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.
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 makes 80 Days such a taunting movie is its unevenness. The film switches between light-hearted to serious and even between various styles of comedy, from Jackie's classic slapstick, to witty, to vain, to gross-out and even Python-style comedy.
As far as fight-scenes go, they are well choreographed and Jackie can luckily still kick ass. There were some parts of the film that didn't make a whole lot of sense and because of the massiveness of the plot it feels rather long. Luckily the changes in style keep the viewer on their toes but the climax was not very satisfying however.
All in all, Around the World in 80 Days is an amusing film to watch. It has both great and not-so-great moments and may be a little too unconventional for Jackie's fans, but a good movie none the less.
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. ***
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