can't say that I'm surprised. David Niven's character is a pompous jackass; none of the charm for which Niven is famous is evident here. McLaine's character is a totally forgettable cypher. Even Robt Newton--so memorable in OLIVER TWIST and TREASURE ISLAND--is dull and uninteresting. This sleepy movie only comes to life when Cantinflas occupies the stage.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)
"Cantinflas.....THE Star of this movie"
most deservedly so!
I'm not buying that. but to be honest I don;t believe this movie rates 4 stars .It is what it is. A lot of different costumes, a lot of different character roles. shirley McLane not believable as an "Indian Princess" The rest of the cast kind of floats thru this movie. Its interesting but this is not a four star movie.
shareI see this as being a travelogue (as someone else has suggested). It is a tour in 80 days of the Olde Britishe Empire. And we knew the sun never set on that. Interesting movie in terms of the travel and world locations involved in the picture, which was where the US was in 1955 and 1956 when the movie was made.
To get back to the thread topic, it's not the least surprising that Cantinflas would be called the film's star in Latin America. He was by far the most popular performer across Central and South America at the time, and much better known than almost all the other actors in the film.
Amazingly, in the 50s Cantinflas was reportedly the wealthiest actor in the world, worth more than anyone in Hollywood. For him to achieve that status on the strength of a market centered on Latin America, then a relatively poor if vast region, is testament to his incredible popularity. But his chances of expanding his appeal beyond that area of the world evaporated with the disaster of his next (and last) English-language film, the dreadful and stupid Pepe (1960), an all-star box-office travesty.