Around the World in Eighty Days

What astounds me is how things change. Here's a film that was celebrated in its day.

In fact, I remember my third grade class taking the day off to go to this. (The year previously, we had gone to see a Cinerama movie in the same theater.) We had reserved seats and popcorn was disallowed. We sat through maybe 20 minutes of overture, three hours of movie and 20 minutes of intermission.

And I loved it. This was a lifealtering experience, so grand, so exotic. And yes, for a seven year old, romantic.

Everyone loved it. In its day, most everyone got caught up in the sheer audacity of thing, the cinematic scope, the number of stars and extras, the locales (which we thought were genuine). The introduction by Ed Murrow seemed apt for something so newsworthy.

I haven't seen it in 50 years. And now, even in the full ToddAO experience it is dull except for the wonderfully bombastic score. There's really nothing to it except that it exists.

It reminds that many films I see, new and old, depend on context. The new ones are simple. Things we get excited about now will seem juvenile in just a short time. "Die Hard" was eclipsed on its own terms in short order. "Speed" even more so.

But the old ones...

Sometimes they are so strongly evocative of an era that watching them pulls us into that era, giving us a whole world by association. Others cannot pull us, or aren't set up to, but are so weak they fall apart. Its a slippery game, watching old movies.

But in this case, it is simple. Big bowl — thin soup. But a grandly shaped bowl.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Except for the horrible miscasting of Shirley MacLaine as a Hindu princess, Around the World in 80 Days comes close to being a perfect film. The rest of the cast paints to perfection the portrait of Jules Verne's odyssey about a very anal retentive man driven by a wager to complete a global circumnavigation in 80 days in the mid nineteenth century.

Jules Verne unlike in a lot of his other stories makes one of his main characters here a Frenchman. Normally the international minded Mr. Verne never had any of his protagonists come from his native France. In this case the valet Passepartout accompanies English gentleman Phileas Fogg on the journey and comes close to wrecking it a couple of times.

Michael Todd had to settle for second choices for both of his leads. The part was originally offered to Cary Grant who turned it down and Todd settled happily for David Niven. And even though Fernandel offered to learn English to play Passepartout, the process would have taken too long so the Mexican comic star Cantinfas got the part. Fernandel did have a small role as a Parisian hansom cab driver.

It's still a mystery to me as to why Cantinflas on the strength of this and Pepe did not break out of the Latin American market where he was nothing short of a demi-god of the cinema. Certainly his presence in this film opened up a huge market of viewers in the Spanish speaking parts of the world.

Also consider that the probably no other performer in the history of the cinema ever got as good supporting casts as Cantinflas did in both Around the World in 80 Days and Pepe. Maybe he didn't break into the English speaking cinema fan world, but it was no accident that all the stars who appeared in both wanted to be associated with him.

Shirley MacLaine would have to wait until Some Came Running for a real break out role. She's just not the type to play a Hindu princess. Someone like Jean Simmons who played one in Black Narcissus would have been far better.

David Niven however got on the crest of a big career wave that wouldn't reach maximum until his Oscar two years later in Separate Tables. This was one of his best career roles and nice that for once he would not have to carry a mediocre picture on the strength of his considerable charm.

Mr. Niven sadly recalls in his memoirs that Robert Newton was already dying when he made Around the World in 80 Days. The doctors had told the screen's most celebrated alcoholic that he had only a short time left when he did this film, his liver was failing. Newton does a grand job as the unctuous conniving detective Fix who gets it into his head that Niven robbed the Bank of England.

Around the World in 80 Days won for Best Picture in 1956 and four other Oscars including best musical score. Oddly enough the song Around the World was not nominated in that category even though it was a big hit that year. Bing Crosby for Decca and Eddie Fisher for RCA Victor had the big hit records of it, Frank Sinatra also did it for Capitol. It was a great tribute to its composer Victor Young and lyricist Harold Adamson. Young died in 1956 and the Oscar for Best Scoring was given to him posthumously.

Producer Michael Todd and Director Michael Anderson did a first rate job in casting all the small bit roles with major players. A lot of these names are unfamiliar to today's generation, but if they see the film it's a chance to see a lot of great cinema names at one time doing real characters instead of just walking on as themselves.

The film holds up well today and can still be enjoyed. Maybe someone will actually try to make it in the transportation mode of the Victorian era. Can it be done in 80 Days?

