Around the World in 80 Days

[Revolt]

Big thumbs up! Great all around. Ah-nold is hilarious in the Bill Clinton role.

[Goodsport]

I posted this here (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118806) (bare in mind that I do plan to see the film eventually):


I'm talking about "Around the World in 80 Days", I am guessing no one saw it.

What the hell is Anschuts thinking? Next thing you know, he'll be financing movies about soccer in the USA
I haven't seen it yet and I'm somewhat apprehensive to (though I'll likely end up watching it at some point). From the commercials it seems that they've changed far too much from the original story, so much so that Passepartout (played by Jackie Chan? :confused: ) seems to be the primary character rather than Phileas Fogg (played by Steve Coogan).

The best screen version of the story is the 1989 TV miniseries starring Pierce Brosnan as Phileas Fogg and Eric Idle as Passepartout (though Idle's an Englishman, he correctly and convincingly played Passepartout as the Frenchman he was in the original book) - in my opinion, a much better adaptation than even the 1956 theatrical version starring David Niven as Phileas Fogg and Cantiflas (yet another :confused: ) as Passepartout.

Both the 1956 and 1989 versions are currently available on DVD.


-G

I'm glad to hear that it got a good review from someone who's seen the latest version.


-G

[M9fanatic]

From what I heard it's horrible compared to the first. I don't know about Chan taking on the role played by Cantinflas..... every review I read so far says he absolutly sucks.
I'll probably wait for it to be on cable.

[Revolt]

From what I heard it's horrible compared to the first. I don't know about Chan taking on the role played by Cantinflas..... every review I read so far says he absolutly sucks.
I'll probably wait for it to be on cable.
I only read one review before seeing the movie, and it was a rave:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/16/DDGHB7660S1.DTL

[Revolt]

So, now I'm reading reviews:

Wash Post hated it, NYT liked it. Roger Ebert's review was positive, too.

[M9fanatic]

The Chicago sun-times and the Tribune both hated it.