best movie i've ever seen.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

A comedy. and interesting hommage to the novel by Jules Verne. this is its meaning. and source of charme. good cast, nice performances, a lot of delightfull surprises. and Jules Verne for a new generation. surprising for the perfect balance between martial arts and original story and for the great fun. and, sure, not the last, for inspired courage to propose something a bit extravagant and...expected. because it is more than an adaptation in ordinary sense. it is a splendid show. so, the new "Around the World in 80 Days" !

IMDb rating is currently 5.8/10. Movie was nominated only for Razzie and Stinker Awards, and financially it's one of the biggest fiascos in history. Of the invested over 100 million, it pulled out about 20%. I'm asking myself who's crazy here...I think that the main problem is that most of the people view this film as either the adaptation of Verne's novel or as a remake of the 1956 film of the same name. In both cases movie would be a failure, but this is neither remake nor adaptation of the novel, so the bad reputation is caused by prejudice rather than the real quality of the film. Script is based on Verne's novel, but but this adventure comedy is a homage to Vern, not an adaptation. Story is modernized, enriched with new adventures and references to many personalities and events, and combines genres with taste and measure in a comedy that keeps the attention and smile on the face from the beginning till the end. When criticizing this film, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is Disney and that accordingly it must be children-friendly.Apart from Schwarzenegger, from whom we don't expect much anyway, the acting is very good. In addition to Jackie Chan and Steve Coogan, who are the bearers of this film, in other roles appear many famous faces, among which are Cécile de France, Jim Broadbent, Ian McNeice, Ewen Bremner, Macy Gray, Rob Schneider, Luke and Owen Wilson, John Cleese and excellent Kathy Bates as the Queen.In my opinion, only those who do not like comedy and adventure as a genre could be dissatisfied with this film,but such people are not competent to judge it and it certainly is not fair that they influence its ratings.8/10

In contrast to the '56 version, this is a very cartoonish 90% Jackie Chan vehicle, obviously aimed mainly at children., whereas the '56 version was aimed at all ages, with minimal slapstick, and a majority of faithfulness in portraying the details of the original Jules Verne story. In contrast, this film departs wildly from the book in many details, emphasizing physical confrontations with agents of the introduced female Chinese warlord Fang, who seem to pop up about everywhere they travel, trying to retrieve the small jade Buddha that Chan stole from the Bank of London(why was it kept there?), that has implausibly great value within the context of this yarn. Whereas the actual journeys between landing points constituted a significant fraction of the total '56 film, they are mostly glossed over in this film, as presumably uninteresting details. For example , the animation after the India portion, suggests they somehow went over the Himalayas, to interior China, instead of going to Calcutta, then Singapore and Hong Kong! In fact, Hong Kong, Japan and the journey across the Pacific are totally skipped, as is the journey across the US, save for the bizarre meeting with the Wright brothers incident.Whereas Niven's Fogg was not an especially imaginative inventor of devices, Coogan's Fogg is an eccentric inventor of 'contraptions', whose inventions have thus far not proved practical. Niven's Fogg excelled in thinking of alternative ways of getting along when the expected means of transport available in 1872 failed, and in mapping out a workable schedule of commercial transport. His most imaginative on-the-spot invention was rigging a square of cloth material he spied to a railroad utility car, to achieve sail power in place of the usual hand pumping propulsion. Supposedly, this achievement is far exceeded in the present film by the construction, within a few hours, of a workable airplane, plus very strong catapult, plus long very high ramp, while aboard a ship, using whatever could be found. It was powered by superman Chan, using bicycle petals, chains and gears(found on a small commercial ship?). Although the resulting plane looks nothing remotely like the Wright Brother's later biplane, supposedly it benefited from the drawings the Wrights bizarrely gave to Fogg, as casual acquaintances! Thus, presumably, the present yarn takes place around 1900, rather than the expected 1872!(except for the Edison light bulb scene!). Incidentally, the first human-powered heavier than air aircraft(without passengers) that flew more than half a mile, and with a mean speed of only 7mph, wasn't proved until 1979! This aircraft weighed only 72 lbs. and had a much larger wing surface area than the one shown in this film, impressively enabling it to cross the English channel.In contrast to the '56 version, there is no highly memorable inspirational waltz, as the theme song. On the other hand, the female(Cecile de France, as Monique), picked up in Paris as part of the expedition, is light years more interesting than Shirley McLain's version in the '56 film, who was characterized as an Indian widow, as in the book. Monique also appears much earlier in the film. Also, there is the introduced Chinese woman(Fang) to add further interest, although I didn't find her very interesting. Lord Kelvin((not present in the '56 film) and his agent Mr. Fix are characterized as much more adversarial to Fogg and his valet than their counterparts in the '56 version, Mr. Fix suffering many injuries and other indignities in his role, which ends prematurely when he is battered in India by Fang's warriors, while handcuffed to Chan. Lord Kelvin, of course, was a famous scientist and inventor around this time. Here, he(as well as most of the other members of the Royal Academy of Science)are characterized as a brotherhood of old fuddy duds, who think everything worth discovering or invented as been discovered or invented. Historically, Kelvin did state that he didn't believe a workable heavier-than-air airplane was possible. However, his characterization in this film would have him rolling over in his grave faster than a spun-up neutron star! After all, steam-powered flying machines had proved impractical. The world awaited a power source that was more powerful, yet lighter(Fogg's bunch didn't provide that.) The overall message of the film, much more so that the '56 film, is that old scientists(and by extension, most old people, except Queen Victoria) are set in their prejudices about what is true and what is possible to invent. Thus, they should be kicked out of important positions of authority, replaced by young people, with fresh ideas and experiences, who are not hampered by the currently accepted laws of physics, be they valid or limited in their applicability.Oh, by the way, how did Fogg and friends continue their journey after all his money was stolen in San Francisco?? soon forgotten!

My husband had ordered the DVD of this film for both of us thinking we'd both have some good laughs by watching it. Well, I don't quite know where to begin. This movie is so bad and so unfunny as to be almost painful to watch. We usually thoroughly enjoy Jackie Chan movies and he did try but given what he had to work with even he couldn't salvage this disaster. I suspect he's embarrassed by how bad this movie actually is. Some movies that are bad are actually so bad that they become funny. Sadly this thing wasn't even bad enough to be funny the way Atomic Twister managed to become funny. There was another bad movie that I saw on TV a few years ago - I have forgotten the title - that had lava flowing out the door of a garage only after the door was opened, as if the garage beside a house in NYC could contain an 8 foot deep mound of molten lava, that movie was so bad it was funny! I have only once before given up on a movie part way through but at what I assume was about half way through the India part if this trip around the world I turned it off. I kept hoping this movie would get better but it didn't. If anything it got worse as it went on. The gags that were supposed to be funny were dragged on and on and on and since they started out bad the longer they went on the worse they got. If you're thinking about buying this DVD, don't bother.