As I watched "Around the World in Eighty Days" tonight, I noticde that it is a beautiful and spectacular film. The first time I tried seeing it was on a 25" TV--this time it's on a 58" one and the beauty is much more obvious. Too bad I couldn't have seen this on the big screen using the amazing 70mm cameras. And, if they brought it back to the theaters, I might be tempted to see it that way--even though the film does have many shortcomings.

I've got to be honest here, I tried watching this film years ago and gave up on it. The only reason I am watching it through to the end now is that I would like to eventually see all the Best Picture winners--even the incredibly overblown ones. This brings me to a pet peeve I have. I HATE films that feature a bazillion cameos. I find that often the plethora of stars tend to get in the way of the story and often soak up a huge portion of the budget--leaving precious little for writing. Some of the stars in the film are very international in flavor and I never would have recognized them the first time I tried to see this movie 25 years ago. Now, after having seen and reviewed a ridiculous number of films, I was actually excited by some of these casting decisions. Catinflas, though completely unknown in America did some marvelous little comedies in Mexico--and he is the other reason I chose to try watching the movie again. I was to see Fernandel (who also made many wonderful films--in France and Italy). But, I was also maddened because his cameo as a hack driver was so short and unfunny--completely wasting his wonderful comedic talents. And this trend continued for several more of the cameo--wonderful actors who really have nothing to do and are pretty much wasted.

At least 30 minutes could have and should have been cut from the film. I am NOT against long films...if they are well-paced. Too many times in this movie, however, scenes just unfold way too slowly--such as when the balloon is going over the Alps. A VERY LONG period of nice music and shots of the balloon are shown--when it really seemed interminably long. This reminded me of the major problem with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"--too many unnecessarily long shots which killed the film's momentum. The bullfighting scene is also one that goes on and on and on and could have been 1/3 as long. Many other such examples followed.

So is it a great film? No. I agree with another reviewer who felt the movie got an Oscar for Best Picture simply because it was such a spectacle--not because it was especially good. It's one of the weaker Best Picture films of the era, in my opinion. However, I must give the film its due. The movie is beautiful in every way--great costumes, amazing locations and sets, breathtaking cinematography and a scope that cannot really be matched. But, it is also very, very , very long with poor pacing, suffers from an overuse and wasting of cameos and just isn't that interesting. Catinflas was a very gifted and funny man--here you don't get a great sense of that at all. Likewise, David Niven was a very fine actor--but here he's more like set dressing and you don't get to see him at his best.

Before I conclude, let's talk about the cameos. With all the many cameos, why did they pick Shirley MacLaine to play an Indian princess?! Talk about bizarre casting! And why have Frank Sinatra in a cameo that takes two seconds and he just turns and smiles at the camera?! I don't get it. And what was with John Carradine?! Even for him he over-acted horribly.

I have to admit I kind of liked this movie. The book is better of course, but this version is better than the 2004 film. There may be those who say it is overlong. The film is long admittedly, but I think a film adaptation of the book needs to be long to do any kind of justice to it. I do agree with those who complain about the pace, when I first saw this film, I admit I found it hard to get into initially as it goes by at a snail's pace. Most of the film is entertaining and colourful, but some scenes are dull or overlong, the bull-fighting scene is the perfect example of both. That said, the direction is fine, and despite complaints of it being dated the film does look great with great cinematography and colourful sets and costumes. The music is terrific, the script has its good moments and the story is interesting. Another notable strong asset is the cast. David Niven a likable lead, but the real joys are in the cameos, Robert Newton is especially good here. Overall, maybe not best picture winner for me, but I actually found this film interesting. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This has got to be one of the most delight comedies ever made. I totally agree with one comment that says "Around the World in 80 Days like a fine wine, it gets better with age". Featuring fine performances from David Nivven, Cantinflas, and the rest of the cast in this wonderful movie about a man and his servant who try and travel around the world in just eighty days. This movie oddly enough was 175 minutes long and in all honestly I didn't believe that for second when I first heard because it really only seemed like 88 minutes. One of the most fun, wittiest, and delightful films of all time and that's coming from a person who adores film and has seen plenty in his (my) day. I do not recall the last time I had so much fun while watching a movie, it's basically just one big fun fest! The cinematography and photography are unarguably some of the best ever in any film. How anyone could call this film boring is beyond me. It is fun, witty, delightfully written, directed, and as I already mentioned acted. The score is also a work of genius. See this film, then see it again. If you hate it, well, then you need to lighten up a bit (no offense intended).

Final Grade: ***** (out of 5)