Wordiezett So much average

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

homerj07-1 I have always tried to figure out why people pan a film simply because it was "not like the book".I agree this mini-series is not as true to Verne's vision as other movies BUT it is an excellent introduction to Vernes & the late 19th century for students.I have used this movie in my 9th grade World History classes & my students absolutely LOVE it. Over 3 weeks we watch the film track their progress on a map & keep track of the various modes of transportation that the main characters use.We also discuss the role of Britian as an imperialist power & the growing importance of the US in the world.I suggest this film for teachers & for families with middle school aged children. A great film!!

Volken After all this years - since the very first time I've watched this version in 1989. - yesterday the test of time confirmed and secured my original impression : This is by far the best version ever !There is always the problem when you hire a good looking actor with tension of maintaining the ego-trip of his own, besides the character he portrays. Pierce Brosnan is one of those actors. In hands of poor director, Brosnan will always extend this virtue without exception. Well, not this time, this is Pierce's best role ever. This is the school example when in good and precise hands under control of fine director - one man's faults are completely used to his advantage. Fulfilling his complete talent.Pierce is completely available, accessible and truly enjoyable.Not only does he makes splendid Phileas Fogg but essentially greatly communicates to the splendor of entire ensemble and therefore none but the excellent realization itself.Quality of production is first rate, casting even more superb. There is one, almost traditional problem with traveling productions like these : You can always observe "production stitches" among countries and collaboration among locations and collaborators. Not in this version you don't !From beginning to the end, production follows from location to location with flawless synergy, only complimenting the ones before. Truly a wonderful , relaxing experience, indisputably with superb execution. I thought in 1989. It would be a bold statement to compare this with original. Now I know it is nothing of the sort. This version is indisputably, the finest visual representation of this book. Not completely on the track with all characters from the book - for they received somewhat different treatment. But I forgive this looking at the complete results. Looking somewhat with envy to the magic of 80's, one can be certain that such a classy ensemble and relaxed pace is almost impossible to create these days. Golden days to be sure.

FlorianSchirner First to say, I like it, but.... ...there are some details I can't quite forgive. Though there are many liberties taken with the original book (the whole Siam and China Episodes,the Vanderbilt yacht etc.), I'm mostly concerned with the figures of Passepartout and Fix. The first seems to me to be too much comic relief and less substance. The Passepartout in Verne's book isn't as fixated on women as Idle's character. Additionally, Idle's acrobatics don't look like the moves of a circus artist, which Passepartout is. The second character striking me as odd is Ustinov as Fix. From Verne's book you get the image of a dedicated, well-trained and resourceful detective who is only hindered by the necessity of an arrest warrant.He certainly isn't the whining, moping, overweight fellow as he appears in the movie. Don't get me wrong. I like both actors' work, especially Ustinov's, but I think of it as inappropriate and not in conformity with the book. Aside from this, you can do nothing wrong in watching this movie, especially with children.

rinzai While it's not high cinema, it's watchable, and certainly passes the time on a rainy afternoon. It could be said that Phileas' constant do-si-do with the Princess (as Passepartout puts it, "l'affaire du coeur") does drag a bit, but I can't find any reasons to be truly unhappy with it. It's more authentic than the Jackie Chan version (which I don't hate, either).I don't see this portrayal of Fixx as a bumbler, either...efficient Fixx may be, but he was never a Nobel prize nominee, and Ustinov does well enough with what's provided. The Princess may have some anachronistic attitudes, but no historical movie has ever failed to cast the characters in at least a semi-modern mindset--it makes the characters more accessible to modern viewers. Of Eric Idle I'll say no more--I enjoy his work, and I don't care if the accent is ludicrous or not.It's entirely possible that the novel simply can't be filmed. It wouldn't be the first one to have that happen. ("Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" comes to mind, for example.)