223 reviews
Jackie Chan has had a mixed time of late in Hollywood. There was the good fun of Shanghai Knights and around that was the poor duo of Tuxedo and The Medallion. This falls somewhere in the middle. Around The World is good fun. It's not great but it has charm and energy and is the sort of mindless, competent movie making that is hard not to enjoy watching. It's forgettable, could have been much better, but all in all not a bad way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
The look of the film feels very Disney. It is all very much orientated towards satisfying children. It's almost a cartoonish realism with the set design and costumes, clearly evident with Philleas Fogs gadget laden home. The action in the film and the looks could probably have been more gritty but in any case it looks very colourful and the various settings all catch the eye. It is clearly evident that the film had a lot spent on it, although some of the CGI effects are not of the standard expected from a $110 million film.
Cast-wise, Jackie Chan as ever is good. He's a comical genius and as usual performs his own stunts. The fight scenes are good. Nothing compared to Chan's Hong Kong stuff but far superior to much of his Hollywood action. Steve Coogan is someone I am a big fan of. He is the dog's hairy things as Alan Partridge. He is a comical genius. He doesn't seem as entirely natural here though and the character he creates doesn't always work. It seems too cartoony at times especially the accent. Cecile De France is very good as Coogan's love interest. She is attractive, in a cutesy sort of way but she has a charm and a likeability that works very well and the three leads seem to have a good chemistry. The rest of the cast are all excellent with a huge list of supporting parts and cameo's including an excellent Jim Broadbent, a great part for Ah-nuld Schwarzenegger, and it was great to see him on screen with Chan, also Rob Schneider, Luke and Owen Wilson, John Cleese, Kathy Bates, and particularly exciting to me as a Hong Kong action fan, Sammo Hung. The best supporting part for me was Ewan Bremner as the accident prone police sergeant.
Overall it's worth watching and is entertaining enough but don't expect it to blow your socks off. ***
The look of the film feels very Disney. It is all very much orientated towards satisfying children. It's almost a cartoonish realism with the set design and costumes, clearly evident with Philleas Fogs gadget laden home. The action in the film and the looks could probably have been more gritty but in any case it looks very colourful and the various settings all catch the eye. It is clearly evident that the film had a lot spent on it, although some of the CGI effects are not of the standard expected from a $110 million film.
Cast-wise, Jackie Chan as ever is good. He's a comical genius and as usual performs his own stunts. The fight scenes are good. Nothing compared to Chan's Hong Kong stuff but far superior to much of his Hollywood action. Steve Coogan is someone I am a big fan of. He is the dog's hairy things as Alan Partridge. He is a comical genius. He doesn't seem as entirely natural here though and the character he creates doesn't always work. It seems too cartoony at times especially the accent. Cecile De France is very good as Coogan's love interest. She is attractive, in a cutesy sort of way but she has a charm and a likeability that works very well and the three leads seem to have a good chemistry. The rest of the cast are all excellent with a huge list of supporting parts and cameo's including an excellent Jim Broadbent, a great part for Ah-nuld Schwarzenegger, and it was great to see him on screen with Chan, also Rob Schneider, Luke and Owen Wilson, John Cleese, Kathy Bates, and particularly exciting to me as a Hong Kong action fan, Sammo Hung. The best supporting part for me was Ewan Bremner as the accident prone police sergeant.
Overall it's worth watching and is entertaining enough but don't expect it to blow your socks off. ***
- supertom-3
- Jul 7, 2004
- Permalink
The credits roll, and I sarcastically turn to my friend, and whisper, "Dude, 3 screenwriters, and they're all named Dave."
Oddly enough, that turned out to pretty much sum up the whole movie.
It's not BAD. It leans toward good, except it's not so much a remake as it is a Disney-fication. Like 'Cinderella' and 'The Little Mermaid' before it, Disney takes the title of the story and a few major characters, and just turns it into a theme-park attraction with emotional and dramatic resonance to match.
Frank Coraci is solely responsible for making Adam Sandler's star stick. "Happy Gilmore" was cute, but it didn't have the style of a REAL movie, like his two films with Coraci, "The Wedding Singer," and "The Waterboy." Those films work as FILMS, not just Adam Sandler vehicles.
I had high hopes for this one, and for that reason, it splatted. Amusing lines here and there, and great kung-fu choreography ruined by the same poor photography that screwed up "Rush Hour." This is martial arts. DO NOT shoot your actors from the waist up. Things happen too fast, people are moving in too many directions. So in "80 Days," like in "Rush Hour," I had a sense that there was martial arts taking place, but could barely see it. Coraci does pull the camera back a few times, down to the ankles maybe, so a few scenes are reasonably well-shot. But not as well as they could have been. In fact, the entire movie feels rushed, like they're trying to cram the whole script into the alotted time frame. Some "Indiana Jones"-type pacing would have worked wonders, even if it made the movie 30 minutes longer. We're still talking about the book 100 years later for a reason, you know.
What could have been fun for everyone turns into Disney-video wackiness that will barely appeal to anyone over 13, and not at all to any fan of Jules Verne. And thus the old rule applies once again.... the more screenwriters, the worse the film. Even if they're all named Dave.
Oddly enough, that turned out to pretty much sum up the whole movie.
