MovieChat Forums > Around the World in Eighty Days (1956) Discussion > Is it just me or the DVD version is booo...

Is it just me or the DVD version is booooring?

posted 18 years ago by HaveAPinch
27 replies | jump to latest

I remember, back when I was a boy, watching this film in its VHS version and I enjoyed it inmensely. I did not doubt for a second when the DVD was released and I bought it right away.

So I started watching this classic that always brings fond memories to me, only to find that it is incredibly boring. I could swear that a lot of footage has been reinserted into the film, killing the original rythm it had. There were a lot of times, for instance when Cantinflas is being chased in India, where I had the distinct sensation that a given scene, to my recollection, was shorter, funnier and everything but boring.

I checked here at IMDB the alternate versions of the film and I read that twelve minutes of extra footage has been included in the film for the DVD release, I don't know if this counts the minutes spent at introduction and intermission. The thing is, the new version, to me, is just plain boring and has no rythm. What do you people think?

[–] tmf_scipio 18 years ago

I'd have to disagree with you. I rather enjoyed the DVD, especially the full lenght commentary.

It is a beautiful day... for a Reign of *terror*!

[–] cestlefun17 18 years ago

The DVD restores the film to its original theatrical length, and is presented in its original widescreen too.

[–] rsgre 18 years ago

It's probably just the passage of time that has changed your perspective. I enjoyed this immensely in the 50's (but I was only about 9 at the time). Later, it started to look more and more dated. It's an interesting nostalgia trip today, but it doesn't look half as good as it did when I was a kid. It happens...
Regards,

Steve

[–] jkufs 13 years ago

I ABSOLUTELY agree with Steve's explanation as I've found this has happened to me on several occasions. Having 2 college age daughters, I will sometimes try to introduce them to movies that I enjoyed when growing up and find at the viewing that the film involved is rather silly, boring or just plain bad! Oh well, hang onto your original memories I guess.

[–] GiveMeFilm 18 years ago

I don'think it's you. There's not much character development -- there is little going on in the film other than the road trip, after all it's a road trip movie about a road trip and not a road trip movie as a vehicle for anything more interesting.

I have to criticize the soundstages too. But it was only 1956 and verite was new and the new wave hadn't yet reinforced the common sense that good movies do not use soundstages.

[–] Anscules 18 years ago

yeah - i finally saw this tonight and it was a disastrous experience. it was like cimino unveiling heaven's gate to critics. i almost walked out of my own house.

the soundsatge comment is what i'm replying to. you can NOT follow stunning second unit photography with a shot of a guy casting four shadows, pretending to be looking at things. add this to the leaden comedy and zero characterization (and redundant structure) - not to mention the overlong bull "fighting" scene - and the movie killed me off pretty quickly. i think i had watched about 90 minutes before i scanned through the rest of the film.

the 50s is my least favorite decade in american film history, and this and the greatest show on earth are the poster children for that opinion.

"Rampart: Squad 51."

[–] Fred-S 11 years ago

But it was only 1956

That is just the point: Around the World in 80 Days was filmed in Todd-AO, a 70 mm film with 4-track sound. It wasn't the first wide-screen movie (70 mm film was first used in 1927 and Cinemascope was invented in 1954) and the 4-track sound was added (by Mike Todd, I think) as part of the Todd-AO process. The thing that was outstanding was the realism of the picture and sound exhibited in a full blown, big budget feature film. This story, from the Jules Verne novel, was chosen for the combination of beauty, action, and scope.

Obviously, I would think, the process cannot really be appreciated with either cassette tape or DVD or, for that matter, with the limited quality, size and sound of present TV technology. The plot, which is the enormity of the task of traveling around the world and doing it in 80 days, cannot be appreciated by most people who never lived in a world without commercial jet travel. Therefore, if you haven't the imagination to put yourself back in time to a world in which very long distances were mostly traversed commercially on land or sea, and cultures existed which have not during your lifetime, I don't really see how you could find it other than boring.

