When this movie is made in 1956, one could circumnavigate the globe in a little less than two days. When Jules Verne wrote the story "Around the World in Eighty Days" in 1872, he predicted that one day man could accomplish the task in eighty hours, but which most considered folly to do in eighty days in current times, that is except for people like Englishman Phileas Fogg, a regimented man who believed all it would take is exacting work, the skills he possesses. He just has to make sure a train's schedule meets the required sailing schedule which meets the required coach schedule and so on. As such, he takes up what ends up being the highly publicized twenty thousand pounds sterling wager from his fellow members at the London Reform Club to do so, losing the bet which would ruin him financially. Along for the ride is Fogg's new, loyal and devoted valet, the recently arrived Latin immigrant, Passepartout, who possesses unusual skills which could be major assets, but whose all consuming...Written by
Hop on a sailing railroad across The West! Be attacked by fierce prairie Indians! Rescue a Princess in India! Sail a burning Atlantic paddle-wheeler! Fight bulls in Spain! Romp through Paris! See more »
(Mag-optical) (35 mm prints) (1956)|Mono
(optical) (35 mm prints) (re-release prints)|70 mm 6-Track
(70 mm prints) (Westrex Recording System)|4-Track Stereo
(Perspecta Sound encoding) (35 mm magnetic prints) (1956)
Sir John Gielgud played a manservant who Phileas Fogg (David Niven) discharges at the beginning of the movie. Gielgud also played a manservant in Arthur (1981). See more »
When the American train stops unexpectedly, for the pow-wow with the Indians, and later, when the buffalo are stampeding across the tracks, the locomotive is behind the same cluster of bushes. Incidentally, the railroad would never allow foliage to grow that close to the right-of-way. They would cut it back, to avoid track fires caused by stray embers dropped from the engine. See more »
The last line of dialogue is "This is the end". The closing credits then begin with the words WHO WAS SEEN IN WHAT SCENE ... AND WHO DID WHAT. The story is then recapped in 6 minutes of simple, minimally animated cartoon images, allowing the names of the many cast members who each appeared in just one scene to be shown in relation to that scene. Some of the crew credits (WHO DID WHAT) are interspersed with the cast credits. The very last thing shown is the film's title. See more »
Some older TV prints of "Around The World in 80 Days" eliminate the prologue. The film was also often subject to indiscriminate cutting in the past for commercial TV broadcasts due to its length. Now that the full-length widescreen "roadshow" version has been restored for DVD, this version will hopefully be made available for future TV broadcasts. See more »
It comes off like a 9-hour travelogue, but maybe it's something you may want to see once.
As I watched "Around the World in Eighty Days" tonight, I noticde that it is a beautiful and spectacular film. The first time I tried seeing it was on a 25" TV--this time it's on a 58" one and the beauty is much more obvious. Too bad I couldn't have seen this on the big screen using the amazing 70mm cameras. And, if they brought it back to the theaters, I might be tempted to see it that way--even though the film does have many shortcomings.
I've got to be honest here, I tried watching this film years ago and gave up on it. The only reason I am watching it through to the end now is that I would like to eventually see all the Best Picture winners--even the incredibly overblown ones. This brings me to a pet peeve I have. I HATE films that feature a bazillion cameos. I find that often the plethora of stars tend to get in the way of the story and often soak up a huge portion of the budget--leaving precious little for writing. Some of the stars in the film are very international in flavor and I never would have recognized them the first time I tried to see this movie 25 years ago. Now, after having seen and reviewed a ridiculous number of films, I was actually excited by some of these casting decisions. Catinflas, though completely unknown in America did some marvelous little comedies in Mexico--and he is the other reason I chose to try watching the movie again. I was to see Fernandel (who also made many wonderful films--in France and Italy). But, I was also maddened because his cameo as a hack driver was so short and unfunny--completely wasting his wonderful comedic talents. And this trend continued for several more of the cameo--wonderful actors who really have nothing to do and are pretty much wasted.
At least 30 minutes could have and should have been cut from the film. I am NOT against long films...if they are well-paced. Too many times in this movie, however, scenes just unfold way too slowly--such as when the balloon is going over the Alps. A VERY LONG period of nice music and shots of the balloon are shown--when it really seemed interminably long. This reminded me of the major problem with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"--too many unnecessarily long shots which killed the film's momentum. The bullfighting scene is also one that goes on and on and on and could have been 1/3 as long. Many other such examples followed.
So is it a great film? No. I agree with another reviewer who felt the movie got an Oscar for Best Picture simply because it was such a spectacle--not because it was especially good. It's one of the weaker Best Picture films of the era, in my opinion. However, I must give the film its due. The movie is beautiful in every way--great costumes, amazing locations and sets, breathtaking cinematography and a scope that cannot really be matched. But, it is also very, very , very long with poor pacing, suffers from an overuse and wasting of cameos and just isn't that interesting. Catinflas was a very gifted and funny man--here you don't get a great sense of that at all. Likewise, David Niven was a very fine actor--but here he's more like set dressing and you don't get to see him at his best.
Before I conclude, let's talk about the cameos. With all the many cameos, why did they pick Shirley MacLaine to play an Indian princess?! Talk about bizarre casting! And why have Frank Sinatra in a cameo that takes two seconds and he just turns and smiles at the camera?! I don't get it. And what was with John Carradine?! Even for him he over-acted horribly.
3 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this