![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Round the World in 80 Days (review)
Jul. 5th, 2004 09:46 amOh, God.
I never in my entire life thought I’d be tempted to walk out of a Jackie Chan film, but twenty minutes in I had my hand clasped to my face, a rictus of horror etched upon my features as this abominable train wreck of a film continued it’s remorseless passage across the screen.
Then it picked up with the first fight scene, and I wouldn’t let anything be taken away from Mr. Chan because he really is the absolute best at what he does – but how did anyone convince him to do it in a script like this?*
It must have seemed such a great idea on paper: Jackie Chan as Passepartout in a modern comedy updating of Jules Vernes novel. I mean – how could that go wrong? But wrong it went, and badly. The great awful sadness of this film is that the script, directing, editing, and SFX all uniformly lack redeeming features, and the unfortunate actors (some of whom are really very good) are left looking shamed at what they’re being forced to make do with. Steve Coogan makes a perfectly acceptable Phileas Fogg. He’s no David Niven, but then who is?** Elise de France is a bland-but-okay love interest, and Jackie Chan undeniably lights up the screen with his Godlike genius for every second he is upon it. Jim Broadbent plays himself as delightfully as he usually does, and some of the cameos (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Owen Wilson, Richard Branson, Mark Addy plus others) don’t necessarily make you want to hoot and throw popcorn at the sceeen immediately. However, whoever wrote the script should be forced to watch Toy Story 2 on loop until they understand. Gone are the great set pieces of the David Niven film. The train journey across America – the real world technical achievement that made the entire plot of the book feasible – is gone, replaced with a short scene in a stagecoach. The burning of the ship is gone, replaced with some shoddy CGI aerobatics as they fly - fly, I tell you – across the Atlantic. In fact, little or nothing of Jules Verne’s’ original vision remains. Vital plot time is ruthlessly excised to ensure that the director gets his money’s worth in screen-time from Schwarzenegger (in an entirely pointless, lengthy, unfunny, and unnecessary cameo), whilst genuine moments of excitement from the book (like the duel on the train) are lost altogether.
Jackie Chan (plus a quick appearance from long-term collaborator Sammo Hung) is the redeeming heart and soul of the film, but he also is perhaps one of the causes of it’s weakness. You see, the script does not know whether it wants to be a kids comedy or an Hong Kong action flick and so tries to do both but achieves neither
So what do you get for your money?
1) About half-a-dozen good comedy lines, although the best joke is stolen from the South Park Movie.
2) Jim Broadbent, Jackie Chan, and Steve Coogan gamely doing their best in spite of all that is stacked against them
3) Some of the worst special effects seen in a film this century.
4) An appalling mishmash of second- and third-rate writing, directing, and editing.
If you can see this film for less than a £5, you’re a fan of Jackie Chan, and there is nothing else on you haven’t already seen, I’d say you may as well see the film. Just remember that several suburbs of Los Angeles are currently being lit with the energy generated from Jules Verne’s rapidly rotating corpse.
* Then again, in the light of The Tuxedoand The Medallion, he hasn’t being picking his projects wisely in recent years.
** Me, obviously
I never in my entire life thought I’d be tempted to walk out of a Jackie Chan film, but twenty minutes in I had my hand clasped to my face, a rictus of horror etched upon my features as this abominable train wreck of a film continued it’s remorseless passage across the screen.
Then it picked up with the first fight scene, and I wouldn’t let anything be taken away from Mr. Chan because he really is the absolute best at what he does – but how did anyone convince him to do it in a script like this?*
It must have seemed such a great idea on paper: Jackie Chan as Passepartout in a modern comedy updating of Jules Vernes novel. I mean – how could that go wrong? But wrong it went, and badly. The great awful sadness of this film is that the script, directing, editing, and SFX all uniformly lack redeeming features, and the unfortunate actors (some of whom are really very good) are left looking shamed at what they’re being forced to make do with. Steve Coogan makes a perfectly acceptable Phileas Fogg. He’s no David Niven, but then who is?** Elise de France is a bland-but-okay love interest, and Jackie Chan undeniably lights up the screen with his Godlike genius for every second he is upon it. Jim Broadbent plays himself as delightfully as he usually does, and some of the cameos (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Owen Wilson, Richard Branson, Mark Addy plus others) don’t necessarily make you want to hoot and throw popcorn at the sceeen immediately. However, whoever wrote the script should be forced to watch Toy Story 2 on loop until they understand. Gone are the great set pieces of the David Niven film. The train journey across America – the real world technical achievement that made the entire plot of the book feasible – is gone, replaced with a short scene in a stagecoach. The burning of the ship is gone, replaced with some shoddy CGI aerobatics as they fly - fly, I tell you – across the Atlantic. In fact, little or nothing of Jules Verne’s’ original vision remains. Vital plot time is ruthlessly excised to ensure that the director gets his money’s worth in screen-time from Schwarzenegger (in an entirely pointless, lengthy, unfunny, and unnecessary cameo), whilst genuine moments of excitement from the book (like the duel on the train) are lost altogether.
Jackie Chan (plus a quick appearance from long-term collaborator Sammo Hung) is the redeeming heart and soul of the film, but he also is perhaps one of the causes of it’s weakness. You see, the script does not know whether it wants to be a kids comedy or an Hong Kong action flick and so tries to do both but achieves neither
So what do you get for your money?
1) About half-a-dozen good comedy lines, although the best joke is stolen from the South Park Movie.
2) Jim Broadbent, Jackie Chan, and Steve Coogan gamely doing their best in spite of all that is stacked against them
3) Some of the worst special effects seen in a film this century.
4) An appalling mishmash of second- and third-rate writing, directing, and editing.
If you can see this film for less than a £5, you’re a fan of Jackie Chan, and there is nothing else on you haven’t already seen, I’d say you may as well see the film. Just remember that several suburbs of Los Angeles are currently being lit with the energy generated from Jules Verne’s rapidly rotating corpse.
* Then again, in the light of The Tuxedoand The Medallion, he hasn’t being picking his projects wisely in recent years.
** Me, obviously
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}