A comedy. and interesting hommage to the novel by Jules Verne. this is its meaning. and source of charme. good cast, nice performances, a lot of delightfull surprises. and Jules Verne for a new generation. surprising for the perfect balance between martial arts and original story and for the great fun. and, sure, not the last, for inspired courage to propose something a bit extravagant and...expected. because it is more than an adaptation in ordinary sense. it is a splendid show. so, the new "Around the World in 80 Days" !

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.

Around the World is remade once more with more of a comedy take than before. Jackie Chan is more the focus as the valet but here a man from China trying to return a stolen Buddha.Steve Coogan is a wacky inventor and would be adventurer, Phileas Fogg, who takes up a challenge to voyage around the world from Jim Broadbent.Chan is chased by both police and Chinese assassins and uses Fogg to get back to China. This allows Chan to use his slapstick acrobatics and comedy kung fu.Coogan is the more erudite one, intelligent almost an Henry Higgins type. Emotionally repressed as we see when a young French painter (Monique) joins them and be the eventual romantic interest for Coogan.The film has a host of star cameo appearances such as John Cleese, Richard Branson, The Wilson brothers and Arnie the Governor.The film is charming enough with broad laughs and slapstick. Its disposable fun but also easily forgettable.

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. :)