User Reviews

I really enjoyed this film, and was shocked to see all the negative comments about it on IMDB. Yes it's long, yes it's a fantasy rather than true-to-life, yes it's spectacular rather than deep drama. But what the hell, it's also (like the book) a hilarious send-up of Englishness as seen by a Frenchman. The millions of cameo roles (actually I'm HOPELESS at recognising faces, so identified none of them) camp it all up splendidly. This film is one of those, like the Ealing comedies or the Carry-On films, that define the British Myth.

OK, so it won't work on TV, unless you have a widescreen TV and can shut yourself away from all distractions for several hours. But I just dare anyone to be bored by the film in a cinema. They don't make them like that any more, because these days films are "made for TV" . . .

Michael Todd's screen adaptation of Jules Verne's classic novel is a masterpiece.

Beautifully shot in over 100 different locations around the world, it is one of the few novels which actually benefits from big screen treatment. No longer do we have to imagine these fine exotic places in our minds, they are presented here in full cinematic and Technicolour brilliance.

The great David Niven plays the quintessential English gentleman to the hilt as Philias Fogg, the well to do bachelor who after calmly announcing that it was possible, accepts a £20,000 wager from his fellow Reform Club members to travel round the world in 80 days.

In tow on this mammoth voyage are newly appointed man servant Passepartout played by Mexican entertainer Cantinflas, a rather miscast Shirley MacLaine as Aouda a recently rescued Indian Princess and the lovable and ever watchable Robert Newton as Mr. Fix the detective who is convinced Fogg is a master criminal who left Britain having just robbed the Bank of England.

Yet what adds flavour to an already wonderful story and fascinating movie, is that no matter what corner of the globe our intrepid Fogg appears, he is helped, hindered, slowed down, befriended and attacked by a myriad of world renowned movie stars. Never before or since has a film boasted so many top named stars in cameo appearances.

Robert Morley, Ronald Squire, Finlay Currie, Basil Sydney, Noel Coward, John Gielgud, Trevor Howard, Harcourt Williams, Martine Carol, Fernandel, Charles Boyer, Evelyn Keyes, Gilbert Roland, Cesar Romero, Alan Mowbray, Cedric Hardwicke, Melville Cooper, Reginald Denny, Ronald Colman, Charles Coburn, Peter Lorre, George Raft, Red Skelton, Marlene Dietrich, John Carradine, Frank Sinatra, Buster Keaton, Tim McCoy, Joe E. Brown, Andy Devine, Edmund Lowe, Victor McLaglen, Jack Oakie, Beatrice Lillie, John Mills, Glynis Johns and Hermione Gingold all come along for this bizarre journey.

Now thats what I call a cast list.

Niven is as always a joy to watch as the seemingly unstoppable and resourceful Fogg, so much so that the film can be forgiven its epic length.

However, I do feel as though a good half an hour could have been trimmed had Todd decided to tone down some of Cantinflas' over long routines. We know what a fantastic and talented performer he was, there was no real need to hammer the point home with a nigh on 15 minute bull fight sequence, Japanese circus tricks and stunt horse riding.

However despite this one criticism, the film is legend, the story is legend and was fully deserving of the five Oscar's it was awarded, including Best Picture of 1956.

In fact I feel certain that if Philias Fogg had a film like this on DVD, he would have much preferred to stay at home and watch it. I know I certainly would.

