Benutzerrezensionen

At first I thought'meh?' Then as it progressed it got better and better Great fun to watch tenant is truly gifted Highly recommend this all round series destined to be a family classic.

Read the book, please read the books and you will be drawn into the most exciting, magical, bright story imaginable, and then watch this series.

Lifeless, it pains me to say it, because I am a massive fan of David Tennant, but having watched the first few episodes, that's the first word that sprang to mind. In the book you can feel the tension, the excitement, this had the thrills of people sat in a Dentist's waiting room.

I may well get captivated later on, it may move out of first gear, and I hope it does. Pacing initially though is the real stumbling block.

The positives, first on the list, the visuals, it is beautifully made and produced, production values are sublime, the clothes and location work are pretty jaw dropping. I thought the acting was terrific, Tennant never disappoints.

Some good elements in the mix, it looks good (even if I did have to look for the brightness setting on the TV for the first ever time,) but it just lacked any real thrills.

6/10 this should have been better.

I'm seeing lots of criticism for this show for not living up to the originals, but coming from someone who hasn't ever seen them, I thoroughly enjoyed this series. It doesn't have to be identical to the original to still be a really good series, you just have to look at it for what it is.

David Tennant is phenomenonal throughout and the supporting cast is very good. Okay, it's not a perfect series but what is? I'd highly recommend watching if you want some adventure!

I've read Verne's novel multiple times and watched its many adaptations over the years but this one is the most creative because it relies only slightly on the source material, leaves the most amount of pure adventures and discovering the world behind in favor of interpersonal drama of the main protagonists.

Phileas Fogg, played stupendously by maestro David Tennant, is naturally the highlight of the story, full of regrets of the past haunting him every day until he finally meets face to face with them and becomes the better man; his performance is at times overshadowed though by his two companions - Passepartout and Abigail Fix - played by Ibrahim Koma and Leonie Benesch respectively - who have the lives and struggles of their own and this journey of 80 days they took together opened them up perfectly to the viewer and made us empathize and care for each of them a great deal.

The main musical theme and overall soundtrack are amazing and is easily remembered from the get-go and you would not be able to let it go for a while there. The costumes and atmosphere are pretty accurate as well; I caught myself checking this and that event in the series and can tell for sure that there's nothing wrong with historical accuracies in here - well maybe Passepartout's skin color and the relationship towards him is a bit far-fetched and too 21st century at times but it doesn't spoil the narrative.

What does however is the lack of adventures per se. The book and some of its adaptations had those in abundance whereas this version plays with it as a tool to build the tension and move the characters' growth towards one another and help them overcome their own personal affairs - the book's approach was a lot different and offered many more locations, times to feel the places, had sense of urgency, had Fogg's immense knowledge of geography, his pedantry. David Tennant is a great actor hands down but he's not the Phileas Fogg I knew from the book. Instead he's a completely different character who bares his name and makes it work for the sake of the narrative and this is the most important thing in building a character - to make him alive by making him his own.

Despite all I've said I don't see myself ever returning to this miniseries (I just can't see what else there could be said in the season 2) because it's not sustained enough, not adventurous enough and feels more like a collection of episodes than the whole, complete series but engaging enough to stay with it till the end and deep enough to care for it till the end.

Great performances from the central 3 and the remainder of the cast, excellent locations (particularly as that must have been a little challenging in these times), good to see the plot and character development that could take advantage of the extra time available and enable them to look at some deeper themes too.

An excellent cast makes a good fist of a very uneven script, but I was left feeling a great opportunity was missed. I read all the Jules Verne books when I was around 11, but couldn't remember the details of this one - and I'm glad I only looked up those details after watching this series. Had I done it before watching it, I would probably have ended up yelling at the TV like many other reviewers here, because so many great ideas (like the India part of the story) are absent and the evolution of the characters (who are all different) badly twisted. Beside all the that, the script they actually created is constantly frustrating and sometimes annoying, but the cast and production was good enough to keep me watching till the end.

