La vuelta al mundo en 80 días

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.