Around the World in 80 Days [Archive]

View Full Version : Around the World in 80 Days

JPPT1974

10-31-2004, 11:22 PM

Disney's Around the World in 80 Days with Jackie Chan is coming out at - yum! yum! - Election Day Tuesday. It cost about $100 million to make the movie but only grossed - ho-hum!! - $16 million. Will you buy it? I loved the book and also loved the miniseries back in 1989 with Pierce Brosnan but won't buy that version until it has bonus features. Brosnan's version sticked more closely to the book!

Speedy Boris

10-31-2004, 11:42 PM

Though I haven't seen the 2004 film, I read the review at dvdmg.com (a great review site, BTW). The reviewer there made some good points about the fact that the original was mainly there to put in as many random guest stars as possible, and had little else to make it a good film other than good scenery. It sounds like the new one does this too, but also adds a better script (atleast in comparison) and a shorter length, which helps.

I certainly am not in a huge rush to buy this, though. And I'm a big Jackie Chan fan.

Chris Wood

11-01-2004, 02:42 PM

I'll put forward a mild recommendation for the film. Steve Coogan is great and draws a number of laughs with his dry delivery. Jackie is toned down a bit, but has a few fun moments. The bonus features are pretty good.

Definitely worth renting, but I'm undecided whether I'd buy it.

Duke

11-01-2004, 05:46 PM

Personally, I thought the movie was a pretty good popcorn flick. Dunno what special features are on there, though.

FredNash

11-01-2004, 05:59 PM

Chris Wood

11-02-2004, 02:14 PM

I just watched the 1956 version (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048960/) yesterday, and I'd recommend that to anyone. (who has 3 hours to kill)

I think I'll pass on the new version... at least untill I can pick it up really cheap or something, since I'm sure it won't live up to it's Best Picture winning predecessor...

I won't presume to claim it's necessarily a better movie than the original, but the new version is definitely funnier.

Special features include a commentary, deleted scenes, a couple of "making of" featurettes, and some awful music video. The @#%& Baha Men on yet another soundtrack?! I think they serve a dark lord.

FredNash

11-02-2004, 02:56 PM

I won't presume to claim it's necessarily a better movie than the original, but the new version is definitely funnier.Really? You do realize the original was a comedy too, right? Well, I've always loved Jackie, and I can see how he'd be great in that role, so I guess I'll go ahead and check it out then.

Matt-a-Tastic

11-02-2004, 04:00 PM

Ive read the book, and Ive seen the end of the 1956 verisoin of the movie, I was pretty angry that they took out the two most important parts.

The bits that were cut out of the 1956 verision of the movie was the bit were fog punches the policeman and the bit where he's in bed at the end telling the moral to his servant

I'll try and see this movie soon, and the old version

Chris Wood

11-03-2004, 03:08 PM

Really? You do realize the original was a comedy too, right? Well, I've always loved Jackie, and I can see how he'd be great in that role, so I guess I'll go ahead and check it out then.

I haven't seen the original in years so my memory's a little sketchy, but I recall it being a bit short of laughs, if otherwise impressive.

Jackie does get some fun stuff to do (although only a couple of moments match the creativity of his best films), but it is Steve Coogan (playing Phileas Fogg) who provides most of the laughs with his dry John Cleese-like delivery. Speaking of which, there are a couple of funny cameos from the likes of Cleese and Schwarzeneggar.

The movie isn't nearly as exciting or hilarious as it could be, but it's still a fun ride.

Ive read the book, and Ive seen the end of the 1956 verisoin of the movie, I was pretty angry that they took out the two most important parts.

Er, then I doubt you'll like the new film, because it takes even greater liberties with the source material.