It's not the book, it was never going to be. (yes iv'e read it). Believe it or not, print doesn't traslate perfectly on to film and it certainly wouldn't today. Even so, i dont want to see an ADAPTATION directly follow the book. If you want to see that, you have pleanty of options. This adaptaion was a breath of fresh air into a wonderful story. Even though i knew exactly what would happen, i felt myself holding my breath up to the vey last second of the show and the opportinuty for a sequel has me very exited.

The characters are brilliant and well developed. Fogg is shown as a person and has his own character development which some people in this reveiw section seem to think makes him a 'wimp' but i feel makes him endeering and likeable.

It's not 'overly woke' it's truthful to the times and if people do not agree with that, i think they should pick up a history book. If it was about 3 upper class white men, no one would have watched it because only a very, very small margin of people can relate to that. If they don't relate, they don't watch.

Passepartout was an exelent character who let the story explore new areas that the book never did. *spoilers* the interacial relationship was sweet and well thought out. Just because it wasn't widely shown at the time, doesn't mean this didn't happen in the past. I would like to remind people that everything you see today, was happening hundreds, even thousands of years ago, but people had to hide it, so please grow up if you're compaining about it not being 'historically accurate'.

Miss Fix was another lovely breath of fresh air and helped the story explore new hights. She was also a brilliant nod to the real female reporter who did this exact trip, not long after the book came out, in just under 80 days.

Finally, i would like to remind people that everything that you see the british empire doing in this show, they did. They stole from graves, they forced people to sign up to the army, they killed countless people. Please don't get angry when a show shows them doing what they were doing, exactly how they were doing it. Pick up a history book and stop compaining about including, god forbid, a woman and a black man in the main cast.

I've noticed on IMDB there seem to be a lot of people that start to cringe at the slightest hint of something being "woke, political correctness" etc etc and will just punish the show with their rating.

Well, sorry if for those reviewers that want to live on a crappy planet and feel pained by modern sensibilities. In the meantime, this was just an enjoyable series, great scenery, fantastic acting and it was around the world in 80 days.

Surprisingly boring adaptation, even David Tennant cannot save it (but he made me finish it) , little adventure, no surprises, shallow locations, formalistic tv fodder ... it all feels like the cut scenes were put together...

I am surprised at some reviewers complaining about it deviating from the original story because that is exactly what makes this so entertaining and appealing. Its a fresh adaptation of the classic story which offers a thoroughly engaging and entertaining rendition.

My whole family binge watched this, although we had started the first episode with low expectations and assuming it would be the same story retold a millionth time. After the first episode we were hooked. It was a great way for the family to get together and watch a story full of tense moments, twists and emotionally fulfilling drama. David tenant was brilliant as Phileas Fogg with a very convincing and relatable performance.

This was so good we were disappointed it ended so quickly in 8 episodes. We can always hope for a sequel as the chemistry between the three characters was brilliant and we can easily imagine them in more adventures.

I have not read the book and see that some of those that have are disappointed by this series. Free of such preconceptions I found this an enjoyable watch. Best was to see the three main characters develop and grow through their adventures, especially Mr Fogg.

So, if you have read the book I urge you to free yourself of any expectations and enjoy this in its own right. The book is a recognised classic and this is not, but this will entertain you if you can allow it to do so.

Why the entertainment industry insists on making shows and movies based on intellectual properties they clearly revile is a mystery.

Are they unable to find a story by an author they do not despise?

Are they completely incapable of creating original works?

Are they intentionally selecting beloved tales expressly so they can denigrate them?

Whatever the reason, this iteration of Jules Verne's classic tale departs from the novel in a manner that does not improve upon the story in any meaningful way.

It adds no humor or pathos, as other retellings have.

Instead, it deconstructs the main character until he bares no resemblance to the original.

Instead of a determined gentleman who succeeds through sheer force of will, this Phileas Fogg is a moron who stumbles around having his companions babysit him.

