Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the June 16 article: Toon Talk: Around the World in 80 Days at <a href="News-ID280230.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID280230.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Kirby in your review you wrote: <<Unlike in previous versions, computer animation is used extensively here, employing a ‘pop-up book’ style to mask the obvious budget limitations>> The movie cost 100 million to make, and they still had budget limitations?
Originally Posted By DlandDug I saw this movie this afternoon and found it uniformly dreadful. The "gags" are among the worst I have ever seen. The performers seem unable to breathe a bit of life into the tepid script. And there is simply no "scope," despite the use of location shooting.
Originally Posted By karlg The composite average critic's review from the following site is only a 50 on a 100 point scale. For comparison purposes, Alamo rated a 46 and Harry Potter rated 80, Shrek 2 a 73, and Lord of the Rings 3 a 92. <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/aroundtheworldin80days/" target="_blank">http://www.metacritic.com/film /titles/aroundtheworldin80days/</a> This rating and the comments from other reviewers would seem consistent with Kirby's review.
Originally Posted By Kuzcochik *is going to go sit in a room with the other people that liked this movie* *Finds herself alone* Why do I always like movies that no one else does?!
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Why do I always like movies that no one else does?!>> I like Hudson Hawk and not a lot people like that.
Originally Posted By BrigmanMT 2 I liked the League of Extraordinary Gentleman and Atlantis the Lost Empire. Not too many people like those. Around the World in 80 days is one of my favorite books and Jackie Chan is one of my favorite actors. I dont like making Phileas Fogg an inventor, but making Passepartout an action guy could turn out really well. But with Kirby's review I think I will probably wait for the DVD.
Originally Posted By narkspud Around the World in 80 Days is officially a box-office disaster. Came in 9th for the weekend, with an estimated take of 6.8 Million. <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040620/leisure_boxoffice_chart_1.html" target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040620 /leisure_boxoffice_chart_1.html</a> I wonder what gets cut at Disneyland to make up for THIS one?
Originally Posted By Santa Monica Hopefully Bob the churro vender gets the cut. I've always hated how he rolls the sugar on.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I wonder what gets cut at Disneyland to make up for THIS one?<< 5. Haunted Mansion now home to just 143 Happy Haunts. 4. Castle painting "test" areas turn out to be the extent of the makeover. 3. Big Thunder Mountain reduced to Partly Cloudy Mountain. 2. DCA cancels this summer's planned "X Games Salutes Disney's Around the World in 80 Days Xtreme Xtravaganzapalooza Synergtastic Show." 1. Haunted Mansion EXIT signs & boarding area lighting dimmed 75% to reduce energy consumption costs.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I wonder what gets cut at Disneyland to make up for THIS one?" << Probably nothing. This film was a late acquisition on Disney's part and they are reportedly only on the hook for the cost of prints and advertising. It is Walden Media that will take a huge hit on this film. -Jeff
Originally Posted By ctdsnark I agree with the review--this isn't a very good film.I'm not familiar with any of the other versions of the Jules Verne story,just the David Niven version,and this new one pales in comparison--while I disagree with Kirby's opinion of Jackie Chan being too old to be an action star,this film was all wrong for him.I wanted to see a global travelogue,not a martial arts film! Steve Coogan made a terrible Phileas Fogg--this ninny couldn't find his way out of London by himself,let alone around the world--and he's supposed to be the main character?!? And his "love interest",that pseudo-French whateverhernamewas,--oh,for the quiet dignity of Shirley Maclaine's Indian princess!!If this movie had gotten some REAL A-list stars for its cameos {and Schwarzenegger's was just downright embarassing},they might've had something--there is something terribly wrong with a movie that considers Rob Schneider a "celebrity cameo"!! Two thumbs WAY down!
Originally Posted By markedward I'm not generally a prude when it comes to movies and don't fully agree with comments about how terrible it is that Disney has embraced PG-13 language and violence. But I watched 80 Days in a matinee full of four to seven year olds (and their parents), and you could have heard a pin drop after the line "You had me at 'nipples'." Between a sea captain with a rather personal shark attack story, an homage to San Francisco homelessness, and a hot tub scene with Arnold in drag, this was a creepy movie. Not Disney villain creepy. More Tim Burton creepy - minus Tim Burton smart. I love Disney and Jules Verne, liked Walden's Holes very much, and am even mildly fond of Jackie Chan action comedies. But the Jules Verne gadgets were forgotten about except for the first and last ten minutes of the movie. The heir-to-Disney's-magic feeling from Walden's Holes was no where to be found. And the comedy part of Jackie Chan's action comedy was spread pretty thin. It's bad that I'm now relieved to hear how little Disney had to do with the making of this movie. But it does raise the question, can someone tell me when Disney stopped being a studio and started being a distribution company? Pixar, Walden, Jerry Bruckheimer. Didn't Disney use to actually make movies?
Originally Posted By basil fan Arnold wasn't in drag. He just had a really ugly wig. I've never seen a Jackie Chan film before, & I was impressed by the martial arts choreography. Very, very clever. Also, a few of the scenes were pretty funny. I enjoyed the destruction of the statue of the Thinker, for one. And the animated segues were charming. The sight of the Indian woman in Phileas' clothes was amusing. Most of the rest was somewhat forgettable. Except for the crude parts. I wish I could forget them. The Englishmen in the Academy of Science were annoyingly cartoony. I, too, longed for an Indian female lead. Sad that she was changed. House of Mouse <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/house.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/house.html</a>
