Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

In truth, any opportunity to see the film on the big screen is welcome.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

I'm probably getting a little too old for your typical Jackie Chan movies, but then again many of them simply are an excuse of show off boring martial arts skills. On the other hand, while he might beat people up, he never actually kills anybody, so there is that going for him. However, for some reason martial arts really doesn't appeal to me the way it used to appeal to me when I was much younger. However, that aside, this isn't all that bad a film. Okay, it is based on the Jules Verne classic with some liberties taken (particularly with them taking a detour through China which probably would had added weeks to their journey, but putting that aside). The other thing is that unlike Verne's work, the creators really played up the inventions in this one whereas Verne in his original really only used what was available at the time. Then again, what Verne was suggesting then probably doesn't apply to the days when we can fly around the world in less than 80 hours. For those who are not familiar with the story, it is about a bet made between members of the Royal Society in London. The bet is that our hero can't travel around the world in 80 days. However they up the stakes in the film by making him a mad inventor who is not a member of the society, and the members of the society as a bunch of stuck up old men who have concluded that there is nothing new to be discovered. The bet is an all or nothing bet - if he wins he becomes president of the society, if he loses he has to give up his life of inventing. This is basically a family film, which does give it a bit of charm. Then again Jackie has seemed to be going in this direction in his older age. Still, his movies have always had that harmless comic element to it, though you can see that this also has a bit more budget, and more effects to go with it. Still, a part of me does prefer is much older films, which were a lot less flashy, and a lot more fun. This movie wasn't all that bad, but nothing extraordinary either.

IMDb rating is currently 5.8/10. Movie was nominated only for Razzie and Stinker Awards, and financially it's one of the biggest fiascos in history. Of the invested over 100 million, it pulled out about 20%. I'm asking myself who's crazy here...I think that the main problem is that most of the people view this film as either the adaptation of Verne's novel or as a remake of the 1956 film of the same name. In both cases movie would be a failure, but this is neither remake nor adaptation of the novel, so the bad reputation is caused by prejudice rather than the real quality of the film. Script is based on Verne's novel, but but this adventure comedy is a homage to Vern, not an adaptation. Story is modernized, enriched with new adventures and references to many personalities and events, and combines genres with taste and measure in a comedy that keeps the attention and smile on the face from the beginning till the end. When criticizing this film, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is Disney and that accordingly it must be children-friendly.Apart from Schwarzenegger, from whom we don't expect much anyway, the acting is very good. In addition to Jackie Chan and Steve Coogan, who are the bearers of this film, in other roles appear many famous faces, among which are Cécile de France, Jim Broadbent, Ian McNeice, Ewen Bremner, Macy Gray, Rob Schneider, Luke and Owen Wilson, John Cleese and excellent Kathy Bates as the Queen.In my opinion, only those who do not like comedy and adventure as a genre could be dissatisfied with this film,but such people are not competent to judge it and it certainly is not fair that they influence its ratings.8/10

Around the turn of the century (19th to 20th, apparently), daredevil Jackie Chan (as Lau Xing) robs the Bank of England. While on the run from London police, Mr. Chan encounters eccentric inventor Steve Coogan (as Phileas Fogg). Claiming to be half-French (on his father's side), Chan assumes the identity of Mr. Coogan's expected French valet "Passepartout". Chan comes from a long line of French valets. After bungling and attempt to break the "human speed barrier," Coogan accepts a wager. He will go "Around the World in 80 Days" in return for an influential position in The Royal Academy of Science. An attractive blonde would improve the trip, so Cecile de France (as Monique La Roche) joins the cast...Director Frank Coraci and his numerous producers go very broad with this version of Jules Verne's classic adventure. Younger children and martial arts fans will find parts of it appealing; however, the film may be too long for both those audiences. They should have taken out the added subplots and filled it up with cameos, as the 1956 version, from Mike Todd; it wasn't an excellent movie, but it was fun to spot the stars. They probably could have gotten Adam Sandler to appear. This version has Jackie Chan's martial arts stunts, colorfully dressed locations and nicely designed sets. We do get to see a wigged-out Arnold Schwarzenegger; arguably the biggest star in the cast, the "Terminator" wears out his welcome in record time.***** Around the World in 80 Days (200-06-13) Frank Coraci ~ Jackie Chan, Steve Coogan, Cecile de France, Jim Broadbent

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.