It's not BAD. It leans toward good, except it's not so much a remake as it is a Disney-fication. Like 'Cinderella' and 'The Little Mermaid' before it, Disney takes the title of the story and a few major characters, and just turns it into a theme-park attraction with emotional and dramatic resonance to match.
Frank Coraci is solely responsible for making Adam Sandler's star stick. "Happy Gilmore" was cute, but it didn't have the style of a REAL movie, like his two films with Coraci, "The Wedding Singer," and "The Waterboy." Those films work as FILMS, not just Adam Sandler vehicles.
I had high hopes for this one, and for that reason, it splatted. Amusing lines here and there, and great kung-fu choreography ruined by the same poor photography that screwed up "Rush Hour." This is martial arts. DO NOT shoot your actors from the waist up. Things happen too fast, people are moving in too many directions. So in "80 Days," like in "Rush Hour," I had a sense that there was martial arts taking place, but could barely see it. Coraci does pull the camera back a few times, down to the ankles maybe, so a few scenes are reasonably well-shot. But not as well as they could have been. In fact, the entire movie feels rushed, like they're trying to cram the whole script into the alotted time frame. Some "Indiana Jones"-type pacing would have worked wonders, even if it made the movie 30 minutes longer. We're still talking about the book 100 years later for a reason, you know.
What could have been fun for everyone turns into Disney-video wackiness that will barely appeal to anyone over 13, and not at all to any fan of Jules Verne. And thus the old rule applies once again.... the more screenwriters, the worse the film. Even if they're all named Dave.
Very unfaithful adaptation of the Jules Verne novel, yet much more entertaining than the tedious and wildly overrated but relatively faithful David Niven version. The movie is breezy and enjoyable, with some fun fight scenes, although it is completely inconsequential.
I think it would help when watching this movie to have not read the book, because one cannot help but think that the extensive rewriting was not necessary. Passepartout's character could have been expanded for Jackie without so many other changes. Changing Phineas to a bumbling, goofy inventor was clearly done in an attempt to make the movie into another version of the buddy movie that has been Jackie's greatest friend in the U.S., but Coogan is unexceptional in the role and doesn't have a lot of chemistry with Jackie, so they really should have just done the character as written, which could have made for a much smarter movie.
In spite of plot holes and some silliness though, I enjoyed this, at least in that, watch-a-movie-on-TV-on-a-Saturday-morning way.
I think it would help when watching this movie to have not read the book, because one cannot help but think that the extensive rewriting was not necessary. Passepartout's character could have been expanded for Jackie without so many other changes. Changing Phineas to a bumbling, goofy inventor was clearly done in an attempt to make the movie into another version of the buddy movie that has been Jackie's greatest friend in the U.S., but Coogan is unexceptional in the role and doesn't have a lot of chemistry with Jackie, so they really should have just done the character as written, which could have made for a much smarter movie.
In spite of plot holes and some silliness though, I enjoyed this, at least in that, watch-a-movie-on-TV-on-a-Saturday-morning way.
Movie goers planning to see a faithful and traditional screen adaptation of the Jules Verne novel Around the World in Eighty Days will be disappointed in the new version released by Disney, and produced and starring Jackie Chan. Those looking for a moderately amusing and quite diverting Hong Kong action-comedy will be positively delighted.
Disney has obviously pitched this latest screen version of the well loved adventure tale to a young audience, and the marketing strategy is ideal. American kids, forced to take standardized tests but not required to do real learning in school will be totally ignorant of the wholesale changes the ham handed screen writers have made to the literary source material and will have no clue what so ever that the 'historic' references and interpolated real characters and situations are vastly inaccurate. They will recognize mentions of Thomas Edison or the Wright Brothers with out ever knowing why they don't fit in. At the top of the film, an on-screen title identifies the time as before the turn of the century, and that inexact reference provides most of the historical bloopers through out, as it seems no one involved in the film knew what could be forgiven in the name of entertaining fiction and what strains credibility.
The bare bones of the plot that Verne set down in 1872 are still here, but what director Frank Coraci and a trio of screen writers have done is follow the Verne book so loosely that you can hear those bare bones rattle as this action picture careens from one corner of the globe to the other.: A proper British gentleman, orderly and efficient, accepts a wager that he can circle the globe in the span of just more that two months, or 80 days. He is assisted by his resourceful valet, who is not British and along the way wins the heart of a fair maiden and finds true love as well as the successful completion of his wager.
Knowing that Mr. Coraci is the film maker who gave us The Wedding Singer and The Waterboy will give some idea of the level of humor involved in most scenes. Further confidence will not be gained from the writing trio's pat efforts, as one is making his feature film debut and another wrote for the sitcom Who's the Boss. The most obvious stamp on this production is made by star Jackie Chan, who is also and executive producer and stunt arranger on this film.
My young son has developed a taste for martial arts film after seeing a Bruce Lee movie on cable, so I have taken in a few of Mr. Chan's more recent efforts on DVD. Chan's American films are less serious than his Chinese language pictures, playing on Chan's ability to perform the most amazing physical feats along with his charming method of not acting. The action sequences are always astonishing, and Around the World serves up a superb sampling of what he can do, and do very well. The character Chan plays was a Frenchman in Verne's rendering, but the movie changes things in an almost plausible way to account for the obvious fact that Chan is not of that background.
