MovieChat Forums > Around the World in 80 Days (2004) Discussion > OK, What exactly is wrong with this movi...

OK, What exactly is wrong with this movie??

posted 19 years ago by The-all-knowing-movie-Rhino
27 replies | jump to latest

Some spoilers ahead!!

Allright you tight a**es, what was wrong with this movie?? Is the problem simply that you didn't get an exact representation of the book in this one?? I thought it was a refreshing spin on an old story. The sets and cinematography were beautiful, the fight scenes were run of the mill jackie chan, but entertaining nonetheless. The story, while only loosely based on Verne's epic which you could have read in any review on the planet, was basically solid. Would it have been better if they had named it something else?? I mean, what is wrong with it. I thought it was fun. I mean come on, Arnold Schwarzeneggar as a Turkish King?? That is funny. The Wilson Brothers as the Wright brothers?? That was a funny scene also. Lots of action, lots of interesting situations, and a happy ending. What else do you expect from a kids movie??

[–] DragoonKain 19 years ago

I don't know, I liked it a lot too. I can't understand the low ratings. I wouldn't say it's the funniest movie I've ever seen, but it's definitely one of the better comedies of the year I think.

[–] The-all-knowing-movie-Rhino 19 years ago

true statement. I thought the performances were fine from everyone involved. It is made to be a kids movie, and i thought it was very fun. Thanks for the backup dragoonkain.

:)

[–] rlange-3 19 years ago

Lots of fun. Great movie to see with the family. The good guys win, the bad guys lose. Nobody gets hurt too badly. And lots of funny lines and scenes.

What's not to like?

[–] Bruise-Lee 7 years ago

Sure I didn't think it was as good as the 1960's original, but I enjoyed it! It was fun, definitely a movie I would bring kids to. I agree, not sure why people dislike this film so much.

[–] Norse_Sage 19 years ago

I only had two problems with it:

1. At two hours, it is by far too short. To me it felt like you only saw five minute sequences every other week. This should have been AT LEAST two hours 30 minutes, preferably much, much more.

2. The inventor part. I did not mind the changes from the novel, there is already a decent 1956 version rather true to the novel and a superb 1989 version extremely true to the novel, so I didn't mind any changes this time around. That made the movie more interesting.
But the the stupid, stupid, uber childish train and ridicolous plane at the end was just too much.

[–] skyekat 19 years ago

What I HATED about this movie was how it went all sparkly, inbetween countries!
Come on, seriously? Did they HAVE to do the SPARKLES! That spoiled it completely for me. Also, I thought it was rather slow in some places and kinda stupid.
Thats all I have to say.

[–] TrevorAclea 19 years ago

Most people couldn't care less about the changes to the book. I though the premise was good enough, but the execution was terrible, the script stank, even the most talented cast members were terrible in it and they barely even bother to go round the world - they only go to Paris, Thailand and the Berlin backlot that's meant to be London and San Francisco. It's just a badly made movie and no fun at all.

"Gentlemen, is this a great moment or a small one? I'm afraid I don't know."

[–] kt79 19 years ago

Cheer up you miserable sod!

[–] GrumpyBob 19 years ago

Are you freaking serious. I mean come on. This is a remake of an Academy Award winning movie from a world renowned book. This is one of those ideas that should have been panned wayyyyyy before it was ever had a chance of being made! At the VERY least give it another title... I mean its a blatent effort to cash in on the current bad tastes of the American public. I can see it now...
"Hey Disney! Ive got this really great idea for a movie! How bout we remake another classic Best Picture winner!"
Disney reps: "Yeah that seems like a great idea! We can even cast Jackie Chan as one of the leads and make it a fighting movie!"
Some starving writer: "Hey can I write it?!"
Disney: "sure thing! just make sure you write in a bunch of random cameos and make it somewhat resemble the real story! The public wont care, just as long as it has a lot of action, campy sit-com like gags, and random star power!"

nuff said.

[–] raven0565 19 years ago

I thought it was a great movie, havent read the book or saw the original so I have nothing to compare it with. I just went in hoping for something funny with some action. Thats basically what I got. The only thing wrong would be with the PG rating (prefer R movies anyday), but it was geared more so for the kids so I guess I can't say much about that. Besides, how can a movie with a guy peeing in public go wrong. HAHA.

[–] xleax 19 years ago

I thought this movie was extremely cute and imaginative. I rented it for my 5-year-old niece, and we actually both ended up enjoying it very much. I think it's a very underrated family movie, with humor for adults as well as kids.

[–] ADG-81 19 years ago

"This is a remake of an Academy Award winning movie from a world renowned book"

Ehhmmm... no!

A remake is when it tries to be as true to the book/movie as possible. This movie is defently not a remake, it just tries to make fun of the old story, in the same way as most Leslie Nielsen movies tries to make fun of serious movies. You don't see Leslie Nilsens movies as remakes of the more serious version of the movie...

[–] ferls 18 years ago

This deserves a better rating than 5.6.

http://newphoto.1t1t.com/usr/9a/140232/1137562670_0.gif

[–] taijiquan12 18 years ago

To the person comparing it to the spoof comedies of Leslie Nielsen, I don't quite know about that one..

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] barbfrmsf 16 years ago

It was ok. They did go to all the country’s the first movie . The fighting was ok. It would have been better if there could be a little less. The cameos were great.
Have a great and sober day
Barb from sunny San Francisco

[–] ayf_1983 16 years ago

What's wrong ? For starters you don't make a major character change like removing the Indian princess and replacing her with a Parisian starving artist, just so you can cast another pretty white chick . Introduce all the funny moments you like, make it a loose adaptation that's fine, but the three main characters of Fogg, Passepartout, and Aouda stay the same for crying out loud. They are the core of the plot.

At least when they adapted The Honeymooners or Wild, Wild West, yes they changed the race of the main character (another peeve, but that's for another time), but they were still the original characters from the TV shows.

This is like remaking Star Wars and having Luke, Han and some other female character.

[–] The-Maiden 16 years ago

I thought this movie was excellent when i first saw it, and now i have bought the DVD i think exactly the same thing. To be honest i wasnt hoping for it to be anything like the originals, because i hate remakes that are so close to the originals there is basically no point in re-doing them.

It's a kids film, so it's going to have some humour, and im pretty sure Everyone knows Jackie was one of the leads before they sat down to watch it, so if you dont like him, then why watch it in the first place.

If you want a rendition of the book then watch another adaptation, simple as.

[–] floPK 16 years ago

I do like how somebody blamed Disney for their reason to pan it.
Plus, I do agree that maybe you have to be younger to enjoy this film.
Or, you have to have an imagination, and a love for cheesy films.
I, being one of them people.

Dan Fogler: Who is ridiculed by the other Penguins.. for being a fag!

[–] Demarates 15 years ago

The endless string of uninspired Jackie Chan stunts gets quite boring. They should have focussed on the Fog character more, he had some very funny lines.

I am not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing.

[–] JarJarRocks 15 years ago

I thought it was very entertaining!