I have to admit I kind of liked this movie. The book is better of course, but this version is better than the 2004 film. There may be those who say it is overlong. The film is long admittedly, but I think a film adaptation of the book needs to be long to do any kind of justice to it. I do agree with those who complain about the pace, when I first saw this film, I admit I found it hard to get into initially as it goes by at a snail's pace. Most of the film is entertaining and colourful, but some scenes are dull or overlong, the bull-fighting scene is the perfect example of both. That said, the direction is fine, and despite complaints of it being dated the film does look great with great cinematography and colourful sets and costumes. The music is terrific, the script has its good moments and the story is interesting. Another notable strong asset is the cast. David Niven a likable lead, but the real joys are in the cameos, Robert Newton is especially good here. Overall, maybe not best picture winner for me, but I actually found this film interesting. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This has got to be one of the most delight comedies ever made. I totally agree with one comment that says "Around the World in 80 Days like a fine wine, it gets better with age". Featuring fine performances from David Nivven, Cantinflas, and the rest of the cast in this wonderful movie about a man and his servant who try and travel around the world in just eighty days. This movie oddly enough was 175 minutes long and in all honestly I didn't believe that for second when I first heard because it really only seemed like 88 minutes. One of the most fun, wittiest, and delightful films of all time and that's coming from a person who adores film and has seen plenty in his (my) day. I do not recall the last time I had so much fun while watching a movie, it's basically just one big fun fest! The cinematography and photography are unarguably some of the best ever in any film. How anyone could call this film boring is beyond me. It is fun, witty, delightfully written, directed, and as I already mentioned acted. The score is also a work of genius. See this film, then see it again. If you hate it, well, then you need to lighten up a bit (no offense intended).

Final Grade: ***** (out of 5)

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.

This is a bit dated by now, but still not a bad film to watch. It seems like more of a travelogue than anything else, at this point. Frankly, at three hours and being a mid-50s film, I thought it might be too slow in too many spots but that was not the case. Only the bullfighting scene went on too long. The rest kept my interest.

David Niven gets top billing but the real star of the show is "Cantinflas," a Spanish actor who, to my knowledge, only made it big in this movie.....at least in this country. He is very likable and entertaining. The only thing is he is not always easy to understand. I used English subtitles a few times when he spoke.

Niven played his normal stiff-neck Brit role. Thank goodness we don't see those, "I say, old bean" characters from GB anymore. However, I have always appreciated the British vocabulary, so much more refined than here in North America. Shirley MacLaine was so young I didn't recognize her. Of course, she made it difficult to spot her playing a brown-skinned Indian princess.

In all, decent entertainment but one that might bore a lot of people today, which is probably why they did a re-make. I haven't seen the re-make, but I'll bet it isn't as good as this movie.

The set pieces are great, the actors seemed to have a lot of fun and I'm sure it sounded like a lot of fun on paper. Don't get me wrong, this movie has classic written all over it. Still it doesn't really cut it.

Why that is? While putting a more or less emotionless character (here a British one to fit the cliché) next to a lively one (again more or less a cliché) is a good idea, it doesn't work as well. The British character is just too emotionless and while they might have had great fun shooting the whole thing, it doesn't translate 100% on screen. It's a better sketch show, where some skits(countries) work and some just don't.

While the twist at the end is neat, it is not convincing and has many flaws. I can't go into them, without spoiling, just don't try to over think the whole thing and then it's quite enjoyable.

This fun picture deals with known story about gentleman Phineas Fogg wagers he can circumnavigate the earth and he sets off on spectacular journey . Lavish rendition with all-star cast , it finds Victorian gentleman wagering that he can circle the globe in 80 days . Classic adaptation based on Jules Verne novel with a marvelous duo , David Niven and his faithful butler well played by Cantinflas who confront much excitement and a lot of adventures along the way . The film provides ample amusement and entertainment , it concerns about a Victorian English gentleman named Phileas Fogg (David Niven always professed that Phileas Fogg was his favorite role) and his manservant named Passapart (Cantinflas, in the mid-50s, he was the wealthiest movie star in the world, and was given top billing in Latin countries) . He takes a wager with various gentlemen from 'The Reform Club' that he can circle the globe around the world in 80 days . Just before the time they leave , a valuable lot of money is robbed and the authorities and president of Bank of England believe that unflappable Fogg is the guilty and a Detective set out after him . Later on , they save a damsel in distress, a gorgeous Indian girl (Shirley MacLaine to this day contends that she was miscast in this, her third film) . Using various means of transport as balloon , trains , steamer , flying machine and following a way , Fogg along with Passepart go to Dover , Paris , Spain , Calcuta , Burma jungle , Hong Kong , Yokohama , Forbidden city of Pekin , San Francisco , Omaha and New York , as they are trying back to London . Meanwhile , they are chased by an Inspector named Fix (Robert Newton) who suspects him of a daring bank theft .