This change is doubly devastating to the story because, in addition to being an affront to Verne's work, the alterations to Fogg make him a thoroughly unlikable protagonist.

The idea that his valet and the widow Aouda would remain with this version of Fogg also rings false.

There are of course also the requisite race and gender swapping of characters to a degree that they pull you out of both the story and the historical context of Verne's work.

While the costumes, set design, and cinematography are all well done, they end up being so much lipstick on a pig.

For fans of Jules Verne, this series will be an insult to his creations.

For casual viewers with no attachment to the author, this will simply be a tedious mess.

I like when things get re-imagined, as long as the heart of the classic story and the essence of the characters - all that made the original story - is still strongly there. This adaption isn't that: Phileas Fogg in the book is a cool, mathematically precise, unflappable man, always in control of himself and his surroundings. Passepartout calls him "a machine." But in this, Fogg is an unorganized, scared, scampering bundle of fear - there is nothing of Verne's hero here at all. Jean Passepartout in the book is a curious, pleasant, friendly man who balances Fogg's cool demeanor and who has lead an adventurous life but is ready to settle down and serve as Fogg's domestic help. He's creative and emotional. In this, he's got some sort of violent insurgency in his past, and he's on the run, and lacks most of what made Verne's character so compelling. I was so excited to see this... and gave up after two episodes. So disappointing. Pretty, though.

Really enjoying this. I haven't read the book and I don't read the Daily Mail (so am not getting myself in a froth about "wokeness" like all the negative reviews). The characters are great, especially the valet, and it's exactly what I'm after for a festive Sunday afternoon romp. Shame to see it's getting review bombed by people who think having all the characters be male and white would improve the show.

Production values are great, the acting is good, the story is just depressing and downbeat. I was hoping for a little more action and maybe some more lighthearted fun after all it is supposed to be a Jules Verne adventure. A bit too dramatic for me. But I stuck through it. Watch it and judge for yourself . I feel the David Niven version was so much better.

Every review keeps going on about how it isn't the book but as far as i know it never claimed to be a faithful adaptation and said it clearly in the marketing.

Once you get over the fact that it isnt the book it is a fine series worth watching.

Having read a few reviews before posting my own I've noticed a lot of the negative reviews seem to be a bit emotional, with most blaming their strange discomfort and alarm on the production's deviation from the original source material.

I've seen a few versions over the years but I didn't go into this thinking for one second that it would just be some updated copy, because from the very beginning the story never claimed to be. And how boring it would be if it were. I enjoyed the characters, storyline and locations. Although I do admit that some of the scenes were hard to view as they were quite dark. I also noticed that compared to previous versions they didn't over do the colour pallet. I don't think this hurts the story in any way.

I'm giving this series 7 stars simply because I enjoyed it. I was laid up with a back injury, bored out of my brains and the non stop action and suspense mixed in with a little goofiness was perfect for taking my mind off things. I appreciated the series for the light hearted piece of fun that it is. With a new twist to an old trope and a talented cast to boot. I definitely recommend this series for families and rainy days.

This mini-series (with a possibility to expand into other Jules Verne stories) is a sheer delight - all characters are vivid yet completely believable, the motives are not immediately clear but become apparent as the show progresses, the emotions are subtle yet noticeable and the cinematography is amazing.

I haven't read the original, so from what I gather from its summary many adventures are changes, omitted or re-shaped, and the characters are mixed and changed, but I think that's fine as long as the result is coherent and engaging, and in this case the result is truly all that and more. Additionally, plain re-telling the story might be just unsurprising to many, and not very relevant as well.

The show is somewhat dark at times, but I think it's for the best: it makes it believable, makes it real, and highlights the characters' struggle and identity. Besides, it's not grim, it's just serious at times. Which is a rare thing, a show that is adventurous and light-hearted yet serious and emotional.

To summarize, it's an amazing show, 8 episodes of a complete story that is sheer delight to watch, start to finish. There are minor logical hiccups and inconsistencies, and some secondary actors are not stellar and perhaps it's too short in general but some scenes last too long (hence 9/10 rating), but overall it's a great show with great actors.

