Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

Lack of good storyline.

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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" !

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...

This film is less a modern interpretation of the Jules Verne classic and more a kid's adventure flick that bears scant regard for realism, historical fact or sense. It's not a very good children's film at that. It's a muddled story, trying too hard to mix in Oriental detail and tribal battles with the standard 'journey' template and any attempts at seriousness go out of the window in the first five minutes with the introduction of bizarre and fanciful machinery that looks like something out of a kid's fantasy novel. Special effects are generally poor and many of the supporting cast members give outlandish, over the top performances that I personally found repulsive. Jim Broadbent is a particular offender in this respect, but Ewen Bremner doesn't come off very well either. The script is below par too.Steve Coogan isn't too bad as the foppish Fogg. He fails to make his character remotely likable, but I did find him believable in the part. Jackie Chan is the same lovable buffoon that we've seen in every Hollywood film in the past decade. Of course, he's the best thing in the film, garnering the few laughs on offer, but I did find the lack of action to be a bit insulting. There are only a couple of the sprawling, choreographed battles we've come to know and expect and the focus is elsewhere, on the nonsensical plot and the need to cram in as many different places as possible.That leaves the cameos. There are many of them, taking place throughout the film at regular intervals, and they do give the movie a certain novelty value that works, for the first viewing at least. It's quite amazing how many different stars were lined up to appear. The best, of course, is Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his last screen appearance before he became a politician; he's genuinely funny, as usual, and they make great use of his larger-than-life persona. Other fun moments include an appearance from Richard Branson as a balloonist; Rob Schneider playing a befuddled tramp; Maggie Q in a one-scene fight; Sammo Hung, playing Wong Fei-Hung; Daniel Wu as a villain and Ken Lo as a henchman; John Cleese in a bit part as a policeman; the Wilson brothers, Luke and Owen, as the Wright brothers (an inspired bit of casting, that); Mark Addy, pretty poor as a steamer captain; finally, Kathy Bates, pretty convincing as Queen Victoria. Take away the cameos and Jackie and you have a bottom of the barrel production in every respect.

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. :)