This funny picture is plenty of adventures , humor , action , rip-roaring and spectacular outdoors . From start to finish the entertainment and amusement is continued . The bullfighting sequence filmed in Chinchon , Spain , was added because Cantinflas had bullfighting experience , he actually was in the ring with the bull, eschewing the use of a stunt doublé ; this was one of the first sequences to be shot. The film features the longest closing credits sequence up to that time and for many years afterward - six minutes and twenty-one seconds , splendidly realized by Saul Bass ; all of the film's credits are shown only at the end, and the very last credit to be shown is the film's title . Big-budgeted take on by two great producers , Michael Todd and William Cameron Menzies , as the film used 140 sets built at six Hollywood studios, as well as in England, Hong Kong and Japan , 74,685 costumes were designed, made or rented for use ; the cast and crew flew over 4,000,000 miles ; 68,894 extras were used while shooting the film in 13 countries ; 90 animal handlers managed the record 8,552 animals used . Michael Todd's original estimate for the film's budget was $3 million ; the film ended up costing nearly double that, largely thanks to Todd's demands for verisimilitude and location shooting. There appears a variety of cameos , the star-gazers will particularly enjoy several known actors by many Hollywood's biggest names with more than thirty cameos for buffs such as Marlene Dietrich , Robert Newton , John Carradine , Noel Coward , Ronald Colman, Ronald Squire, Cedric Hardwicke, John Gielgud, Trevor Howard , Victor McLaglen and John Mills , Robert Morley who repeat in a 1989 TV version , among others ; in fact , the term "cameo", meaning in this case a small part by a famous person, was popularized by the many "cameo appearances" in this film. The colorfully cinematography by Lionel Lindon is well showed on sensational landscapes ; being second Todd-AO production , the first was Oklahoma!. Unforgettable and lively music by Victor Young including catching leitmotif .

This classic ¨Mike Todd's Around the world in 80 days¨ that hasn't lost its charm over the years was compellingly directed by Michael Anderson and generally considered the single largest film project ever undertaken in Hollywood . However , the movie began shooting with John Farrow as director, and Emmett Emerson as the first assistant director in London ; both were replaced. Filming was completed in 75 shooting days . Other versions are the followings : , Australian retelling titled ¨Around the world in 89 days (1986)¨ by Stephen MacLean and recent adaptation (2004) offering full of entertainment directed by Frank Coraci with Jackie Chan , Steve Coogan , Cecile De France , Mark Addy , Owen Wilson , Luke Wilson and many others . And a TV version (1989) with by Buzz Kulik with Pierce Brosnan , Eric Idle , Julia Nickson , John Mills, Robert Morley , among others .

"Around the World in 80 Days" is beautiful movie to look at. The costumes and sets are great. The colors of both are terrific. The location photography is stunning. The cast is good. There is also a lot more humor than I expected. There is a lot to like in "Around the World in 80 Days". There only problem, and it's almost a deal killer, is the length. This movie is just too long. It wears out its welcome after a while. That said, this is a great looking movie that I wish I was around to see in theater. It must have been something else in its big screen glory.

There's a Fogg that's heading out to round the world, to envelope, wrap and coat, cover and twirl, with his servant Passepartout, there's no route they won't eschew, eighty days is all they have, to make their whirl. On their travels they'll encounter lots of types, if your of a certain age you may just gripes, at the way folk are presented, as it's often far from splendid, makes it easy to stand back, and take some swipes. And perhaps a certain princess takes the biscuit, although in modern times they often still use misfits, it's no wonder then you'll find, that this offerings inclined, to be challenging to like, and somewhat unfit.

