I saw Around the World in 80 Days last night. It’s been panned by a lot of critics, but I thought it was a hell of a lot of fun! Steve Coogan and Jim Broadbent are terrific, Cecile de France is hot, and overall there are a lot of great lines and a lot of nice moments. Oh, and Jackie Chan is in it, which is neither a plus nor a minus to me.
Anyway, I’m generally pretty discriminating about the movies I like–coherence, wit, and intelligence are usually necessary–and I recommend this one. It’s a good kid’s movie too, but I went with a friend of mine (both of us 20-something) and had a great time.
Has anyone else seen it and come away with a different opinion?
I took the 4 year old to see it based on her endless begging (she’d seen the trailer at, I think, Shrek II).
I admit to being disappointed that it had so much Jackie Chan-style combat in it. The trailers presented it as more of a lark and FX movie and I found myself worried about the kid (who was, actually, bored by the whole thing).
While Jackie Chan is great at what he does I thought he’d be branching out and trying for less of a fighting-man image with this one.
Not a bad movie, but not exactly how it was sold, either.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I’m not a huge martial arts fan, and I thought Steve Coogan’s quips during the action sequences were far more entertaining than the fighting itself. Still, it didn’t ruin the movie for me.
My wife and 5-year-old son saw it. She liked it far more than the critics, and we’re planning on getting the DVD. She, too, is mystified as to why it received such a low rating (something like 25% on Rotten Tomatoes).
It may explain something if I mention that we both liked “Van Helsing” which received a similar thrashing, and liked it a lot. A goofy, loud movie with some terrible lines, but a lot of energy.
I think most reviewers and critics felt they had to compare it to the Verne story, and, of course, there’s practically nothing in common with the Verne story. Well, the names, the basic number of days, taking a train across India, and the time-zone plot gimmick at the end. Once you get rid of the notion that this is the Verne story, and accept it for what it is – a Jackie Chan movie – we found it very silly and immensely enjoyable. I wouldn’t put it on my list of 100 greatest movies of all time, but I would put it on the “great fun” list.
Of course, we only paid $4.50 per person at a matinee. I don’t know how I’d feel about it at $9.50 for an evening show.
Other critics use stars, I use dollars to evaluate movies. On that scale, IMHO, this is a great $5 or $6 movie.
Saw it w. 5 year old relative who loved it (but is a huge Jackie Chan fan via the cartoon show). I agree that the amount of martial arts was undersold in the ads, in fact, I was expecting him to be disappointed because of the way it was sold, but there was plenty of martial arts for him. As kid movies go it wasn’t bad, it held my attn. as an adult & offered a few good laughs and surprises.
Go in eyes wide open: you are seeing a movie meant for the 5-12 year old (& thier folks) you will be more than satisified
Dangerosa and I took the kids (4 and 5) and we all enjoyed it. It’s too long (two hours) and would have really benefited from dropping some of the opening setup, but our only serious gripe was with Schwarzenegger. Most of the cameos were well done, with the best one being Rob Schneider’s dead-on Beetlejuice impression. But the Governator was on screen too long, revealing that he just can’t act. Sure, he can pull off a funny line or two, and I bet he’s really likable in person, but there is just no acting talent there.
I recommend the movie, but second the suggestion to go in with low expectations. And when you see Arnold, check if the kids need a bathroom break, 'cause you have a couple minutes of nothing happening.
And Arnold playing a Turkish Sultan was too difficult to watch - really painful. If he needed a cameo, couldn’t they have stopped in Bavaria or something?
