Per vincere una scommessa, un eccentrico inventore britannico, accanto al suo valletto cinese e a un aspirante artista francese, intraprende un viaggio pieno di avventure e pericoli in giro ... Leggi tuttoPer vincere una scommessa, un eccentrico inventore britannico, accanto al suo valletto cinese e a un aspirante artista francese, intraprende un viaggio pieno di avventure e pericoli in giro per il mondo in soli ottanta giorni.Per vincere una scommessa, un eccentrico inventore britannico, accanto al suo valletto cinese e a un aspirante artista francese, intraprende un viaggio pieno di avventure e pericoli in giro per il mondo in soli ottanta giorni.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 2 vittorie e 2 candidature totali
- Monique La Roche
- (as Cécile De France)
- General Fang
- (as Karen Joy Morris)
Recensioni in evidenza
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 say, give it time! Overseas box office plus rentals and DVD sales - this movie will turn a profit in the end. As I understand it, movie companies now make most of their money off the rental market, so I am rather mystified to hear that a movie flopped just because it didn't earn back its cost at the U.S. box office in the first couple of months of release. Doesn't seem like a fair and complete calculation to me.
Anyway, I go to the trouble of wondering about this because I thought this was a great and delightful romp of a comedy, and I believe posterity will be much kinder to it than "5.7". The movie is witty, beautiful, well-acted and contains virtually everything any kung fu adventure fan's heart can desire. Before watching it, I thought it would be more faithful to the original book, so I was surprised to see the Ten Tigers of Kwantung, and let me say the surprise was 100% positive. This movie is, absolutely first and foremost, a comedy. And it is something so rare as a literate one, which does not ridicule the premise it is based on. The movie makes the only right choice, namely to update the classic story and add new levels and new ideas, which keeps it fresh and adventurous. Let's face it, Jules Verne's science no longer holds up in the present day, so we have to make modified versions of the stories for a modern audience (hence also the very entertaining updated version of Journey to the Center of the Earth: The Core).
To see this movie as a remake of the 1956 movie - which seems to be the position that many reviewers take - is completely faulty. This is a riff/homage to the original novel, having nothing whatsoever to do with any previous movie version.
I thought Jackie Chan's part in this movie was great fun, and I was very entertained throughout. I can't think why it bombed in the U.S. I'm gonna get it on DVD very soon.
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.
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!
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThis was Arnold Schwarzenegger's last movie before being elected Governor of California.
- BlooperA 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.
- Citazioni
Monique La Roche: Where's your proof?
Lord Kelvin: This is the Royal Academy of Science! We don't have to prove anything!
- Versioni alternativeSome commercial television prints cut out the Arnold Schwarzenegger cameo sequence.
- Colonne sonoreIt's Slinky!
Written by Homer Fraperman (as Homer Fesperman) and Charles Wragley (as Charles Weasley)
I più visti
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- La vuelta al mundo en 80 días
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 110.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 24.008.137 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 7.576.132 USD
- 20 giu 2004
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 72.660.444 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1