Also, if you look at the IMDB list of the 250 best movies you will, indeed, find that only about 10% were from the 1950s. However, I think that you might notice that some great movies, such as Witness for the Prosecution, High Noon, On the Waterfront, and Anatomy of a Murder were. Most of them, and all that I have listed, are in B&W.

The middle of the decade was actually highlighted by many big technical advances like TruColor, 3-D, Cinemascope, and Cinerama. If you take those into account it was great decade for cinema.

[–] charles_pearson 18 years ago

I would say that you're disappointed only because you've changed as a person since you were a boy and your expectations are now much different. I, too, went through the same experience as you but it happenedto me years earlier.

I remember watching the movie on TV when I was a child. I thought it was a great adventure film filled with a lot of action and thrills. I couldn't get enough of the movie. My favorite part was the end credits showing a brief summery of the film.

About twenty years later, in the early 1990's, I rented the video for the movie and I was very disappointed. It was nowhere near as exciting as I remembered it and I found it rather boring. I wondered why and I gave it some thought. After watching an action film in the theater it occurred to my why 80 days was so boring: my standards for an action and adventure film changed through the years. Since I watched 80 days as a child I had seen many more action films and they had more explosions, fights and other action per minute than earlier action films. Some of the films, in fact, had so much action going on at once that I couldn't even figure out what was going on. So naturally I'd be bored with 80 days which was filmed at a much slower pace than your average modern action flick. Think about it, Star Wars or even Raiders of the Lost Ark had more action in the first 20 minutes than in all of 80 days!

Years later I watched 80 days again and discovered that I enjoyed it immensly. I realized I enjoyed because I no longer regarded the movie as an adventure but a travelogue and a showcase for all sorts of cameo roles. So, you see, it all depends on what you expect from the movie. If you expect it to be the rolicking adventure film you remembered as a child, you're going to be disappointed. However, if you acknowledge that your standards for adventure films have changed since then, then you need to have other expectations from the films. I've gone through similar experiences with movies like Forbiddon Planet and George Pal's War of the Worlds. The pace of movies back then were just much slower, that's all.

Sorry for the long post. I figured this exposition would give a better explanation than a couple lines of sarcasm or oblique commentary.

[–] beto_sp0004 17 years ago

I totally agree with you! I also remember loving that movie as a child. Than I bought the dvd last year but I put it until today, when I finally saw it again. I believe I had not seen it before because I as afraid I would find it slow-paced and boring. I am glad now to say I was wrong. I loved watching it again. It is a very charming movie, and not a very long soft drink commercial like the action movies from today. Well, I always loved the classics, but as I am aging (I am 37 now), my loving older movies have increased a lot...I wish we had more films like this.

regards

[–] AndromedaRoach 16 years ago

I vaguely remember enjoying this as a child. I'm 20 now, and I just borrowed the DVD from the library. I enjoyed it as an extended series of entertaining scenes moreso than as a whole. It definitely has a lot of nostalgia value and entertaining moments.

"Positive Portayal of a Cockroach" Award Recipient: WALL-E. The cockroach is a noble beast.

[–] Rufus-T 18 years ago

The recent adventure movies have more actions than Around the World in Eighty Days, so that you might get bored for not getting the same amoung of actions. It is like the situation which I recently show Raiders of the Lost Ark to my cousin. Many know that that movie is one of the best action movie all time, but my cousin said it is very boring. Around thw World in Eighty is really an entertaining movie. It is unfortunate that we are being numbed by too many noisy action films, so that we can't enjoy lighter films with good story instead.

[–] dgcrow 17 years ago

"wwwdsign": Couldn't agree with you more. I saw "Around the World in Eighty Days" as a kid and loved it. Today I have it on DVD and still love it. To me both now and as a kid, about the only part of the movie I find "boring" is the too-long bull fighting sequence.