Cataloged as one of the best movies of all times (It won 5 Oscars, included the Best Film). I have the creed to see it, at least once a year. It's simply a sensational movie, a giant production (Mike Todd); of those that were made at the time of the spectacular films. It is based, almost verbatim, on the famous novel by Jules Verne. Very well directed and owner of a pompous and unique scenography in each and every one of the locations in which it was filmed. Excellent performances and no waste. However, the interpreter who steals the show, eclipsing to David Niven and Shirley McLaine is, yes you guessed it, Mario Moreno ("Cantinflas"). I remember seeing her in my early childhood and having enjoyed an unparalleled world of pleasurable sensations: Colorful, adventure, intrigue, romance, beautiful music and, above all, healthy humor. If you are going to enjoy it, do it with the little ones in the house. It is long with desire but it is worth it.

I remember Turner Classic Movies' Robert Osborne once talking about films made pre WWII versus post war. He mentioned that sound films prewar were largely dealing with an American audience that had not traveled outside of the USA for many reasons - the Depression made the cost insurmountable for most, then came the war when hostilities made it impossible. Also, before the late 40s, to travel to foreign lands was mainly a long excursion by boat. Too expensive and too time consuming for working people. But then peace came to the world and prosperity to the USA and Americans could explore the world using the speedier method of air travel. They would never settle for fake exterior art design of places they had actually seen. They would laugh at it.

So I think this film won the Academy Award and was even popular at the time because it is like so many James FItzpatrick Traveltalks shorts strung together with beautiful cinematography of places either Americans had just recently seen or wanted to see in person at some time.

The loads of cameos had been done before, and although David Niven is a delight this film is just too long and the travelogue experience is just not enough to hold a modern audience's interest. Today it seems like one of the more ponderous best picture decisions, much like 1933's Cavalcade. I give it 5/10 for the cinematography, art design, and skill of the main actors.

What astounds me is how things change. Here's a film that was celebrated in its day.

In fact, I remember my third grade class taking the day off to go to this. (The year previously, we had gone to see a Cinerama movie in the same theater.) We had reserved seats and popcorn was disallowed. We sat through maybe 20 minutes of overture, three hours of movie and 20 minutes of intermission.

And I loved it. This was a lifealtering experience, so grand, so exotic. And yes, for a seven year old, romantic.

Everyone loved it. In its day, most everyone got caught up in the sheer audacity of thing, the cinematic scope, the number of stars and extras, the locales (which we thought were genuine). The introduction by Ed Murrow seemed apt for something so newsworthy.

I haven't seen it in 50 years. And now, even in the full ToddAO experience it is dull except for the wonderfully bombastic score. There's really nothing to it except that it exists.

It reminds that many films I see, new and old, depend on context. The new ones are simple. Things we get excited about now will seem juvenile in just a short time. "Die Hard" was eclipsed on its own terms in short order. "Speed" even more so.

But the old ones...

Sometimes they are so strongly evocative of an era that watching them pulls us into that era, giving us a whole world by association. Others cannot pull us, or aren't set up to, but are so weak they fall apart. Its a slippery game, watching old movies.

But in this case, it is simple. Big bowl — thin soup. But a grandly shaped bowl.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

1956 was a big year in Hollywood with "Around the World in 80 Days" and "Giant" and "The Ten Commandments"."Around the World in 80 Days" won Best Picture for its global cinematography and insightful editing that transformed this travelogue into a great movie as the characters played by David Niven and Cantinflas do take us around the world just getting back to London to win their bet after they thought they lost. The BIG movie started to take shape in Hollywood for many years to come after Cinemascope started in and "Around the World" and how producer Michael Todd did all this was amazing. 7/10

This is one of those classics based on a novel by Jules Verne that I really enjoy watching from time to time again. Like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) and Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959) one of the best good old adventure movies of all time made to watch together with your kids.

