Passport to the World: Route 66

Not much of interest here. The narration is wildly inaccurate and stilted, and the script is incredibly dull. Videography is interesting, but they don't weave the story together in any way. Could you maybe explain why you chose an incredibly ugly 70s station wagon for the tour, since you call it by name multiple times? They refer to neon signs in a couple places, but everything is shot in the daylight, so why even mention it? Overall, it seems like somebody with new video equipment trying to justify filming their vacation.

It mostly seems like product placement for the stops along the way. It was a weird journey.

I cringed everytime the narrator said kilometer. If you're gonna do a documentary on Route 66 in the USA, say MILES.

Oh and that statue of the guy in Winslow Arizona... well that's Glenn Frey of the Eagles. Might want to mention that, no small detail to import.

There are other things that were mispronounced but I won't get into, I think it was mentioned in other reviews.

The Arch in St. Louis MO is not the largest man made structure in the United States.

There was a little too much emphasis on the food, almost as if the establishments paid to be in the documentary.

There are lotsa great Route 66 documentaries, this one was ok but lacked a lot of the important details about the Mother Road that people want to know.

Is it just me, or does the viewer expect the writer and director to be somewhat of an expert on the subject of the show?

The writer / director of Passport to the World: Route 66 is clearly no expert.

Names of towns are grossly mispronounced. The word "wigwam" is mispronounced 14 times - cringeworthy! Distance is stated in kilometers instead of miles several times - clearly not a local Route 66 expert!

Who is going to trust someone as an "expert" if they can't even pronounce "CONOCO" (as in "CONOCO Phillips") correctly?

The trip is taken in a 1976 AMC Matador - much too modern to be considered a classic Route 66 vehicle. The chase vehicle is seen tailgating the hero car throughout the film - just awful videography!

Roadside attractions are focused on businesses which seem to have paid for placement in this video - completely bypassing the REAL treasures of Route 66. Where is the sidewalk highway? What about the Round Barn? Why are we spending 20 minutes at Pop's (a restaurant and gas station that has only been on Route 66 for 12 years -- absolutely NOT worthy of stopping at that modern tourist trap!)??? This film appears to be nothing but a 1 hour and 4 minute commercial for places to eat on Route 66!

By the way - the Pop bottle at Pop's is LED lighting - not Neon lighting. Another mistake by our "expert" storyteller!

The writer / producer has completely missed the point of Route 66, and should stick to being an expert in his home country (France). His film is a complete waste of time.

It's cool to see some of these sights along Route 66, including a few things I haven't seen before. It may be a little too focused on the food in the early parts, but probably because Illinois just doesn't have as many other interesting sights along the way.

One thing that kept catching our ear was the narrator's odd pronunciation of certain words. And you'll also hear the use of "kilometer" instead of "mile". Seeing the narrator's name, it makes a little more sense that maybe he's French, or perhaps Quebecois. Words like "wigwam" or even the well known brand "Conoco", or the architect Eero Saarinen (which, admittedly, has a strange pronunciation anyway, but it's not "ai-row", it's "eh-row")

Anyway, it's a pleasant enough documentary. I wish they'd picked a more interesting car than a station wagon to do the journey. Or took some night-time shots of the interesting things. Like the amazing neon-lit soda bottle, that they showed unlit in daytime. Boring.