I'm Phileas Fogg, Ah-ha (Around the World in 80 Days (DVD))

Name: calypte

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Around the World in 80 Days (DVD)
Date:	03/07/05 (1758 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Fun fight sequences, silly fun

Disadvantages: REALLY silly, and a plot you could fish with

"We have reached a golden age - anything that can be invented, has been."

Perhaps it's because such a statement is so easy to believe of our own time that there remains such appeal in the science of Victorian London, when man flying in the air was nothing but a flight of fancy, and electricity was a novelty, let alone the myriad contraptions we now take for granted (and which are useless as soon as there's a power cut). Yes, it's fun to look back to a day when circumnavigating the globe in three months would be a feat almost beyond fancy!

Jules Verne's classic tale of inventor Phileas Fogg and his wager (not a 'bet', you see - he's a gentleman) to travel around the world in eighty days has made several appearances on screen. Does anyone else remember the cartoon version where Phileas was a lion? Ahem. Last seen on the big screen in the 1950s, Disney have attempted a slightly updated version. This time, the focus shifts from Fogg to his would-be valet, Passepartout - and all of a sudden this becomes a Jackie Chan movie.

I went into the cinema knowing that. Chan is (despite the mumblings of a few American critics) a huge star, and although superficially playing a secondary character, the fact that the rest of the main players are... less than globally famous, shall we say?... tells you that Jackie won't be taking that much of a backseat. I for one don't mind in the least - I love his mix of martial arts and humour, and for me shifting the focus ever-so-slightly off centre was the perfect idea to mix up the more usual buddy-movie routine we've been seeing lately, from Rush Hour to Shanghai Noon/Knights.

So what's going on? Totally unrelated to the original story, we start with Jackie Chan's character (Lau Xing, aka Passepartout) attempting to return the Jade Buddha, sacred talisman of his village, after it was stolen by the evil Black Scorpion gang. Of course, as the statue is currently residing in the Bank of England we can see there might be a problem! While on the run from the police, Jackie stumbles into the role of new valet to absent-minded inventor, Phileas Fogg, played this time round - not by a lion! - but Steve 'Alan Partridge' Coogan in his first Hollywood role. Fogg's 'absurd' boast to the Academy of Science that a man could travel around the world - oh, you know the rest! - becomes just the opportunity Lao Xing needs to get back home, and he quickly manoeuvres Fogg into taking up the challenge.

In much the same way as Lao Xing's opportunity, the 80 Days story is used as a useful device to further the Jade Buddha plotline, and ultimately to show off more of Chan's martial arts skills. Hey - I ain't complaining, but be warned! I thoroughly enjoyed the movie: action, slapstick and some great scenery. It's not sophisticated fare, it's not one to tax your brain in the slightest, but by golly it was a fun Sunday afternoon. There.

So it surprised me a great deal to see the negativity directed towards this film. I logged into IMDb for a cast list (ooh - spot the cameo game going on in the flick!) and I think there was all of one comment that wasn't slating it big style. Were these people art house fans disappointed by the lack of misery? Or huge literary buffs disgusted at what Disney have done to their precious novel (get to the back of the queue on that one, guys!)? Nope. If you'll pardon the terrible stereotype, I have a more than sneaking suspicion that the real problem is that these reviewers were all American - and here is a film with no American leading actors!

I do apologise for the sweepingness of that statement, but one comment about Jackie Chan NOT being a huge star kind of hit the nail on the head for me. As in - urm, sorry, guy, but YES he is! He's just not a huge American star. On the other hand, I'd like to think that us British audiences are a little more open-minded about such things. And if not, Steve Coogan is English, so we should still warm to the whole proceedings a little more, right?! ;)

Words of praise for Mr Knowing Me, Ah-ha. Sorry, Steve Coogan. I must admit I've never liked any of his stand-up / comedy stuff in the slightest. I'm assuming that actually acted in my favour here, as I was never distracted by wondering why Paul Calf had long curly hair and a posh accent. If you were a fan, you'll just have to get over it! As I said, this was Coogan's first major film role and I think he does quite admirably. The character - more bumbling than erudite - suits him well, and I rather imagine his lack of experience in the medium helped with the image. He plays well with the stiff-upper-lip-front-slipping as his journeys continue. Most importantly, I could warm to Phileas in a way that I never could with Alan Partridge, and certainly not the Calf siblings.

