Mihai Toma The classic Jules Verne story receives a new approach, in which Jackie Chan plays a big role. Instead of focusing on the actual story and the main characters, it all resumes on endless Kung Fu fights, Jackie style.I find this idea really inappropriate, not to say stupid. It's all a big parody, where absolutely nothing is taken seriously and every single scene ends up with a fight. The characters' scripts are idiotic, the course of events is stupid and the whole movie seems like cheap comedy. Too bad that great actors (including Coogan, Schwarzenegger, Wilson and so on) wasted their talent and time for this movie. To see the good part, it had some good landscapes, some great-looking computer generated transitions and some funny moments, but all of them pale in comparison with its downsides. A bad movie in my opinion, good time wasted...

joshtbsa Bottom Line:Was the Movie worth watching? - KindaWould I watch it again within a month? - Definitely NotWould I watch it again within a year? - NOWould I watch it again within 3 years? - NOHow family friendly was it on a scale of 1-10? - *9*I can't say that much for this movie. Once you've seen the 1956 version, the 2004 remake seems unworthy of the Title. I won't say that I didn't enjoy the movie because that wouldn't be true. I just think that it was a very poor remake.The '56 version followed the book closer, which is important to me. Also, the comedy in the original version was funny, compared to the comedy in the remake which was silly.Overall I will most likely never watch this movie again. If I want to watch Around the World in Eighty Days, I will definitely watch the 1956 version.

Richmond Sim I would have to admit that there are many Jackie Chan films better than this one as such movies showcase better humor and more truthful plots. However, I also would have to admit my real appreciation for this film because we do not measure the beauty of the film based from the past movies. And if I am going to vote for the movie without comparing it with other Jackie Chan films, it was really really good. (That makes me wonder why this is the biggest flop independent film in movie industry) The cinematography of this movie is one of the best that I have ever seen, my whole life. It really suits my taste, and I never got bored because the camera rolling in every scene was unique to the others.We do not say that making war outside the earth is a goof, but why do we keep on criticizing that such infrastructure or landmark was not yet constructed in 1872 when in fact both movies are fictional? I really do not care about the errors in geography and in characters because this is a fictional movie.The action scenes were perfectly done. It was very fluid and seems to be realistic. Well, I guess, it's a talent from the producers to create such scenes as smoothly as possible.I just do not like the 3D effect in hopping between countries because of the special effects that are too childish. It is a caprice -- from action/comedy to fantasy. Besides, fantasy wasn't listed as a genre of the movie.The ending twists was not that critical, and yet appeared to be good. I liked it. However, there were many elements left behind. And like in other movies, the question "What happened to the...?" baffled me.Around the World in 80 Days got 8 points. :)

rob-tristram-218-656649 I just saw this film for the first time on television and thought it was brilliant. What absolutely shocked me was to see the number of reviewers giving it very low ratings, not because they don't think Steve Coogan is funny (perhaps they aren't familiar with Alan Partridge like most UK respondents), or because they don't like to see Jackie Chan's fights (in which case why did they go and see a Jackie Chan movie) but because... the film wasn't true to the Novel?! Can't they lighten up?You won't find anyone who objects more than me to distortion of stories out of all recognition, making up false history, or even breaking the laws of nature ...but in a serious reasonably believable film, not in pure fantasy comedy.