As I watched "Around the World in Eighty Days" tonight, I noticde that it is a beautiful and spectacular film. The first time I tried seeing it was on a 25" TV--this time it's on a 58" one and the beauty is much more obvious. Too bad I couldn't have seen this on the big screen using the amazing 70mm cameras. And, if they brought it back to the theaters, I might be tempted to see it that way--even though the film does have many shortcomings.
I've got to be honest here, I tried watching this film years ago and gave up on it. The only reason I am watching it through to the end now is that I would like to eventually see all the Best Picture winners--even the incredibly overblown ones. This brings me to a pet peeve I have. I HATE films that feature a bazillion cameos. I find that often the plethora of stars tend to get in the way of the story and often soak up a huge portion of the budget--leaving precious little for writing. Some of the stars in the film are very international in flavor and I never would have recognized them the first time I tried to see this movie 25 years ago. Now, after having seen and reviewed a ridiculous number of films, I was actually excited by some of these casting decisions. Catinflas, though completely unknown in America did some marvelous little comedies in Mexico--and he is the other reason I chose to try watching the movie again. I was to see Fernandel (who also made many wonderful films--in France and Italy). But, I was also maddened because his cameo as a hack driver was so short and unfunny--completely wasting his wonderful comedic talents. And this trend continued for several more of the cameo--wonderful actors who really have nothing to do and are pretty much wasted.
At least 30 minutes could have and should have been cut from the film. I am NOT against long films...if they are well-paced. Too many times in this movie, however, scenes just unfold way too slowly--such as when the balloon is going over the Alps. A VERY LONG period of nice music and shots of the balloon are shown--when it really seemed interminably long. This reminded me of the major problem with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"--too many unnecessarily long shots which killed the film's momentum. The bullfighting scene is also one that goes on and on and on and could have been 1/3 as long. Many other such examples followed.
So is it a great film? No. I agree with another reviewer who felt the movie got an Oscar for Best Picture simply because it was such a spectacle--not because it was especially good. It's one of the weaker Best Picture films of the era, in my opinion. However, I must give the film its due. The movie is beautiful in every way--great costumes, amazing locations and sets, breathtaking cinematography and a scope that cannot really be matched. But, it is also very, very , very long with poor pacing, suffers from an overuse and wasting of cameos and just isn't that interesting. Catinflas was a very gifted and funny man--here you don't get a great sense of that at all. Likewise, David Niven was a very fine actor--but here he's more like set dressing and you don't get to see him at his best.
Before I conclude, let's talk about the cameos. With all the many cameos, why did they pick Shirley MacLaine to play an Indian princess?! Talk about bizarre casting! And why have Frank Sinatra in a cameo that takes two seconds and he just turns and smiles at the camera?! I don't get it. And what was with John Carradine?! Even for him he over-acted horribly.
29 out of 46 found this helpful