Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

pifkeyraoul My grandfather told me he did not see this film at a younger age when it came out because it would be stupid. Probably a musical with dumb songs and just a fleeting glance at old stars that no one cared about any more. Then I saw it recently and it is none of the above. Perhaps it"s because I am older now and love to watch old movies on TCM.. I mean back to the 20's through the fifties---and on---and I know most of these actors in cameo appearances.I am sure a Millenial would think a movie from the 80's to be very old, and a Gen Xer a movie from the 60's or 70's the same. And this is being generous. Perhaps also I discovered that I love David Niven as an actor. It was this movie that got me to appreciate him. I bought his autobiography and a biography on him as a result. Now onto the film itself. I thought Contanflas would simply be clownish in his acting, but he played his comedy straight. He was excellent. I agree that Shirley McClain was a poor choice as a Princess from India. This was ridiculous. But she did not ruin the movie. She was perhaps a 1/2 star off the rating tho. She was just wrong for the part. Now as to the story. It was a joy to see that there was an Intermission. Films now have no Intermissions even if they are 3 hours long. It is great that TCM shows the entire movie unaltered. So I ask you to look at it as a iight comedy with excellent acting and I think you will enjoy it. It is extremely colorful and yes, should be seen in widescreen. It is funny, my grandfather recalled, that when he was a boy it cost $2000 or more to fly from Chicago to Los Angeles. Today, this flight could cost 100 bucks! Therefore more people of the 50's would have been more interested in seeing the actual scenes from around the globe than this generation. This was mentioned by another reviewer. Still, it is a Jules Verne book. It is a futuristic book and must be approached as such. We do so with other books/movies such as 1984, released in 1949, and ATWIn80Days was released in 1873 and is set in 1872. I have deducted 1/2 star for Shirley McClain, who I otherwise think is a fine actress, and 1/2 point for the travel scenes which do tend to elongate the movie and not enhance the plot. But I don't think that is a big deal overall. Great Film!

HotToastyRag Michael Todd, Hollywood and Broadway producer and one-time husband to Elizabeth Taylor, put up six million dollars in his quest to make Around the World in Eighty Days the greatest film of all time. And in 1956, that was an unheard of amount of money to spend on a movie. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but nowadays, it's kind of looked at as "that balloon movie with a hundred people in it".If you ask someone about the plot, he'll probably hesitate and basically repeat the title. The plot is not the focus of the film; the cameos are. Todd recruited forty Hollywood stars, in addition to David Niven in the lead and Shirley MacLaine in a smaller role, to wave at the camera and make the audience squeal with delight as they say, "Oo! There's Frank Sinatra/Charles Boyer/Marlene Dietrich/Cesar Romero/Buster Keaton/Charles Coburn/George Raft/John Gielgud/Glynis Johns!" If you want to see forty Hollywood stars turned into glorified extras, and a story about a man in a hot air balloon appeals to you, go ahead and see it. It is a classic, and it did win Best Picture.

Gregory Porter Around the World in 80 Days is the 1956 adaptation of the Jules Verne novel of the same name. We follow the eccentric, particular, and peculiar Victorian gentleman, Phileas Fogg. By particular, I mean, he orders that his breakfast be served at 8:37, not 8:36 or 8:38, and that his toast be precisely 87 degrees. As with most gentlemen around that time he has a valet to help him with his day to day tasks but because he is so difficult he's gone through half a dozen in five months. His latest valet is an earnest, Spanish acrobat named Passepartout. Now, the journey begins when Fogg bets his fellow Reform Club members that he can go around the world in 80 days. Hence the name. They visit places like Madrid, Pakistan, Thailand, Japan and it was filmed on location in many of these places.At 167 minutes, this is a long movie and it feels like it. When the group is in Madrid, Passepartout takes part in a really lengthy bull fight. Being from 1956, before I saw it I anticipated a musical. That would explain the length, I thought. That's one of those things about musicals around that time. There is always a song followed by an extended dancing sequence. Not that there is anything wrong with dancing but, you know, after a while, let's just keep the movie going. But Around the World in 80 days is not a musical. Instead of dancing sequences, they have parades which are used to showcase a given culture. This is something interesting about this movie too. It provides an opportunity for the 1950's audience to see cultures around the world. There are lots of very relaxing shots with the camera mounted on the front of a train as it passes through the landscape.Now, this is 1956 after all, and being 1956 you have the problematic racism and sexism that you'd expect. For example, when the group goes through the jungle somewhere in India, they come across a group of cannibals who are sacrificing an Indian Princess, played by the ever so Indian Shirley McClaine. When the groups goes through America, they encountered a group of the Sioux or as the movie calls them "violent red skins." It was one of those movies that I just had to say "it was a different time."Something that struck me as odd was the massive number of cameos. If you look at the wikipedia page for this movie there is a whole section devoted to just the cameos. Frank Sinatra for example is a piano player in a Wild West saloon. He's on screen for maybe a second and has no lines. He just turns around and smiles. I only recognized a couple of people but I'm sure it would be fun if I knew more of them.The acting overall is good. I liked David Niven as Fogg. He is persnickety but at the same time endearing. Passepartout is a really nice character too. He's like a Spanish acrobatic Charlie Chaplin. The whole tone of this movie is that of a lighthearted adventure.Would I recommend Around the World in 80 days? Because it is colorful and long, I can see it projected on a wall to be a backdrop for a party. I once went to a club where Rapmania the Roots of Rap was projected over the bar. Rapmania is a hip hop concert from the mid-nineties. While it was projected on the wall, current music was being played over the speakers. Nobody was really watching the movie unless they were using as a break from conversation or if they were sitting at the bar. It served as a sort of visual stimulation. On it's own though, because it is rather racist and sexist and very long, I wouldn't really recommend it.

grantss Not bad. Had the potential to be frightfully boring, especially considering its 3-hour running time. The plot is quite conventional, and feels reasonably padded. Also can be a bit mundane if you already know the story (and who doesn't).However, it was fairly entertaining. Made so mostly by the scenery and excellent cinematography. Felt like a travel documentary.The occasional humour also helps.Performances are nothing to write home about. David Niven is overly stuffy as Phileas Fogg. (But that's all he knows how to do). Supporting cast have a host of big names in minor, sometimes very fleeting roles: Noel Coward, Sir John Gielgud, Trevor Howard, Frank Sinatra, Marlene Dietrich, John Carradine, Buster Keaton.Certainly didn't deserve a Best Picture Oscar, but not that bad.