For a big, bloated Hollywood excuse to show 50 or 60 cameos it's not the worst thing on film. I enjoyed spotting all the stars, but the overall purpose for this movie escapes me.

This movie is in need of some serious editing. There was no reason to show five minutes of a flamenco dancer or six minutes of bullfighting or eight minutes of the French countryside from above, etc. No doubt the footage is impressive in and of itself, but these scenes as they are do not belong in this movie. It's shocking, actually, how terribly put together it is.

It has its moments, like the cargo ship sequence, and Shirley MacLaine is beautiful, and Cantinflas is sometimes amazing as the non-specific European sidekick (is he Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese?). But it is way too long and there are too many tedious sequences.

Mike Todd's epic travelogue must have looked spectacular on huge screens of old, but on my 42 inch widescreen TV it was just okay. Yes I've seen the film before but only in pieces or cut up never had I seen it widescreen before, not had I seen in complete in at least a decade.. For the most part its an empty movie. Only Caniflas as Fogg's man servant has any real character since his is really the only person given anything to do.The film lurches from spectacle to spectacle with only the odd moment to get to know the characters. Its one of those movies that really makes you go "how did this win Best Picture?". Then again if I saw this in a theater with a huge screen I would have been floored...or not. Worth a look for the scenery and because it is a good film-though far from great.

Except for the horrible miscasting of Shirley MacLaine as a Hindu princess, Around the World in 80 Days comes close to being a perfect film. The rest of the cast paints to perfection the portrait of Jules Verne's odyssey about a very anal retentive man driven by a wager to complete a global circumnavigation in 80 days in the mid nineteenth century.

Jules Verne unlike in a lot of his other stories makes one of his main characters here a Frenchman. Normally the international minded Mr. Verne never had any of his protagonists come from his native France. In this case the valet Passepartout accompanies English gentleman Phileas Fogg on the journey and comes close to wrecking it a couple of times.

Michael Todd had to settle for second choices for both of his leads. The part was originally offered to Cary Grant who turned it down and Todd settled happily for David Niven. And even though Fernandel offered to learn English to play Passepartout, the process would have taken too long so the Mexican comic star Cantinfas got the part. Fernandel did have a small role as a Parisian hansom cab driver.

It's still a mystery to me as to why Cantinflas on the strength of this and Pepe did not break out of the Latin American market where he was nothing short of a demi-god of the cinema. Certainly his presence in this film opened up a huge market of viewers in the Spanish speaking parts of the world.

Also consider that the probably no other performer in the history of the cinema ever got as good supporting casts as Cantinflas did in both Around the World in 80 Days and Pepe. Maybe he didn't break into the English speaking cinema fan world, but it was no accident that all the stars who appeared in both wanted to be associated with him.

Shirley MacLaine would have to wait until Some Came Running for a real break out role. She's just not the type to play a Hindu princess. Someone like Jean Simmons who played one in Black Narcissus would have been far better.

David Niven however got on the crest of a big career wave that wouldn't reach maximum until his Oscar two years later in Separate Tables. This was one of his best career roles and nice that for once he would not have to carry a mediocre picture on the strength of his considerable charm.

Mr. Niven sadly recalls in his memoirs that Robert Newton was already dying when he made Around the World in 80 Days. The doctors had told the screen's most celebrated alcoholic that he had only a short time left when he did this film, his liver was failing. Newton does a grand job as the unctuous conniving detective Fix who gets it into his head that Niven robbed the Bank of England.

Around the World in 80 Days won for Best Picture in 1956 and four other Oscars including best musical score. Oddly enough the song Around the World was not nominated in that category even though it was a big hit that year. Bing Crosby for Decca and Eddie Fisher for RCA Victor had the big hit records of it, Frank Sinatra also did it for Capitol. It was a great tribute to its composer Victor Young and lyricist Harold Adamson. Young died in 1956 and the Oscar for Best Scoring was given to him posthumously.