Changes are made in the main character as well. Steve Coogan plays Philieas Fogg, the Englishman who makes the wager and travels the globe to win it, and Coogan should learn from Chan's example the wisdom of being not only actor but producer. Though he plays what is arguably the main character in the story, Coogan is billed second, behind Chan in the film's credits. Coogan delivers a character that is far more 'obviously' eccentric that Verne may have imagined, and the script plays up some of this in making Fogg and mad inventor type who concocts outlandish-and ahead of their time-inventions that the scientific establishment will not embrace. I am ready to bet good money that the director or one of the screen writers was making a sort of homage to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with this characterization of Fogg, since he comes across much like the genial mad scientist that Dick Van Dyke played in that film.
Seeing this film reminded me of the affection that I have for a previous screen version, the one that starred David Niven as Fogg, in a masterful performance that seems to sum up the effete bravado that is a stereotypical British Gentleman. At one point of the circumnavigation while in India, Niven as Fogg is given what every Britisher needs in a warm clime, a pith helmet, but his has a sort of veil or ribbon that hangs down the back. It is an usual sartorial flourish that not every actor could carry off, because wearing a hat with a veil just looks girly on most guys, but Niven not only makes it work but makes it work for him.
Any good adventure story, and this is one, needs a villain to hiss at, and Jim Broadbent has obvious fun as the blustering Lord Kelvin that he threatens to steal the show from some of the less raucous performers. Kathy Bates has a forcefully memorable cameo as Queen Victoria, and looks like the best screen Victoria in some time. Arnold Schwarzenegger shows up as Turkish prince and displays the acting prowess that indicate his continued occupancy of the Governor's office is a good thing for the art of cinema.
Although the costumes don't give a clear definition of time period, they are handsome to look at, and there is a lot of good design work that has gone into this film. Each culture and geographic region is set off in contrast to the others we encounter, and the animated transitions between live action scenes are an effective and charming way to move along in style.
My bottom line: 2.5 out of 5 stars. Worth a matinee.
My son's bottom line 'I liked the fights' He didn't fall asleep or ask to leave.
Disney has obviously pitched this latest screen version of the well loved adventure tale to a young audience, and the marketing strategy is ideal. American kids, forced to take standardized tests but not required to do real learning in school will be totally ignorant of the wholesale changes the ham handed screen writers have made to the literary source material and will have no clue what so ever that the 'historic' references and interpolated real characters and situations are vastly inaccurate. They will recognize mentions of Thomas Edison or the Wright Brothers with out ever knowing why they don't fit in. At the top of the film, an on-screen title identifies the time as before the turn of the century, and that inexact reference provides most of the historical bloopers through out, as it seems no one involved in the film knew what could be forgiven in the name of entertaining fiction and what strains credibility.
The bare bones of the plot that Verne set down in 1872 are still here, but what director Frank Coraci and a trio of screen writers have done is follow the Verne book so loosely that you can hear those bare bones rattle as this action picture careens from one corner of the globe to the other.: A proper British gentleman, orderly and efficient, accepts a wager that he can circle the globe in the span of just more that two months, or 80 days. He is assisted by his resourceful valet, who is not British and along the way wins the heart of a fair maiden and finds true love as well as the successful completion of his wager.
Knowing that Mr. Coraci is the film maker who gave us The Wedding Singer and The Waterboy will give some idea of the level of humor involved in most scenes. Further confidence will not be gained from the writing trio's pat efforts, as one is making his feature film debut and another wrote for the sitcom Who's the Boss. The most obvious stamp on this production is made by star Jackie Chan, who is also and executive producer and stunt arranger on this film.
My young son has developed a taste for martial arts film after seeing a Bruce Lee movie on cable, so I have taken in a few of Mr. Chan's more recent efforts on DVD. Chan's American films are less serious than his Chinese language pictures, playing on Chan's ability to perform the most amazing physical feats along with his charming method of not acting. The action sequences are always astonishing, and Around the World serves up a superb sampling of what he can do, and do very well. The character Chan plays was a Frenchman in Verne's rendering, but the movie changes things in an almost plausible way to account for the obvious fact that Chan is not of that background.
Changes are made in the main character as well. Steve Coogan plays Philieas Fogg, the Englishman who makes the wager and travels the globe to win it, and Coogan should learn from Chan's example the wisdom of being not only actor but producer. Though he plays what is arguably the main character in the story, Coogan is billed second, behind Chan in the film's credits. Coogan delivers a character that is far more 'obviously' eccentric that Verne may have imagined, and the script plays up some of this in making Fogg and mad inventor type who concocts outlandish-and ahead of their time-inventions that the scientific establishment will not embrace. I am ready to bet good money that the director or one of the screen writers was making a sort of homage to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with this characterization of Fogg, since he comes across much like the genial mad scientist that Dick Van Dyke played in that film.
Seeing this film reminded me of the affection that I have for a previous screen version, the one that starred David Niven as Fogg, in a masterful performance that seems to sum up the effete bravado that is a stereotypical British Gentleman. At one point of the circumnavigation while in India, Niven as Fogg is given what every Britisher needs in a warm clime, a pith helmet, but his has a sort of veil or ribbon that hangs down the back. It is an usual sartorial flourish that not every actor could carry off, because wearing a hat with a veil just looks girly on most guys, but Niven not only makes it work but makes it work for him.