[–] s7777 17 years ago

Not boring . Absolute epic. I think some people on this thread have the attention span of a goldfish

[–] Captain_Bob 16 years ago

Yep, the attention span of the average viewer is way way shorter these days. We expect movies with 90-minute total gratification now (ok I'm exaggerating to make a point). As a young boy in the 60's/early 70's watching an epic like Around the World on a Sunday evening in my pyjamas was nothing short of an event - hell they'd even spread a movie like this or The Ten Commandments over two consecutive Sundays, plus commercials we're talking 4-5 hours of viewing. Thing is there were no PCs, internet, cable TV, video tapes or DVDs, no mobile/cell phones etc. and most places in the US had about 4 channels to choose from. Families had sit-down dinners together (or grazed of tv-tables in front of the box) and most Moms stayed home and made the dinner and spent time with their kids. In retrospect I don't know how we survived, but in many ways it was better (but no way in hell most of us could/would go back).

That said, the bullfight scene was indeed way too long.

[–] ibid111-1 17 years ago

No, it's not you! This movie is VERY boring. I am beginning to realize that The Oscar for BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR seems to be an erratic when viewed through the lens of passing years. This movie is booooooooooooooooooooooooring! Taken out of it's pop culture context of 1956, this movie is tedious, flat and way too long. Time has not been kind to this film.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dlambe_2000 17 years ago

I really liked this film, but it has a few flaws - David Niven's character is undeveloped and not particularly likeable, and the bullfighting scene goes on three times too long. Still, it is beautifully shot and very entertaining. A pity they didn't make a better fist of the romance between the Indian queen and Niven though.

[–] cinelon2 17 years ago

By current standards most movies from the 30s to the seventies are probably slow and boring. A few seem as fresh today as they were when released. I got to see this movie on my birthday in 1958 and was very little and impressionable. I was absolutely enchanted by it. In huge auditorium theaters, in big, plush loge seats that rocked!!! no less, with no yahoos babbling away to disturb you this picture ran in reserved seat engagement continuously for three years. Not even "Titanic" (an uncommonly fine, actually old fashioned, picture)managed that.

The DVD on your home theater screen belies the fact that in theaters of the day the whole experience was radically different. "80 Days" was shown in huge theaters equipped with an immense wraparound screen "Cinerama" screen. There were no cubbyhole mini theaters in those days.

The Todd-AO 70 mm presentation ran at 30 fps, rather than the still conventional 24 fps, with the result that the image stability, color and overall picture quality, despite the magnification, was stunning and superior to anything you see in theaters today.

Yes, there are scenes that by today's standards go on too long, but this was an epic and the shots were purposefully lengthened to allow viewers to be immersed in the content of the scene and be able to take in all of it. On the very very big screen the long scenes have a very different from that on the tiny DVD letterbox ribbon. One could just relax and permit oneself to be visually assaulted by the sheer mass of reality, as in the companion 3-strip "Cinerama" process of the time though without the annoying distortion between the panels.

Granted there is not much "action" in the picture by today's standards. But, the picture is conceived more in terms of wit, harmless chases and spectacle. These were the "Production Code" days in which you could not literally or figuratively "sex up" movies with the type of action and language content we routinely see today, most of which has already become overused and cliche. In the '50s movies were much more unique and experimental; these days new films are cookie cutter remakes and yet another franchise entry. The mass of current moviegoers, perhaps even without realizing it, mostly go to anything that moves.

Today 70% of the moviegoing public is under 30. In the '50s the audience uniformly included all ages. Picture content had to be adjusted accordingly; yet there was revolutionary ferment in picture making. Preminger challenged the Production Code repeatedly and by the end of the decade put a stake through its heart with "Anatomy Of A Murder," the first general audience film to graphically discuss sex.

[–] jinmbean 16 years ago

Yeah the movie was pretty boring. That butler guy was bullfighting for like 40 minutes it seemed.

"Women and children can be careless but not men." Don Corleone