Producer Michael Todd and Director Michael Anderson did a first rate job in casting all the small bit roles with major players. A lot of these names are unfamiliar to today's generation, but if they see the film it's a chance to see a lot of great cinema names at one time doing real characters instead of just walking on as themselves.

The film holds up well today and can still be enjoyed. Maybe someone will actually try to make it in the transportation mode of the Victorian era. Can it be done in 80 Days?

I read the book first and then saw the movie as an 11-year-old in 1957, in the theater in the original Todd-A-O format (ie., an alternative to Cinerama). Saw it again on TV last night as a geezer. In both instances, I though it was too long and boring. As a kid, I thought it was way too long between action sequences as featured in the book, to focus on extensive and incredibly long "travelog" scenes around the world. I guess the writers and director also thought it would be a "pull" to cram in as many cameos as they could of actors of the past and the then present. This also slowed down the plot in many instances. In the 1950s, most folks couldn't afford the high cost of foreign travel, and that might have been a reason for showing so many, and so long, just plain scenery scenes. But kids like me at the time probably couldn't care less. In the 2000's, adults interested in foreign travel have "been there, done that;" get on with the plot, please! And kids today still probably couldn't care less. In both instances, though, I thought the animated closing credits were fantastic! In 1957, before they started the movie, the theater manager came on stage and recommended that everyone stay for the closing credits. He was right!

Even then the racism in this film was just overwhelming.

"Let's show ostriches pulling a wagon in Asia and see who actually believes that!" Only if you think Australia is part of Asia.

"Let's have the whitest actress we can find and put a dot on her and see who believes she's Indian!" MacLaine must look back on this with shame.

The only bright spot, the only one in this bloated incredibly overlong stinker that's alternately dull and horrifying, was Cantinflas. The famed actor, as legendary in Latin America as Chaplin or Seinfeld were in the US, shows his comedy genius in a bullfight that has the only laughs in the film.

Then it returns to being alternately boring or offensive. Do yourself a favor and fast forward a lot.

ETA: I'm glad of the strong reactions to my review, both the downvotes and the higher than I expected number of up votes. Good to know some others feel the same.

Around the World in 80 Days is part comedy and part demonstration of a new wide-screen process. I saw it in its original run at the old Rivoli Theater in New York, where the screen ran from 48th St. to 49th St. People gasped at the size of the screen when the curtains opened, before the film even got underway.

If you watch the new 16x9 DVD on anything less than a 50-inch television, the visual composition and the pacing are absolutely incomprehensible, and you're on your own to seize on the many little things that are there to entertain you. But as a whole, the film loses its reason for being when viewed on a conventional TV.

David Niven is unbeatable as Phileas Fogg, Shirley Maclaine is implausible but slyly humorous as the Princess, Robert Newton appears sober most of the time and hammy all of it as Inspector Fix.

Cantinflas is inexplicable as Passepartout, except perhaps as Mike Todd's attempt to corral the entire Latin American market. The Mexican comedian's English is very shaky; it slows him down, and his clarity comes and goes and makes me wonder if Paul Frees didn't replace a lot of his lines. At any rate, only in the seemingly improvised encounter with Red Skelton at a buffet does Cantinflas do anything remotely humorous, and there he's the straight man.

The cameos are fun, and if you're too young to know who all these geezers are, it's worth it to find out, and use the IMDb to track down the work that made them famous. I remember the shriek the original audience let out when the piano player was revealed to be Frank Sinatra.

Viewing the film now, I was most moved to see Edmund Lowe and Victor McLaglan reunited in the engine room of the Henrietta, thirty years after they riveted the industry in "What Price Glory?" Buster Keaton concentrates really hard in his appearance as the train conductor, to excellent effect. A. E. Matthews gives a terrific acting lesson in saying "no" a half a dozen times in a London sequence.