Any good adventure story, and this is one, needs a villain to hiss at, and Jim Broadbent has obvious fun as the blustering Lord Kelvin that he threatens to steal the show from some of the less raucous performers. Kathy Bates has a forcefully memorable cameo as Queen Victoria, and looks like the best screen Victoria in some time. Arnold Schwarzenegger shows up as Turkish prince and displays the acting prowess that indicate his continued occupancy of the Governor's office is a good thing for the art of cinema.
Although the costumes don't give a clear definition of time period, they are handsome to look at, and there is a lot of good design work that has gone into this film. Each culture and geographic region is set off in contrast to the others we encounter, and the animated transitions between live action scenes are an effective and charming way to move along in style.
My bottom line: 2.5 out of 5 stars. Worth a matinee.
My son's bottom line 'I liked the fights' He didn't fall asleep or ask to leave.
Many reviews here complaining that the movie is not faithful to the book... oh, please, it's a lot of boring people in today's world.
I'm 55 years old, I read the book when I was young, I saw the movie with David Niven, and I say this version with Jackie Chan is extremely fun and cute.
"Ah, but it's not true to the book at all." And? If you want to see the same thing, go read the book or look for the version with David Niven, which is more faithful, but is a pain in the ass to watch. I would even understand this type of complaint if that was the purpose of the film, but it is clearly not, the proposal here is to make a light, fun comedy that brings good feelings, only superficially based on the book by Jules Verne, and this objective was achieved in my opinion. I had fun during the 2 hours of projection and it was worth my time invested.
Rating 7 out of 10.
I'm 55 years old, I read the book when I was young, I saw the movie with David Niven, and I say this version with Jackie Chan is extremely fun and cute.
"Ah, but it's not true to the book at all." And? If you want to see the same thing, go read the book or look for the version with David Niven, which is more faithful, but is a pain in the ass to watch. I would even understand this type of complaint if that was the purpose of the film, but it is clearly not, the proposal here is to make a light, fun comedy that brings good feelings, only superficially based on the book by Jules Verne, and this objective was achieved in my opinion. I had fun during the 2 hours of projection and it was worth my time invested.
Rating 7 out of 10.
The film deals about a Victorian English gentleman (Steve Coogan),an inventor of fantastic inventions called Phileas Fogg and a Chinese thief(Jacke Chan)named Passapart.He takes a wager that he can circle the globe around the world in 80 days.They are accompanied by an enticing,likable artist(Cecil De France).Just before the time they leave a valuable jade Buddha is robbed and the authorities and president(Jim Broadbent) of Bank of England believe that Fogg is the guilty and they set out after him.Using various means of transport like balloons,trains,steamer,flying machine and following a way goes to Paris,Turkey,India ,China,USA, they are trying back to London.In the traveling they know to historical personages like Wright brothers(Owen,Luke Wilson),Colonel Kitchener(Ian McNiece),Lord Salisbury,Lord Rhodes and even the Queen Victoria(Kathy Bates). This funny picture is plenty of adventures,humor,action packed,rip-roaring and spectacular outdoors.From the start to the final the entertainment and amusement is continued.Jackie Chan,as always ,utilizes his astonishing martial arts(without computer generator) abilities along with Sammo Hung(Martial Law) to defend the friends against the enemies and from the many risks,odds during the dangerous trip.Appear a variety of cameos by known actors as Arnold Schwarzenegger,Mark Addy(steamer captain),John Cleese(a police)Luke,Owen Wilson.. .The colorfully cinematography is well reflected on sensational landscapes by cameraman Phil Meheux. Lively music by Trevor Ravin.The film is correctly directed by Frank Coraci.The motion picture will like to Jacke Chan fans and adventures cinema enthusiastic. Anothers version about the Jules Verne novel are :the classic by Michael Anderson with David Niven and Cantinflas,and the TV adaptation by Buzz Kulik with Pierce Brosnan and Eric Idle.
"Around the World in 80 Days" is a galumphing, elephantine remake of the movie that won the Best Picture Oscar of 1956. Both films are, of course, based on the 19th Century Jules Verne classic in which Victorian nobleman Phileas Fogg makes a wager with the skeptical members of the British Royal Academy that he can circumnavigate the globe in the time alluded to in the title. Aided and abetted by his trusty valet and a young woman he picks up along the way, Fogg employs many then state-of-the-art traveling methods - hot-air balloon, locomotive, steamship etc. - to help him reach his goal.
This adaptation completely misses the charm and epic feel of both the novel and the original movie version. The suave and sophisticated David Niven has been replaced by the bland and unattractive Steve Coogan, who plays Fogg as a sort of absent-minded professor type rather than the bon vivant man-of-the-world that Niven made of him. Jackie Chan, who was instrumental in getting the film made in the first place, is a completely inadequate substitute for the delightful Cantinflas, a huge star in Latin America who made his name in America with the first film. Chan's performance consists almost entirely of smiling coyly and mugging for the camera. Cecile de France is grating and annoying in the role initially enacted by the peerless Shirley MacLaine.
