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.

Michael Todd's screen adaptation of Jules Verne's classic novel is a masterpiece.

Beautifully shot in over 100 different locations around the world, it is one of the few novels which actually benefits from big screen treatment. No longer do we have to imagine these fine exotic places in our minds, they are presented here in full cinematic and Technicolour brilliance.

The great David Niven plays the quintessential English gentleman to the hilt as Philias Fogg, the well to do bachelor who after calmly announcing that it was possible, accepts a £20,000 wager from his fellow Reform Club members to travel round the world in 80 days.

In tow on this mammoth voyage are newly appointed man servant Passepartout played by Mexican entertainer Cantinflas, a rather miscast Shirley MacLaine as Aouda a recently rescued Indian Princess and the lovable and ever watchable Robert Newton as Mr. Fix the detective who is convinced Fogg is a master criminal who left Britain having just robbed the Bank of England.

Yet what adds flavour to an already wonderful story and fascinating movie, is that no matter what corner of the globe our intrepid Fogg appears, he is helped, hindered, slowed down, befriended and attacked by a myriad of world renowned movie stars. Never before or since has a film boasted so many top named stars in cameo appearances.

Robert Morley, Ronald Squire, Finlay Currie, Basil Sydney, Noel Coward, John Gielgud, Trevor Howard, Harcourt Williams, Martine Carol, Fernandel, Charles Boyer, Evelyn Keyes, Gilbert Roland, Cesar Romero, Alan Mowbray, Cedric Hardwicke, Melville Cooper, Reginald Denny, Ronald Colman, Charles Coburn, Peter Lorre, George Raft, Red Skelton, Marlene Dietrich, John Carradine, Frank Sinatra, Buster Keaton, Tim McCoy, Joe E. Brown, Andy Devine, Edmund Lowe, Victor McLaglen, Jack Oakie, Beatrice Lillie, John Mills, Glynis Johns and Hermione Gingold all come along for this bizarre journey.

Now thats what I call a cast list.

Niven is as always a joy to watch as the seemingly unstoppable and resourceful Fogg, so much so that the film can be forgiven its epic length.

However, I do feel as though a good half an hour could have been trimmed had Todd decided to tone down some of Cantinflas' over long routines. We know what a fantastic and talented performer he was, there was no real need to hammer the point home with a nigh on 15 minute bull fight sequence, Japanese circus tricks and stunt horse riding.

However despite this one criticism, the film is legend, the story is legend and was fully deserving of the five Oscar's it was awarded, including Best Picture of 1956.

In fact I feel certain that if Philias Fogg had a film like this on DVD, he would have much preferred to stay at home and watch it. I know I certainly would.

1956 was a big year in Hollywood with "Around the World in 80 Days" and "Giant" and "The Ten Commandments"."Around the World in 80 Days" won Best Picture for its global cinematography and insightful editing that transformed this travelogue into a great movie as the characters played by David Niven and Cantinflas do take us around the world just getting back to London to win their bet after they thought they lost. The BIG movie started to take shape in Hollywood for many years to come after Cinemascope started in and "Around the World" and how producer Michael Todd did all this was amazing. 7/10

I really enjoyed this film, and was shocked to see all the negative comments about it on IMDB. Yes it's long, yes it's a fantasy rather than true-to-life, yes it's spectacular rather than deep drama. But what the hell, it's also (like the book) a hilarious send-up of Englishness as seen by a Frenchman. The millions of cameo roles (actually I'm HOPELESS at recognising faces, so identified none of them) camp it all up splendidly. This film is one of those, like the Ealing comedies or the Carry-On films, that define the British Myth.

OK, so it won't work on TV, unless you have a widescreen TV and can shut yourself away from all distractions for several hours. But I just dare anyone to be bored by the film in a cinema. They don't make them like that any more, because these days films are "made for TV" . . .

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.