Pour gagner un pari, un inventeur britannique excentrique, aux côtés de son valet chinois et d'un artiste français en herbe, se lance dans un voyage autour du monde semé d'aventures et de da... Tout lirePour gagner un pari, un inventeur britannique excentrique, aux côtés de son valet chinois et d'un artiste français en herbe, se lance dans un voyage autour du monde semé d'aventures et de dangers en exactement quatre-vingts jours.Pour gagner un pari, un inventeur britannique excentrique, aux côtés de son valet chinois et d'un artiste français en herbe, se lance dans un voyage autour du monde semé d'aventures et de dangers en exactement quatre-vingts jours.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 2 nominations au total
- Monique La Roche
- (as Cécile De France)
- General Fang
- (as Karen Joy Morris)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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!
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis was Arnold Schwarzenegger's last movie before being elected Governor of California.
- GaffesA telegram from Passepartout is transmitted from London to India to his father in English, but his father doesn't speak English so wouldn't be able to read it. However, a Chinese translation can be seen below the English.
- Citations
Monique La Roche: Where's your proof?
Lord Kelvin: This is the Royal Academy of Science! We don't have to prove anything!
- Versions alternativesSome commercial television prints cut out the Arnold Schwarzenegger cameo sequence.
- Bandes originalesIt's Slinky!
Written by Homer Fraperman (as Homer Fesperman) and Charles Wragley (as Charles Weasley)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Around the World in 80 Days?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- La vuelta al mundo en 80 días
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 110 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 24 008 137 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 7 576 132 $US
- 20 juin 2004
- Montant brut mondial
- 72 660 444 $US
- Durée2 heures
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1