Where the original film soared effortlessly into the rarified stratosphere of charm and imagination, this version lumbers along heavy-laden and earthbound, even going so far as to add a dreary subplot about a stolen holy relic and Chan's efforts to return it to his native village in China.
The 1956 version was famous for featuring dozens of major stars of the time in various cameo appearances. This new adaptation dispenses with this conceit entirely, with the one exception of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appears for a few moments as a Turkish sultan, in a performance that is so intensely embarrassing that one is tempted to look away out of compassion for the man. But then that's pretty much the audience's reaction all the way through this film.
This adaptation completely misses the charm and epic feel of both the novel and the original movie version. The suave and sophisticated David Niven has been replaced by the bland and unattractive Steve Coogan, who plays Fogg as a sort of absent-minded professor type rather than the bon vivant man-of-the-world that Niven made of him. Jackie Chan, who was instrumental in getting the film made in the first place, is a completely inadequate substitute for the delightful Cantinflas, a huge star in Latin America who made his name in America with the first film. Chan's performance consists almost entirely of smiling coyly and mugging for the camera. Cecile de France is grating and annoying in the role initially enacted by the peerless Shirley MacLaine.
Where the original film soared effortlessly into the rarified stratosphere of charm and imagination, this version lumbers along heavy-laden and earthbound, even going so far as to add a dreary subplot about a stolen holy relic and Chan's efforts to return it to his native village in China.
The 1956 version was famous for featuring dozens of major stars of the time in various cameo appearances. This new adaptation dispenses with this conceit entirely, with the one exception of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appears for a few moments as a Turkish sultan, in a performance that is so intensely embarrassing that one is tempted to look away out of compassion for the man. But then that's pretty much the audience's reaction all the way through this film.
I have watched the original version of this film a few months back and think that was way better then this one. I thought some of the jokes were pretty lame and unoriginal. Steve Coogan particularly doesn't seem to fit in a comedic role. The cameo roles were ok but nothing amazing. I found Arnold's cameo as a Turkish Monarch rather drab and I thought they should have done some more. Jackie Chan as usual out did himself with some of his stunts. Making some ordinary items into weapons are just great.
SOme of the effects were OK especially the shots showing the different cities they went to. A little to much "computery" but none the less good enough.
The ending I thought was a serious disappointment. Instead of ending on a high it went down with a big THUD!
SOme of the effects were OK especially the shots showing the different cities they went to. A little to much "computery" but none the less good enough.
The ending I thought was a serious disappointment. Instead of ending on a high it went down with a big THUD!
Around the World in 80 Days tells the famous tale of Jules Verne... with a twist. This time around we follow the likes of Passepartout (Jackie Chan), a Chinese man with a mission (it's got something to do with the British Museum, I wasn't really paying attention).
The movie goes for sillyness, so don't expect a true adaptation of the Verne book. Having said that, the movie still was disappointing, had only so-and-so effects and felt like it was made in a fortnight or so.
Surely, there must be other, better movies for the kids to go to this summer, so only watch this one if you really have nothing better to do.
4/10.
The movie goes for sillyness, so don't expect a true adaptation of the Verne book. Having said that, the movie still was disappointing, had only so-and-so effects and felt like it was made in a fortnight or so.
Surely, there must be other, better movies for the kids to go to this summer, so only watch this one if you really have nothing better to do.
4/10.
- TheOtherFool
- Aug 3, 2004
- Permalink
This movie was successful in its genre.
Full of fun moments, fighting battles, seeing different places and traveling around the world in eighty days.
It also had very good actors who could perform well.
The comedy of the movie helped a lot to make the movie entertaining and I did not get tired of watching the movie.
The presence of Jackie Chan was also a positive point for this movie in my opinion because it made the movie much more exciting.
I was also satisfied with the script because some interesting things happened during this trip, in addition to the fact that this trip was prevented.
The end of the movie was a good surprise for the audience I even think that this movie could be expanded and make sequel movies in the form of traveling to different places.
Full of fun moments, fighting battles, seeing different places and traveling around the world in eighty days.
It also had very good actors who could perform well.
The comedy of the movie helped a lot to make the movie entertaining and I did not get tired of watching the movie.
The presence of Jackie Chan was also a positive point for this movie in my opinion because it made the movie much more exciting.
I was also satisfied with the script because some interesting things happened during this trip, in addition to the fact that this trip was prevented.
The end of the movie was a good surprise for the audience I even think that this movie could be expanded and make sequel movies in the form of traveling to different places.
- hamidrezampmm
- Sep 25, 2023
- Permalink
Not funny, and none of the spectacular scenery of its 1956 predecessor. Phineas Fogg is played by an unknown who deserves to stay unknown. He speaks his lines as if they filmed at the first cold reading. Dull. Dull. Dull. Jackie Chan is wasted as Passepartout. His role has no humor, no dramatic action/stunts. Why?
What might have been charming or a clever parody was instead mind-numbingly dull. Those of us who assembled for a Friday night pizza-and-movies assumed the "French woman" was doing a really bad imitation of zumeone who izz, ow you say et? Franche. We were stunned to discover from IMDb that she really IS French. And the Governator's cameo was simply disgusting.
Save your cents/sense. Rent the original instead.
