Le Tour du monde en 80 jours

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.

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.

Many reviews here complaining that the movie is not faithful to the book... oh, please, it's a lot of boring people in today's world.

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.

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