1/2/2024 0 Comments Jackie chan 80 days![]() ![]() That movie also introduced, basically for the first time, the idea of an onslaught of cameo appearances by famous screen stars, not always readily identifiable. That's certainly true of Mike Todd's 1956 "Around the World in 80 Days" which captured much of the fantastical verve of Jules Verne's original story. There are classic films and fun films and even, very rarely, fun films that become classics. Overall it's worth watching and is entertaining enough but don't expect it to blow your socks off. The best supporting part for me was Ewan Bremner as the accident prone police sergeant. The rest of the cast are all excellent with a huge list of supporting parts and cameo's including an excellent Jim Broadbent, a great part for Ah-nuld Schwarzenegger, and it was great to see him on screen with Chan, also Rob Schneider, Luke and Owen Wilson, John Cleese, Kathy Bates, and particularly exciting to me as a Hong Kong action fan, Sammo Hung. She is attractive, in a cutesy sort of way but she has a charm and a likeability that works very well and the three leads seem to have a good chemistry. Cecile De France is very good as Coogan's love interest. It seems too cartoony at times especially the accent. He doesn't seem as entirely natural here though and the character he creates doesn't always work. He is the dog's hairy things as Alan Partridge. Steve Coogan is someone I am a big fan of. Nothing compared to Chan's Hong Kong stuff but far superior to much of his Hollywood action. He's a comical genius and as usual performs his own stunts. It is clearly evident that the film had a lot spent on it, although some of the CGI effects are not of the standard expected from a $110 million film. The action in the film and the looks could probably have been more gritty but in any case it looks very colourful and the various settings all catch the eye. It's almost a cartoonish realism with the set design and costumes, clearly evident with Philleas Fogs gadget laden home. It is all very much orientated towards satisfying children. ![]() It's forgettable, could have been much better, but all in all not a bad way to spend a Saturday afternoon. It's not great but it has charm and energy and is the sort of mindless, competent movie making that is hard not to enjoy watching. There was the good fun of Shanghai Knights and around that was the poor duo of Tuxedo and The Medallion. Jackie Chan has had a mixed time of late in Hollywood. I thought Jackie Chan's part in this movie was great fun, and I was very entertained throughout. This is a riff/homage to the original novel, having nothing whatsoever to do with any previous movie version. To see this movie as a remake of the 1956 movie - which seems to be the position that many reviewers take - is completely faulty. Let's face it, Jules Verne's science no longer holds up in the present day, so we have to make modified versions of the stories for a modern audience (hence also the very entertaining updated version of Journey to the Center of the Earth: The Core). The movie makes the only right choice, namely to update the classic story and add new levels and new ideas, which keeps it fresh and adventurous. And it is something so rare as a literate one, which does not ridicule the premise it is based on. This movie is, absolutely first and foremost, a comedy. ![]() Before watching it, I thought it would be more faithful to the original book, so I was surprised to see the Ten Tigers of Kwantung, and let me say the surprise was 100% positive. The movie is witty, beautiful, well-acted and contains virtually everything any kung fu adventure fan's heart can desire. Anyway, I go to the trouble of wondering about this because I thought this was a great and delightful romp of a comedy, and I believe posterity will be much kinder to it than "5.7". Doesn't seem like a fair and complete calculation to me. box office in the first couple of months of release. As I understand it, movie companies now make most of their money off the rental market, so I am rather mystified to hear that a movie flopped just because it didn't earn back its cost at the U.S. I say, give it time! Overseas box office plus rentals and DVD sales - this movie will turn a profit in the end. And they say it's one of the biggest flops in history, having failed to recoup more than a fraction of its (estimated) $110 million budget. Around the World in 80 Days (2004), starring Jackie Chan, currently has an IMDb user rating of 5.7. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |