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 19 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?

[–] TheQuietStorm 16 years ago

Maybe the film is just boring?

Million Dollar Baby Academy Award® Winner for Best Picture of 2004

[–] queeria 15 years ago

Very, very, very, very boooooooooooring...

[–] balib-1 15 years ago

I watched this for the first time a few days ago. A film with an actor I like--D. Niven--and a screenplay partly by an author I revere--S.J. Perelman--had me eager with anticipation. I was terribly disappointed. This is more a travelogue than a dramatic film. It could have been cut by one of its three hours and been stronger. The bullfight, the tango on the table, the Indian attack, and other things, went on interminably. It's lovely, but, egad, how very boring in parts. Amazing it won the Best Picture award--although, as some have said, in 1956 it undoubtedly made a great impression by its cinematic beauty.
-------------
On a side note: funny that the princess is endlessly grateful to Mr. Fogg for rescuing her. Apparently she forgot who actually took the risk and saved her from the barbecue. Did she even -thank- poor Passepartout??

[–] fang123horn 14 years ago

People seem to forget that the book was exactly the same way, so in a way this movie was being very faithful to the source material if they say the film is dated then they should say the same for the book as well. But neither in my opinion is dated at all, I LOVE both of them for different reasons.

[–] BachOmega 14 years ago

I agree with everything you said, including about poor, forgotten Passepartout!

I love classic movies- including hours-long epics- but found this one slow and plodding. I wasn't made to care about any of the characters or what became of them (though the last few minutes with Fogg being held up by the mission lady was exciting). And that, to me, is what makes a film exciting- not explosions, "action sequences," or special effects.

As for other 1950s epics: I liked "Ben-Hur" immensely despite Charlton Heston's two-expression acting. "How the West Was Won"- incredible. "Around the World in 80 Days"- not so much. It's one of those pictures that HAVE to be seen in a theater, for it was the visuals that won it so much acclaim. On the small screen, movies must survive on plot, good writing, and characterization alone. Even though "How the West Was Won" was amazing in Cinerama (I'm assuming), it was the writing that made me care about what happened to the characters next.

I'm sure the overlong bullfighting/dancing/Indian fights/etc. were astounding in the theater, but that's all it was: spectacle, no substance. I'm sure "Avatar" and the like will be thought of the same way in a few decades.

I've only ever seen the first "Star Wars" movie on the small screen and very much enjoyed it. "Episode I"? Booooring, even on the big screen, despite all the "action."

[–] TwoThousandOneMark 8 years ago

I watched it in full via cable, & while the film's total runtime is deceptive, it does slog with the long bullfighting & the goofy cavalry & 'indians' stretch.

...top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

[–] CalibMcBolts 8 years ago

No, this movie is not boring at all, when i watched it for the first time, at a decent age, the time flew by, i love this film and it is not boring whatsoever

[–] joe_538 8 years ago

It's amazing how many people in this thread put extra "o's" in "boring."