Golly - what a lot of people moaning about this adaptation! Yes there are changes to the novel but they are not transgressing it's spirit. Its great to have a thoughtful and proactive passe-partout, and Miss. Fix is a welcome addition appropriate for a 21st century screenplay. The films look great and the production quality is clear. The music is a treat too (Hans Zimmer again!)

The key word here is adaption - this show is not the book, nor is it an attempt to represent the book in a methodical translation from page to screen - it's an adaption. That allows for some creative license and rejigging in its retelling of the original story.

For me, this was a successful retelling of a classic story. There was dramatic tension between the three protagonists - who go on the adventure - and the antagonists were suitably nasty and conniving. It seemed clear to me that one of the main themes of this version of the tale was the particular journey of Phileas Fog (David Tennant). His transformation from upper class man of leisure and suspended animation, who doesn't really care for anything anymore beyond his own comforts, into someone who eventually finds a part of himself and can begin to live, to be involved in his life.

This aspect of Fog's transformation plays out against the interesting main story arc of the 'romp' around the world in 80 days - an at times cavalier and hair raising journey that is quite entertaining - requiring some suspension of disbelief to be sure, but what classic heroes journey (within the realms of entertainment) doesn't.

This show is supposed to entertain rather than enlighten - and I think it does that very well.

I don't object in principle to changing the plot and characters of Jules Verne's novel. I read it, but it was at least 40 years ago and I'll I remember is the start, the end, and a bit of Fogg's character.

At the same time, it's a classic because it's really good, so you need a good reason to take a story by someone who was really good at telling stories and replace it with a different one. And in this case the replacement is not that good.

Fogg's character is not as I remember. He's less assured and fumbles around a lot. But that's fine. Tennant is good in the role, as are the other main characters.

The first episode was decent. I'd seen some negative reviews but it had good period atmosphere and seemed like it would be fun. The political intrigue seemed a bit strong so early in the story, as did giving Passepartout so much drama, but that didn't bother me too much.

The second episode, on the other hand, was mainly a jerk repeatedly insulting Fogg and his own kid and Passepartout dealing with trauma badly. The last 15 minutes was fun adventure stuff, but that didn't make up for the tedium that preceded it.

When I looked up the show's creator it turned out to be a guy whose previous series I'd given up on during the first, tedious episode. He also did Life on Mars which I found vaguely intriguing for a few episodes and then gave up on. So I see little likelihood that this particular guy was the right choice to rewrite Verne.

Not worth the bother.

I read the book in primary school over 35 years ago and all of us would anxiously wait for the next chapter. The excitement, adventure and FUN that the book has in abundance is totally missing from this, horrid, typical modern/day re/working of a classic.

It's fine to introduce more diversity into a classic tale, it's fine to tweak aspects for TV/film, but why remove the base element of FUN? Why does everything on bbc have to be a social commentary?

Fogg is portrayed as almost cowardly. Not the organised, efficient English-gent that Verne wrote. Why would the bbc coward-like 'shell' man embark on such an adventure? Of course he wouldn't, but in this day and age we can't have a white, wealthy middle-class man be anything but cowardly, neurotic and slightly helpless.

I am surprised how many reviewers have complained about the changes to characterisation and story in their reviews. Clearly they all missed the "Based on" at the start of each episode. This is not meant to be a word for word copy of the original, which considering the number of versions already out there would be seriously boring.

Instead it shows stories at the various locations which previous versions showed as merely a travelogue.

Only on episode 2 and so far so good, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about changing the race or sex of characters from the original - nobody complained when Phileas Fogg was represented by a Lion in the 1980s... And yes, it is not the brightest of filters they've used, but I had no problem seeing any of the characters.

Most of the reviews on here are not rating it in its own right, they are generally comparing it to their own version of the book, and as we are all different, someone else's adaption can never live up to what we create in our own minds.