What might have been charming or a clever parody was instead mind-numbingly dull. Those of us who assembled for a Friday night pizza-and-movies assumed the "French woman" was doing a really bad imitation of zumeone who izz, ow you say et? Franche. We were stunned to discover from IMDb that she really IS French. And the Governator's cameo was simply disgusting.
Save your cents/sense. Rent the original instead.
What a fun movie. Far from perfect but far from boring! Nice cast, great choreographed action scenes performed by Jackie Chan and comedy delivered by Steve Coogan! Deserves a higher rating. Great for a Sunday afternoon! 8/10
I was reluctant to go see this, as I was sure it was just going to be another no-brainer Jackie Chan vehicle. Well, it was, but...but, it was very well done and had some cute cameos. All the pre-release buzz centered around Arnie, and yes, once again, the Governor showed that he has the acting range of a Daisy Air Rifle. However, Rob Schneider and the Wilson brothers, put a smile on my face and left me wanting to see more of them, which proves the old adage, "Less is more." The cinematography is phenomenal, blending nice CGI effects with a cool use of color. It left me going, "whoa, nice transition" more than once. Overall, a nice little escapist movie that, if you don't think about it too much and just take it on face value, you will walk away entertained.
- BlockChuckster
- Jun 16, 2004
- Permalink
Singlehandedly one of the worst films I have ever seen. The script is bad, the digital effects are bad, the acting is worse. If you're looking for a modern remake of a classic book (and a David Niven film) then you've picked the wrong film. If you're looking for yet another Chan-o-centric judo film then "All aboard!" for this less than exciting non-epic film that'll leave you gagging in your seats.
This film is almost a complete rewrite of the book, with huge portions of the plot deviating wildly from the *classic* story line. Fogg is now a bumbling idiot inventor, Passepartout is now a good-hearted thief, and Princess Aouda is replaced with "aspiring" French artist LaRoche.
The truly sad thing is that Disney obviously felt that the story as Jules Verne told it was not worthy for the big screen. And the film suffers because of that. Instead of setting out on an adventure around the world, we set out on an adventure driven by lies. And even sadder is that this film is just another notch in the belt of less-than-worthy remakes of classic films.
If I had children they would not be allowed to watch this film. As an alternative, I would offer anyone who reads this to buy or borrow the original film with David Niven. At least with that film you won't go away feeling like you've wasted your time.
This film is almost a complete rewrite of the book, with huge portions of the plot deviating wildly from the *classic* story line. Fogg is now a bumbling idiot inventor, Passepartout is now a good-hearted thief, and Princess Aouda is replaced with "aspiring" French artist LaRoche.
The truly sad thing is that Disney obviously felt that the story as Jules Verne told it was not worthy for the big screen. And the film suffers because of that. Instead of setting out on an adventure around the world, we set out on an adventure driven by lies. And even sadder is that this film is just another notch in the belt of less-than-worthy remakes of classic films.
If I had children they would not be allowed to watch this film. As an alternative, I would offer anyone who reads this to buy or borrow the original film with David Niven. At least with that film you won't go away feeling like you've wasted your time.
It's not a bad movie. It's a quite simple movie, it's technically a good movie, with a solid plot that is at most inspired by the book of Verne. I don't find it a defect, because it's simply an entirely different story, for cinema's sake.
Some stuff doesn't quite belong to the story, such as the unnecessary and forgettable stop in Constantinople, trying to recall an original movie of several stops, but not it doesn't succeed in this.
But nonetheless is a quite enjoyable Kung fu/adventure movie for the family. It's definitely much more appreciable for the kids, it's not some iper realistic piece of art. It's a honest movie, that in its simplicity get to the point.
If some kid want to watch it over and over again with you, you could go on a couple of rewatches before it gets tiring. Suggested!
Some stuff doesn't quite belong to the story, such as the unnecessary and forgettable stop in Constantinople, trying to recall an original movie of several stops, but not it doesn't succeed in this.
But nonetheless is a quite enjoyable Kung fu/adventure movie for the family. It's definitely much more appreciable for the kids, it's not some iper realistic piece of art. It's a honest movie, that in its simplicity get to the point.
If some kid want to watch it over and over again with you, you could go on a couple of rewatches before it gets tiring. Suggested!
- gio_vvanni
- Mar 26, 2021
- Permalink
I watched this film because I walked past the set in Berlin where the ending scene was filmed.
It was the first time I stumbled on a Hollywood film set, and I was excited to see the end result.
Though the film did make me laugh out loud at times, I was disappointed by this film. It concentrated too much on the comical mishaps along the journey. It made too little mention of how they travel from one place to another. It became a collection of funny clips shot in various places that are put together.
I was surprised by the number of big stars playing small parts: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rob Schneider, Luke Wilson and Owen Wilson. Even Richard Branson was in it, which was a big little surprise.
This film is a nice film for the family. Don't expect too much though.
It was the first time I stumbled on a Hollywood film set, and I was excited to see the end result.
Though the film did make me laugh out loud at times, I was disappointed by this film. It concentrated too much on the comical mishaps along the journey. It made too little mention of how they travel from one place to another. It became a collection of funny clips shot in various places that are put together.
