Even as a camp comedy it fails. Don't bother.

I guess the answer to my own question is that it is so bad it's good. Fans of the book will probably well and truly dislike this film, but while some of it was like viewing a train wreck, I did find myself moderately enjoying it.

The cast is pretty electric and do their best. They don't have much to work with and the results overall are a mixed bag, plus I admit there were some questionable casting choices initially, but I could actually sort of see some effort. The pacing is pretty good, the direction was at least okay(in some ways) and the film is a good enough length, maybe not long enough to cover the whole story but it wasn't too short or too long in my opinion.

However, I have to admit there are a LOT of problems with this film. The story is incoherent and sometimes hard to follow, while the script has a lot of ups and downs. Complete with some garish cinematography, some amateurish sets and some half-baked special effects. And in case you're wondering, it does bare little resemblance to the book- not that it is a flaw or anything, but in case you love the book and are thinking of seeing this film, I am just warning you in advance it has a number of changes.

Overall, has its moments, but it does have this so bad its good value, so it's watchable but don't expect a masterpiece. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Is this film worse than Plan 9 from Outer Space? This mess is probably the Plan 9 of its era. Glad I watched it. It makes me appreciate almost everything else.

Sort of like Mole People meet The Grinch meet Nothing But Trouble. This is a very peculiar movie indeed. For one thing, why is it named Journey To The Center of The Earth??? There should be a lawsuit. This movie has nothing in common with the Jules Verne expedition. Why i watched: it sounded intriguing going in a cave and finding Atlantis. However. Atlantis is just not at all what i expected. The lead up to the great discovery is rife with suspense but nothing really happens. It did seem like it went by fast. I was surprised to see the 1:40 run time. Seemed like an hour. It didn't drag, that's one good thing.

Rusty Lemorande's ' Journey To The Center Of The Earth ' should not be regarded as a sequel to Albert Pyun's ' Alien From L.A. '. Although released in the same year as that movie ( 1988 ) and utilizing some of the same sets and characters, Lemorande's ' Journey... ' actually pre-dates it, production having begun around 1986. Unfortunately, financial problems apparently halted filming and Pyun was later brought in to make the movie his own, the latter half of the story altered to tie-in with the release of ' Alien.. '.

Loosely based on Jules Verne's classic novel and aimed squarely at a teen audience, ' Journey... ' is a fun science-fiction fantasy adventure that has a likeable young british nanny named Crystina ( Nicola Cowper ) plummet to the center of the earth whilst exploring the volcanic landscape of Hawaii with two young american boys, Richard ( Paul Carafotes ) and Bryan ( Ilan Mitchell-Smith of ' Weird Science ' ).

The first half of the movie belongs to Lemorande and concerns Crystina's arrival in Hawaii and her eventual descent into the center of the earth. The latter half belongs to Pyun and has Crystina wander into ' Alien From L.A.'s ' punk underground world of Atlantis. The first half is the most interesting and showcases some truly amazing special effects. The latter half is less so and is somewhat slapdash in comparison.

I would hope that one day ' Journey... ' will get a release in it's original cut. For snippets of Lemorande's original vision, very different from the final cut and edited into the movie as dream sequences, has Crystina and Richard captured by underground trolls and rescued by comic book fan Bryan! Who knows, maybe an alternate version of the movie will eventually see the light of day on a special edition DVD? It would certainly make interesting viewing.

I don't even know where to start with this disaster. After reading that it wasn't even the fim the director/screen-play writer intended, but a grafted sequel to the nearly as horrible "Alien from LA" it makes a bit of sense how this film came to be.

Yet as a piece of cinematic work it makes absolutely no sense. It's as if a film-school group got an assignment and each did their own thing without consulting the others. There was obviously some budget for this - like maybe enough to do a SciFi movie on the BBC or some young adult movie network. The sets aren't necessarilly good, but they are obviously done with great effort and at least moderate expense. The costumes are also done up as though someone was trying to make a decent movie even if the overall visual appeal is... questionable. However the actors are definitely from the bargain bin. I'm not sure if it's quite their fault, or simply bad material... but the characters stink on ice.

It's truly not a good movie. It could be a 'so-bad-it's-good' film for some; but most are going to get more value and entertainment out of things like laundry, or doing dishes, or mowing the lawn for an equivalent amout of time. I'm not sure if you could even make a decent drinking game out of it... just drink and skip the film maybe.

Journey To The Center Of The Earth (2) (1988) -

Funnily enough, until the end where the climax was as disappointing as when an adolescent plays with it too much and no longer feels anything, this wouldn't have been the worst film ever. However, with it being left almost completely unfinished/a cobbled mess there didn't seem to have been any point to my having watched it. And honestly I wished that I hadn't bothered with it after about five minutes, but was made to continue with it due to the company I was keeping.

The acting was awful especially Crystina (Nicola Cowper) who was a really annoying character anyway and why would someone in Hawaii hire a Nanny all the way from England and why would she agree to go?

She wasn't the worst actor, but a lot of the other's performances were due to the extreme and surreal nature of the characters that were living in Atlantis and didn't really know what our normal was.

When you enter a cave and stumble across a lost civilisation you have to expect that, but they really weren't the best actors to start with. I actually noted down that they were too pantomime and cringeable.

Paul Carafotes as Richard/Ringo was the best, but he just suddenly left the film and then bam that was it.

The film was obviously low budget and actually quite trippy. Somewhat like an after school special or a really cheap episode of 'Doctor Who' (1963 - 89) or a really lousy episode of 'Red Dwarf' (1988 -) And I was sort of reminded of 'Little Monsters' (1989) which I also didn't like, but I'd rather watch that one a thousand times than ever watch this again.

It might have helped if I'd seen the first film in the series 'Alien From L. A.' (1988) but if I had there would probably have been no way that I would ever have bothered with this one. I also don't feel the need to find that previous film to help make sense of this one.

There were so many flaws with this film. For one thing I think that I would definitely have been more amazed by what I'd found down there, but the lighting, editing, costume, props and basically everything else was just terrible too.

And THAT! THAT WAS THE END??????? I mean it was clear that no one gave a damn about this film, but a random montage of bits from the film was not an ending, especially when nothing was actually resolved and with so many blackouts that I assumed were only to give it a certain running time?

If it hadn't been for that I might have scored this higher than 1, but with no conclusion to what was pretty poor anyway, I can only give it a fractional score.

0.75/10.