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!

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.

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

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.

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. ***