I was surprised by the number of big stars playing small parts: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rob Schneider, Luke Wilson and Owen Wilson. Even Richard Branson was in it, which was a big little surprise.
This film is a nice film for the family. Don't expect too much though.
This is not so much an adaptation of the Jules Verne novel than the most expensive Jackie Chan movie ever. Like in his other films, Chan is fun to watch particularly in fight scenes. We don't really care about the plot about going around the world in 80 days. Filius Fogg and his French girlfriend seem to just go along for the ride. Fogg is supposed to be a brilliant inventor, yet he can't figure out that his new valet Chan is not French is one of the sillier plot holes. The other problem with the film is despite the big budget, some of the film looks fake looking. The special effects are not very impressive. It is also obvious that much of the film was filmed on a set and not on location. Still, the movie is watchable and it beats The Stepford Wives on remakes. I give it a 6/10 because it is entertaining but it is nothing special.
The thing about the original "Around the World in 80 Days that made it so enjoyable was the fact that you could spot tons famous actors in cameos. But this this bleak remake has little to recommend apart from Jackie Chan's amazing martial arts moves. Arnold Schwarzannegar (how the hell do you spell it?) plays a prince in Turkey and is just plain embarassing, and I like him as an actor. John Cleese appears for little more time in this film than he did in the first Harry Potter film, and Macy Gray also makes a bizarre cameo appearance as a sleeping French woman. She must have wanted more after "Spider man". Steve Coogan is no David Niven, and he just doesn't have enough charm to keep this film going. But Cecile DeParis is the worst of all. The only good thing in this film apart from Jackie Chan is Rob Schneider as a tramp. You might like it but I think it's pretty mediocre. 6/10
Let me start by saying this: I was surprised, this movie was light years better and funnier than I expected. I laughed, and I laughed hard.
No, let me say this: if you are a fan of Jules Verne, and you feel, that his literal masterpieces should be filmed as they are written, don't watch this movie. Because it doesn't have much do do with the original book.
Main plot is same, but in example Passepartout (jackie Chan) is a Chinese man, who has been sent by his home village to recover a Jade Buddha statue from the bank of England, stolen by gang of Black Scorpions. Princess has been replaced with a French painter wannabe Monique La Roche (Cecile De France) and Phileas Fogg (Steve Coogan) is changed to be a silly scientist. Oh, and before I forget, inspector Fix (Ewen Bremner) is nothing more than a punch bag in the end of several physical jokes.
Now, if things described beforehand do not bother you, or you just don't care, then sit back and have a enjoyable 2 hours with rather enjoyable silliness. Also one part of the fun in this movie is to count all the cameo roles that are included, like Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Cleese.
So, in conclusion, do not expect to see a piece of cinematic history, but a fun action comedy, filled with visual and lingual gags.
A solid 7
No, let me say this: if you are a fan of Jules Verne, and you feel, that his literal masterpieces should be filmed as they are written, don't watch this movie. Because it doesn't have much do do with the original book.
Main plot is same, but in example Passepartout (jackie Chan) is a Chinese man, who has been sent by his home village to recover a Jade Buddha statue from the bank of England, stolen by gang of Black Scorpions. Princess has been replaced with a French painter wannabe Monique La Roche (Cecile De France) and Phileas Fogg (Steve Coogan) is changed to be a silly scientist. Oh, and before I forget, inspector Fix (Ewen Bremner) is nothing more than a punch bag in the end of several physical jokes.
Now, if things described beforehand do not bother you, or you just don't care, then sit back and have a enjoyable 2 hours with rather enjoyable silliness. Also one part of the fun in this movie is to count all the cameo roles that are included, like Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Cleese.
So, in conclusion, do not expect to see a piece of cinematic history, but a fun action comedy, filled with visual and lingual gags.
A solid 7
The adverts for this one state that this movie is "A Fantastic Adventure for The Entire Family!" Well, if your family enjoys flatulent jokes, urination jokes, bodies being slammed against walls, people screaming when tossed out of windows, CGI effects instead of actual location shots, a totally charmless lead (Steve Coogan), Jackie Chan stunts written into Jules Verne so Jackie Chan would possibly sell the movie, and infantile joke after infantile joke, yeah, your family might love it.
Instead, the family--and adults--can enjoy a made-for-TV version with Pierce Brosnon, who plays the traveler Fogg with great intrepidity, and the long, lavish production takes great pains to be true to the spirit of Jules Verne: it's a fascinating story told with verve and some real thrills.
And then there's the original Oscar-winning Best Film of 1956 version which played using the giant screen process Todd-A-O and filled theatres for years. And today, unless you watch the original 1956 in Letterbox on a large screen, it can look merely like a glorified travelogue--but when it opens up on a large home screen in stereo sound, David Niven and Cantiflas still charm, the scenery (and balloon ride) are breathtaking, and the cameos a delight--think Frank Sinatra, Marlene Dietrich, Buster Keaton, Noel Coward, George Raft, Red Skeleton and dozens more.
Who pops up in the new Coogan/Chan version? Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rob Schneider. Now you know. It's fairly low-grade fuel.
Instead, the family--and adults--can enjoy a made-for-TV version with Pierce Brosnon, who plays the traveler Fogg with great intrepidity, and the long, lavish production takes great pains to be true to the spirit of Jules Verne: it's a fascinating story told with verve and some real thrills.