Almost oddly, Coogan isn't totally overshadowed by Jackie Chan. I say oddly because not only does Chan get top billing, but the story is continuously put on hold for another fight sequence, or slap-stick comedy routine, courtesy of Jackie. But as he has proved previously, I think Chan does wonderfully well at stealing the movie while at the same time pushing his co-lead into appearing to take the limelight - or at the very least, taking most of the lines. It's almost as if there are two films here, one with the story line, the other with the action. Sounds terrible, doesn't it!? It does all seem to pull together reasonable well, however - IF you are willing to switch off a little beforehand. Eat some popcorn or something.

To be fair, the plot does somewhat plod along. The story is not the strong point here. To make matters worse, there is a strong feeling of various 'moments' or scenes being strung out for your viewing... urm... pleasure: here we'll have a bit of Victorian London, here's a gag, here's a fight - and look, just to distract you a bit, here's a famous cameo. Largely pointless, some of the cameos are fun: John Cleese's policeman had me chuckling away all to myself, Kathy Bates gets to have fun as Queen Vicky, and Richard Branson puts an appearance that was pure genius. Ahem. On the other hand, Arnold Swartzenegger's role is pointless, and given far too much screen time one can imagine purely for his ego. Makes you thankful that it was his last film appearance before going off to tell lies for a living *cough*. Macy Gray's blink-and-you'll-miss-her is another pointless moment, but there are more good showings than not: Luke and Owen Wilson show up as the Wright Brothers, bouncing entertainingly off each other (and almost as entertaining watching Owen and Jackie NOT acknowledge each other, somehow - I get the feeling a few scenes must have made the cutting room floor), and Rob 'Deuce Bigalow' Schneider made me grin as the San Francisco bum.

The supporting cast also includes Ewen 'Spud' Bremner, Jim Broadbent, Sammo Hung (briefly) and Mark Addy. The latter's nipple joke stands as my low point of the film, by the way. All in all, it only confirms my suspicions that this film just wasn't American enough for the general American audience, but over here I think that it's refreshing to see once in a while.

Finally on the cast, the ladies of the piece fall into two categories: on the one hand we have evil warlord, Fang, innovatively played by a woman (Karen Mok), and who gets a wicked costume and several great fight sequences (if all a little Lady Deathstrike, if you know what I mean). On the other hand, the love interest of the piece, French actress Cécile De France makes a refreshingly 'real' leading lady - she's mighty purdy, but there's a charming lack of that fake better-than-life perfection going on. While she manages sufficient chemistry with Coogan (although possibly a little overawed by Chan?), the character is a little disjointed, I feel, but by this point that's hardly a statement of which to make a big deal.

What is worth a bigger deal being made of is the set design and cinematography of the whole thing. From Victorian London the film detours around Paris, India, China (natch) and on to San Francisco and New York, where a certain (large) lady is set to make her debut. It's all done very nicely, I have to say - but perhaps not too much more than 'nice'. What I did love were the stylised animated sequences, rushing our journey on through the many miles of countless countries. More! No, 'twas not to be - the ones that appear were pretty, but the whole concept was left too bitty to pull together. Shame.


Overall, however, the big praise for this film from me is that it fills its family adventure niche pretty well. The kids are bound to love it, but more importantly – as an adult I rather enjoyed it myself! Okay, so I have no rugrats to try it out on, but I took my dad instead. He’s a huge fan of Jackie Chan, so I knew he would enjoy that aspect, but tellingly we both came out of the cinema feeling thoroughly (if brainlessly) entertained. From the rest of the audience, I didn’t hear one grumble on the way out, if no real overwhelming enthusiasm either. So... it’s probably a three star movie, to be honest, but I had fun so I’m giving it... three. Well, what did you expect?!


A final thought: Silly, karate-kicking brain fluff, but switch off a bit and it's totally charming.

Summary: Silly, karate-kicking brain fluff, but switch off a bit and it's totally charming.