Among the original bettors, locate Ronald Squire with the drooping mustache, hollow nasal baritone, and a slouching relaxation while performing that was a marvel - Rex Harrison publicly admired Ronald Squire's ease on stage all his life. In fact, Squire is so relaxed he makes someone like Dean Martin seem uptight.

So, this film is an unusual case - requiring patience for lots of little joys on the small screen, but making sense only on a large one.

It hardly seems possible that I was in the fourth grade when this lavish spectacle came out. I can still clearly recall the massive p.r. Blitz and the hype surrounding its release. There was a special air of adventure around the movie that was more common in those days, when Hollywood was striving for increasingly fabulous and star-loaded vehicles, to compete with television's increasing inroads into viewership. This special quality has been completely lost in these days when cinematic 'product' is churned out in an undifferentiated stream. It's impossible to imagine, except in a few rare cases , that kind of aura surrounding a contemporary movie.

When our family went to see it (yes, there was a time when families went to the movies together! Yes, there was a time when there were movies suitable for the whole family to watch!) I remember being completely swept away by the spectacle, the romance, the sheer sweep of the thing. I was too young at the time to recognize many of the actors who put in the plethora of cameos, but it's fun to do so today. The movie's main theme quickly entered the popular music repertoire and became practically ubiquitous. The problem in evaluating the movie now is not to allow fond nostalgia to interfere with an objective assessment.

The movie is a tad dated, but not, I think, fatally so. It still stands up as a fast-paced adventure yarn with a touch of tongue-in-cheek comedy and a certain archness (as witness the very final closing words in an aside to the audience) bestowed by David Niven's strong lead. The chemistry between him and Cantinflas works well, and Robert Newton provides a good foil as Mr. Fix. Shirley Maclaine, however, is miscast. (For a real hoot, by the way, click on the 'full cast and crew' link of this movie in IMDB, where each and every actor, including ALL the minor cameos, is listed alphabetically. What a riot!)

One previous viewer complained about a lack of character development. Yes, and one doesn't go to a hardware store to buy hamburger, either.

And the exotic locales have lost none of their appeal. One quibble would be the Spanish scenes, where Jose Greco's Flamenco routine and the overly long subsequent bullfight sequence impede the flow.

There is no question that the super-wide screen format of Todd-AO, which used a special fish-eye lens for the scenery shots, and which was shown on a special curved screen in the theaters, was essential for the travelogue atmosphere of the flick. To see it on a tv-sized screen degrades the movie's impact considerably. I had looked in vain for years for this to be broadcast or re-released in letterbox and I am happy to see TMC has done so as of August, '03 ! As predicted, the letterbox format, and the rejuvenated print, reinvigorates this nearly unique film, which I somewhat hesitantly venture to call a classic.

I came into this film with quite high expectations, having read the book and having a high regard for Niven's abilities on screen...however I was highly disappointed.

The film is a contradiction in itself - it is too shallow and Fogg appears to leap from one place to the next without really invoking any feeling for where he's at; but it is also too slow and unfocused on what it does include (like that Spanish Flamenco dance that seems to go on for sooooo long).

There is very little character development (and in a film that is three hours long you really do need it), so much so I was hoping that by the time Fogg got to America he would sell Princess and his annoying little Butler to the Indians in return for a script.

True, the photography is outstanding, but a high budget and pretty pictures does not a good film make, as they say. And the bizarre psychadelic credits at the end? How does that conjure up a nice image of Victoriana? Which leads me to conclude that the whole film was an utter mess, not knowing where it wanted to go, how long to stay there and how to communicate it, despite the pots of money that must have been thrown its way. Even trying to place this picture in its original context, I still cannot see why it ended up quite like this.

Spotting the stars was fun, spotting the script was not.

2/10