Too DIFFERENT!


Before watching this film, I expected a modern version of the 1956 version directed by Michael Anderson. However at the end of it, I was left speechless as they had changed too much of it for my liking.
In my opinion, there was either a massive problem in casting, or scriptwriting! Don't get me wrong, Jackie Chan is a superb actor, but in this instance, he definately DOES NOT fill the role of passepartout. Not only that, but they decided to alter his background completly, giving him a chinese origin to suit his complexion. This for me did not work at all, as the storyline is drifting away from the original.
Because of this change in character, this got the ball rolling for even more changes, which disappointed me further. They introduced a 'jade buddha', and decided to include it as a sub-plot for the film. (Although this would be very creditable for other movies, it does not work when creating a remake of a Jules Verne classic!) They also decided to remove a vital character from the original (Princess Aouda) and introduce an alternate French artist. Again, Cecile De France acted well in the film, but her character is totally wrong for this remake.
The only credit I would give to this film relating to originality was the conference between Phileas Fogg and Lord Kelvin about the possibilty of travelling the world in 80 days. This scene really made it for me.
Although this is a very watchable film and does have it's comical moments (aided by Steve Coogan's recognisable humour), the film as an adaptation did not work for me, and (like the Thunderbirds movie), left me slightly disappointed.
6/10

reply

[deleted]

wot the hell is your problem- im writing about wot i think of the film. Besides, Around the world in 80 days WASN'T WRITTEN TO BE A COMEDY! Its like making Harry Potter a farce. (how you u feel if u were a true harry potter fan, and in the film, they decide to give the dark arts teacher a chinese background, just so jackie chan could play the role!)
If you don't agree with wot i think, then thats entirely up 2 u. Don't have a go at me for my thoughts.

reply

It was a good film, for goodness sakes who cares if it was different, you'd whinge if it was exactly the same...

reply

I'm not saying the film was absolutely terrible and unwatchable. I'm just saying that I think adaptations from books or old films should be pretty similar, because that what makes the film unique.
I wouldn't winge if it was exactly the same!

reply

"ot the hell is your problem- im writing about wot i think of the film. Besides, Around the world in 80 days WASN'T WRITTEN TO BE A COMEDY! Its like making Harry Potter a farce. (how you u feel if u were a true harry potter fan, and in the film, they decide to give the dark arts teacher a chinese background, just so jackie chan could play the role!)"


I don't see what the problem is as long as the new version is clearly labeled as a comedy to be taken lightly, which this movie defently is. Just look at the cast, no non-comedy movie would ever cast Arnold as a prince...
I have seen a lot of serious movies I liked be turned into some comedy that changed everything except the basic storyline. Even though I don't always like the end-result I don't see what's wrong about trying

It's a whole different story if it wasn't labeled as a comedy though. I understand why many people hate I, Robot because it has nothing to do with the book of the same name

reply

...Then according to your logic, Monty Python's The Holy Grail and Life of Brian and all of Mel Brooks's films are terrible because they're different from the original material.

Wow. You're really not a parody person, then.

"Can you still see when your head has been severed from your neck? Let's find out..."
- Drancron

reply

actually, the book had many memorable humorous moments... recall the jungle?

reply

wot the hell is your problem- im writing about wot i think of the film.

Pins the audience for this film down in one line.

The church may shout but Darwin roars

reply

Yes, they did take an awful lot of liberties. But why shouldn't they?

reply

Why remake a movie if you're going to make it exactly the same as the last one? It makes it more interesting to add twists and go in different directions.

reply

Totally!

reply

cluck cluck does it really matter??

reply

No skin off my proverbial.

reply

man stop ganging up on thehaunter275. they're just expressing their opinion! i can see exactly what u mean, thehaunter, about changing storylines and stuff, bc often that annoys me too. the thing all u other ppl have to understand is, when u luv a book to bits, and u hear there's a movie coming out based on it, and you wait for months and months to see all your fave characters come to life on the big screen, only to find some have disappeared and others die or whatever when they're not meant to, and all your fave scenes are missing, then there is bound to be something like abject despondency in terms of appreciation for that movie.

that being said, i will admit that sometimes movies take liberties with old stories to appeal to modern audiences, or as a different interpretation. that's also ok. so long as they don't TRY to be faithful to the book. and as long as they make it clear what they're doing. it's all a matter of preference - stick with the old, or do something new?

reply

thank you for your support!

reply

Okay just a footnote about the background of Passepartout. If you recal, Jules Verne wrote him as a Frenchmen, but the 1956 film, he had a latin background. It had already been changed before. It doesn't really suprise me that they made him have a chinese background in this new version. Not to gang up againsed thehaunter275... Just my two cents...

dip dip dip

reply

I hope Jules Verne doesn't sue!

reply

[deleted]

That's why the book is a classic and this movie won't be.

reply

I highly enjoyed this film (mainly because I'm a huge Coogan fan),
but also because it was highly entertaining, and joyful to watch.
It has a feel good factor to it, and the cameo of the Wilson brothers
as the Wright Brothers made it even that bit better.
One thing that I didn't like about the film was.. nothing.
Again, just another lads opinion.

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

reply

[deleted]


This version bears no relation to the 1956 film or even to the book.


Its that man again!!

reply