IMDb रेटिंग
5.9/10
98 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
एक सनकी ब्रिटिश आविष्कारक, एक शर्त जीतने के लिए, अपने चीनी वैलेट और एक महत्वाकांक्षी फ्रांसीसी कलाकार के साथ, अस्सी दिनों में दुनिया भर के रोमांच और खतरों से भरी यात्रा पर निकल पड़ता है.एक सनकी ब्रिटिश आविष्कारक, एक शर्त जीतने के लिए, अपने चीनी वैलेट और एक महत्वाकांक्षी फ्रांसीसी कलाकार के साथ, अस्सी दिनों में दुनिया भर के रोमांच और खतरों से भरी यात्रा पर निकल पड़ता है.एक सनकी ब्रिटिश आविष्कारक, एक शर्त जीतने के लिए, अपने चीनी वैलेट और एक महत्वाकांक्षी फ्रांसीसी कलाकार के साथ, अस्सी दिनों में दुनिया भर के रोमांच और खतरों से भरी यात्रा पर निकल पड़ता है.
- पुरस्कार
- 2 जीत और कुल 2 नामांकन
Cécile de France
- Monique La Roche
- (as Cécile De France)
Karen Mok
- General Fang
- (as Karen Joy Morris)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
Very unfaithful adaptation of the Jules Verne novel, yet much more entertaining than the tedious and wildly overrated but relatively faithful David Niven version. The movie is breezy and enjoyable, with some fun fight scenes, although it is completely inconsequential.
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 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.
The film deals about a Victorian English gentleman (Steve Coogan),an inventor of fantastic inventions called Phileas Fogg and a Chinese thief(Jacke Chan)named Passapart.He takes a wager that he can circle the globe around the world in 80 days.They are accompanied by an enticing,likable artist(Cecil De France).Just before the time they leave a valuable jade Buddha is robbed and the authorities and president(Jim Broadbent) of Bank of England believe that Fogg is the guilty and they set out after him.Using various means of transport like balloons,trains,steamer,flying machine and following a way goes to Paris,Turkey,India ,China,USA, they are trying back to London.In the traveling they know to historical personages like Wright brothers(Owen,Luke Wilson),Colonel Kitchener(Ian McNiece),Lord Salisbury,Lord Rhodes and even the Queen Victoria(Kathy Bates). This funny picture is plenty of adventures,humor,action packed,rip-roaring and spectacular outdoors.From the start to the final the entertainment and amusement is continued.Jackie Chan,as always ,utilizes his astonishing martial arts(without computer generator) abilities along with Sammo Hung(Martial Law) to defend the friends against the enemies and from the many risks,odds during the dangerous trip.Appear a variety of cameos by known actors as Arnold Schwarzenegger,Mark Addy(steamer captain),John Cleese(a police)Luke,Owen Wilson.. .The colorfully cinematography is well reflected on sensational landscapes by cameraman Phil Meheux. Lively music by Trevor Ravin.The film is correctly directed by Frank Coraci.The motion picture will like to Jacke Chan fans and adventures cinema enthusiastic. Anothers version about the Jules Verne novel are :the classic by Michael Anderson with David Niven and Cantinflas,and the TV adaptation by Buzz Kulik with Pierce Brosnan and Eric Idle.
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
This movie was successful in its genre.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThis was Arnold Schwarzenegger's last movie before being elected Governor of California.
- गूफ़A 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.
- भाव
Monique La Roche: Where's your proof?
Lord Kelvin: This is the Royal Academy of Science! We don't have to prove anything!
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनSome commercial television prints cut out the Arnold Schwarzenegger cameo sequence.
- साउंडट्रैकIt's Slinky!
Written by Homer Fraperman (as Homer Fesperman) and Charles Wragley (as Charles Weasley)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Around the World in 80 Days?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Around the World in 80 Days
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $11,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $2,40,08,137
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $75,76,132
- 20 जून 2004
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $7,26,60,444
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं(120 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें