DVDizzy Forum

Interesting review of the UK Theatrical release here

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=11947

A studio might have balked at casting a comedian little known outside the UK in a $110 million production and they'd definitely not have approved of jokes which depend on the audience knowing a bit about Rodin and Van Gogh. Of course, judging by the film's grisly fate at the American box office, they might have had a point.

I think this comment, along with the failure of Looney Tunes: Back in Action sums up why I hate Shrek so much. Parody, spoof or include sly-references to lesser known works of art, film or television and people ignore it, or worse, call it "stupid". Parody Fairy tales, Disney or easy targets like The Matrix as Shrek does, and it's praised to high heaven, and even called "refreshingly original".

I think part of the reason people are saying Around the World in 80 Days is so bad is because last summer's Pirates got everyone's hopes up. I read the book(okay, an abridged, illustrated-every-other-page version. But this series of books stay true to the originals, just translates them into English ) and loved it. There was a spoof on it made for House of Mouse and it was close and very funny. I'm looking forward to this movie.

2099net wrote:Parody, spoof or include sly-references to lesser known works of art, film or television and people ignore it, or worse, call it "stupid". Parody Fairy tales, Disney or easy targets like The Matrix as Shrek does, and it's praised to high heaven, and even called "refreshingly original".

I definitely agree. I thought Shrek was funny, but I still absolutely hated it. I do want to see Shrek 2, but not anytime soon. It is very annoying that it is referred to as "refreshingly orginial." All it is a FanFiction with crossovers of centuries old tales (which are interpreted through the American storybook sense) with inserted jokes on current popular culture and the disgusting ogre character, who relies on bad manners and gas emissions for laughs.

Well it comes out Friday so not much longer yay.

Just $20 million after 3 weeks on such a high-budget production is disappointing, no matter how you slice it. Of course, I believe Walden was the one funding it and Disney just stepped in for distribution and promotion. So Disney's losses might not be the biggest here.

Around the world in 80 days is the worst movie that came out this year.
I'm very disappointed with Jackie Chan to star in this dumb and lame movie. The first time I saw the preview I was like this is the worst Disney film of all time and what a waste of money.
I don't know if I'll be renting it at all.

Luke wrote:Just $20 million after 3 weeks on such a high-budget production is disappointing, no matter how you slice it. Of course, I believe Walden was the one funding it and Disney just stepped in for distribution and promotion. So Disney's losses might not be the biggest here.

I believe the film cost $110m, of which Disney paid $75m - but this probably includes the distribution and advertising costs as well as the filming.

Personally MickeyMousePal, I don't think the film is stupid, the exact opposite in fact. It's too high-brow with the targets it makes fun of. I still don't think it will be a good film though. While the original novel is probably accurately described as a light-comedy-adventure, this film looks to be more like a farce.

I saw the movie in the theater I thought it was very good I enjoyed it from start to finish. It was very amusing I really enjoyed the story as well as the the charecters in the show. I think the movie would have done better if it had been marketed differently, but I really enjoyed it I especially loved the animated transitions that takes you from one scene to the next. I wish it had done better in theatars because it was a great movie hopefully it will do better in the DVD market.

Is Around the World in 80 Days a Disney movie in the US? There is no mention of the Disney name in any publicity in the UK. Here it is 'presented' by Walden Media and distributed through Entertainment.

Also (and this is a doubtful but perhaps worth a mention), Walden seem to be involved with the production of other Disney movies and I wondered if they were in any way some kind of subsidery-off-shoot-whathaveyou. This would explain the similarity in the name:

WAL(t)D(isney)EN(tertainment)

Just a thought.

More importantly, is the film any good?

Uh, Mitch....there is a thread on this directly below this one.

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... php?t=4095

Just helps to save space.
Hope it helps

The movie looks promising and I actually feel kinda upset about this one flopping. What in the world went wrong?

toonaspie wrote:The movie looks promising and I actually feel kinda upset about this one flopping. What in the world went wrong?

What went wrong was it was lost in a slew of other big budget movies, didn't offer people gross-out comedy or multitudes of explosions and gunfights and had a main star (Coogan) hardly anyone in America has heard of.

It's sad, but that's the way the cinema business is going. Give people what they want all the time, even if they've seen it hundreds of times before in other movies (only this time, put more digital effects in it).

Sorry to sound cynical. But I am.

Well, its been out on DVD for a couple of weeks or so now, but I've not seen any comment about the film on the forums.

Anyhow, I just watched the film and here's my comments:

Being British, I was slightly disappointed with Steve Coogan's performance. I was expecting so much more. Not Alan Partridge or Paul or Pauline Calf, but somebody equally memorable. Fogg really had no character, and quite simply wasn't a memorable character.

I really enjoyed the Jackie Chan fight sequences. Jackie Chan is the man, and has always been underserved by his American films, but the fights in Around the World in 80 Days, while obviously being toned down, were entertaining.

I enjoyed the sequences in Europe and America. Lots of visual puns and jokes, some of which required a little historic knowledge. My favourite sight-gag being when Fogg sneezes in the head of the Statue of Liberty and the legs appear out of its nose.

All in all, while I'll admit the film wasn't laugh out loud funny, it had a comic style of its own, sort of "Pythonesque" at times (and its always good to see John Cleese). I think it could have been funnier, but I still enjoyed it and smiled a lot. (Which is more than I can say for Shrek 2). It wasn't really a big motion picture comedy type of film, which probably explains its box office failure. A shame, as more people should have given it a go.

My biggest complaint was the storyline seemed to mirror Shanghi Knights quite a lot.

I pretty much agree with most of your comments, except on the Jackie Chan fight sequences. I found them pretty repetitive and not very exciting at all. I can appreciate Jackie Chan fight sequences more when they're in an action vehicle for Jackie Chan.

Here, in adapting a classic piece of literature, they weren't supposed to be making a Jackie Chan film. But it turned out that way, and the stunt sequences pretty much dominated the whole film, putting the more interesting themes of the story into the background and departing from its narrative in pace and tone.

When it wasn't trying to wow us with Jackie's acrobatics, the film wasn't too bad. The puns and Python-esque humor you refer to was pulled off reasonably well. But it was never sharp enough, never adventurous enough to engage, or funny enough to like.

It tried to do a lot, and I don't think it did any of those things with entire success. The cameos were refreshing, but the central story about the three protagonists just seemed muddled and uninteresting, everything it should not have been had the filmmakers had clearer intentions, or decided to cast Jackie Chan as Passepartout, rather than casting Jules Verne's novel as a Jackie Chan action film.

This movie suck, sorry.

I tried to laugh so hard, but never did, got some chuckles here and there, but nothing else. I love Jackie Chan, but this is a huge disappointment for me, no wonder it bombed. Except for the action scenes, though nowhere as good as other Chan's efforts, I find the movie extremely lame and even boring at times. Not recomended unless you just want to see Jackie kick butt, if you don't crave that, than this movie will most likely not entertain you.

I didn't see it, but I read that Owen and Luke Wilson were supposed to play the Wright brothers. Were they funny at all?

Narfle the Garthok wrote:I didn't see it, but I read that Owen and Luke Wilson were supposed to play the Wright brothers. Were they funny at all?

Yes, they were! Their cameos, as well as Rob Schneider's, and to some degree Arnold's were the high point of the film for me.