Volta ao Mundo em 80 Dias: Uma Aposta Muito Louca

Around the World in 80 Days (2004), starring Jackie Chan, currently has an IMDb user rating of 5.7. And they say it's one of the biggest flops in history, having failed to recoup more than a fraction of its (estimated) $110 million budget.

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.

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.

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.

I have watched the original version of this film a few months back and think that was way better then this one. I thought some of the jokes were pretty lame and unoriginal. Steve Coogan particularly doesn't seem to fit in a comedic role. The cameo roles were ok but nothing amazing. I found Arnold's cameo as a Turkish Monarch rather drab and I thought they should have done some more. Jackie Chan as usual out did himself with some of his stunts. Making some ordinary items into weapons are just great.

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!

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.