Le tour du monde en 80 jours

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.

Well before ditching in this movie I had a glimpse of the book and I feel very delighted about the extraordinary vision of Jules Verne. He had predicted many inventions and innovations before the time, but I felt more delighted after seeing this movie. The true essence of Jules Verne's literal work is flawlessly captured by director Michael Anderson. This movie is true extravaganza with some special acting by veteran actor David Niven. His portrayal of arrogant, time-table stricken rich innovator was immaculate. This movie also has handful of cameos played by great actors like Frank Sinatra and others. Only one thing that can bother viewers is its immense length where some scenes are monotonous and make you feel loitered. Over all it's a great movie and best motional version of Jules Verne's finest work. The movie won five Oscars including best picture of 1956.

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

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.

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