And then there's the original Oscar-winning Best Film of 1956 version which played using the giant screen process Todd-A-O and filled theatres for years. And today, unless you watch the original 1956 in Letterbox on a large screen, it can look merely like a glorified travelogue--but when it opens up on a large home screen in stereo sound, David Niven and Cantiflas still charm, the scenery (and balloon ride) are breathtaking, and the cameos a delight--think Frank Sinatra, Marlene Dietrich, Buster Keaton, Noel Coward, George Raft, Red Skeleton and dozens more.
Who pops up in the new Coogan/Chan version? Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rob Schneider. Now you know. It's fairly low-grade fuel.
- museumofdave
- Apr 29, 2013
- Permalink
Around the World in 80 Days (2004), starring Jackie Chan, currently has an IMDb user rating of 5.7. And they say it's one of the biggest flops in history, having failed to recoup more than a fraction of its (estimated) $110 million budget.
I say, give it time! Overseas box office plus rentals and DVD sales - this movie will turn a profit in the end. As I understand it, movie companies now make most of their money off the rental market, so I am rather mystified to hear that a movie flopped just because it didn't earn back its cost at the U.S. box office in the first couple of months of release. Doesn't seem like a fair and complete calculation to me.
Anyway, I go to the trouble of wondering about this because I thought this was a great and delightful romp of a comedy, and I believe posterity will be much kinder to it than "5.7". The movie is witty, beautiful, well-acted and contains virtually everything any kung fu adventure fan's heart can desire. Before watching it, I thought it would be more faithful to the original book, so I was surprised to see the Ten Tigers of Kwantung, and let me say the surprise was 100% positive. This movie is, absolutely first and foremost, a comedy. And it is something so rare as a literate one, which does not ridicule the premise it is based on. The movie makes the only right choice, namely to update the classic story and add new levels and new ideas, which keeps it fresh and adventurous. Let's face it, Jules Verne's science no longer holds up in the present day, so we have to make modified versions of the stories for a modern audience (hence also the very entertaining updated version of Journey to the Center of the Earth: The Core).
To see this movie as a remake of the 1956 movie - which seems to be the position that many reviewers take - is completely faulty. This is a riff/homage to the original novel, having nothing whatsoever to do with any previous movie version.
I thought Jackie Chan's part in this movie was great fun, and I was very entertained throughout. I can't think why it bombed in the U.S. I'm gonna get it on DVD very soon.
I say, give it time! Overseas box office plus rentals and DVD sales - this movie will turn a profit in the end. As I understand it, movie companies now make most of their money off the rental market, so I am rather mystified to hear that a movie flopped just because it didn't earn back its cost at the U.S. box office in the first couple of months of release. Doesn't seem like a fair and complete calculation to me.
Anyway, I go to the trouble of wondering about this because I thought this was a great and delightful romp of a comedy, and I believe posterity will be much kinder to it than "5.7". The movie is witty, beautiful, well-acted and contains virtually everything any kung fu adventure fan's heart can desire. Before watching it, I thought it would be more faithful to the original book, so I was surprised to see the Ten Tigers of Kwantung, and let me say the surprise was 100% positive. This movie is, absolutely first and foremost, a comedy. And it is something so rare as a literate one, which does not ridicule the premise it is based on. The movie makes the only right choice, namely to update the classic story and add new levels and new ideas, which keeps it fresh and adventurous. Let's face it, Jules Verne's science no longer holds up in the present day, so we have to make modified versions of the stories for a modern audience (hence also the very entertaining updated version of Journey to the Center of the Earth: The Core).
To see this movie as a remake of the 1956 movie - which seems to be the position that many reviewers take - is completely faulty. This is a riff/homage to the original novel, having nothing whatsoever to do with any previous movie version.
I thought Jackie Chan's part in this movie was great fun, and I was very entertained throughout. I can't think why it bombed in the U.S. I'm gonna get it on DVD very soon.
- The-Sarkologist
- May 1, 2018
- Permalink
I gave this movie 3 out 10... why? because it is a good, funny comedy... and it would be great for if not one fact... The movie's name is "Around the World in 80 Days" but has nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with great Jules Verne...
Maybe that's just me, because I am a fan of this french writer, who created 99% of my childhood heroes... (I even had chosen Geography as my profession I was so much affected by his works)... maybe that's why I will never forgive nor director of this movie, nor entire crew and actors who made this mess out of my beloved writer's novel.
If you had never touch any book of Verne, like jackie Chan type fake kung fu movies and just want some easy crap, go see this movie... you will really laugh, but if you really love Jules Verne, if you really grew up on his works, then stay away... because at the end, you will be cursing everyone who worked on this movie.
Maybe that's just me, because I am a fan of this french writer, who created 99% of my childhood heroes... (I even had chosen Geography as my profession I was so much affected by his works)... maybe that's why I will never forgive nor director of this movie, nor entire crew and actors who made this mess out of my beloved writer's novel.
If you had never touch any book of Verne, like jackie Chan type fake kung fu movies and just want some easy crap, go see this movie... you will really laugh, but if you really love Jules Verne, if you really grew up on his works, then stay away... because at the end, you will be cursing everyone who worked on this movie.