Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Chris W

  
  How this won Best Picture (beating out Giant, Friendly Persuasion, The Ten Commandments, and The King and I, and The Searchers (which wasn't even nominated) is beyond me. This is a big, epic adaptation of the classic Jules Verne story of an archetypical Englishman who makes a bet… More
  How this won Best Picture (beating out Giant, Friendly Persuasion, The Ten Commandments, and The King and I, and The Searchers (which wasn't even nominated) is beyond me. This is a big, epic adaptation of the classic Jules Verne story of an archetypical Englishman who makes a bet he can travel across the entire world in only 80 days. As an event, sure, yeah, this was probably quite a fun spectacle to see back in 1956. Today though, this is just an overlong, kinda boring cameo fest with rather blah acting, and little sense of real adventure and excitement. I guess for people who at the time weren't used to seeing exotic places were wowed by what this film offers, but today it's just an unspectacular and dated travelogue. Don't get me wrong, there are some things I liked. The music is decent, if a little repetitive, the end title credit sequence by Saul Bass is really cool, some of the cameos are fun (SInatra, Carradine, Keaton, Dietrich), and Cantinflas is admittedly an absolute scene stealing joyt to watch, but Niven didn't stand out for me as a wonderful lead, and Shirely MacLaine ,though I like her and understood that she did this film near the beginning of her career, really feels out of place. The cinematography is quite excellent though, and the locations do look nice (though idealized), but overall, this is just another one of those Best Picture winners that really didn't deserve it.

• AJ V

  
  This movie is incredibly long, and has many boring scenes with old guys sitting around talking, which got on my nerves. On the other hand the cast is good, and the story is a classic. Overall it's interesting, but it could be better.

• jay n

  
  Best picture?! Really? Hodgepdoge travelogue with ridiculous situations and indifferent acting. How this won over "Giant" or any of the other nominated films and prevented the immeasurably superior "The Searchers" from even a nomination is a mystery.

• Dean M

  
  Quite terrific entertaining of Jules Verne's classic tale that has remains a treat for those who bask in the glow of gorgeous cinematography, lavish production values, and a whimsical script that retains the novel's essential elements. This film also features cameos by more… More
  Quite terrific entertaining of Jules Verne's classic tale that has remains a treat for those who bask in the glow of gorgeous cinematography, lavish production values, and a whimsical script that retains the novel's essential elements. This film also features cameos by more than 40 cinema legends. Cantinflas made a wonderful performance as Phileas Fogg's servant, Passepartout, he's quite so funny like Charlie Chaplin.

• Pierluigi P

  
  Charming epic comedy with gratifying special appearances by some cinema legends. David Niven plays the quintessential english gentleman, but Cantinflas is the one who steals the show, as he always did in his native mexico. great entertainment.

• Byron B

  
  The scenery and effects were probably amazing to the 50s audience who hadn't seen many exotic locals. I've also heard that a main reason for this film's popularity were the massive amounts of cameos by various celebrities. I like to think that through my goal to watch… More
  The scenery and effects were probably amazing to the 50s audience who hadn't seen many exotic locals. I've also heard that a main reason for this film's popularity were the massive amounts of cameos by various celebrities. I like to think that through my goal to watch Oscar winning movies that I can recognize quite a few well known stars, but all these cameos are a gimmick and they don't carry the story. Where does that leave the story? It's choppy and barely sustained through the 80 days.

• Matthew Y

  
  Michael Todd invested everything he had to create the biggest, grandest extravaganza of a film spectacle ever made based on Jules Verne's novel Around the World in 80 Days. Whether he succeed or simply pulled the wool over everyone's eyes is a topic of much debate. A… More
  Michael Todd invested everything he had to create the biggest, grandest extravaganza of a film spectacle ever made based on Jules Verne's novel Around the World in 80 Days. Whether he succeed or simply pulled the wool over everyone's eyes is a topic of much debate. A triumph upon its release the film managed to steal Best Picture from stiff competition. It is not as highly regarded today and even loathed by some for its gimmicky nature. With numerous on location shots of exotic locals and a cast that includes cameos from over 40 famous and beloved movie stars the film shows that Michael Todd knew how to shoot a movie but it's unsympathetic characters and shallow screenplay show that he did not know how to bring it to life. FYI: More interesting than the film itself is the off-screen antics of Michael Todd as he attempts to fool local authorities to ensure his round-the-world location shots and the numerous wheeling and dealings to convince all the biggest celebrities to appear in cameos. One of the most interesting productions in Hollywood history.

• Andre T

  
  Around the World in 80 Days is a 1956 adventure film based on the Jules Verne novel. The film won multiple Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Around 1872, an English gentleman Phileas Fogg (David Niven) claims he can circumnavigate the world in eighty days. He makes a £20,000… More
  Around the World in 80 Days is a 1956 adventure film based on the Jules Verne novel. The film won multiple Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Around 1872, an English gentleman Phileas Fogg (David Niven) claims he can circumnavigate the world in eighty days. He makes a £20,000 wager (equal to £1,324,289 today) with several skeptical fellow members of the Reform Club, that he can arrive back within 80 days before exactly 8:45 pm. Very funny, with a lot of special appearances, like Frank Sinatra, Marlene Dietrich and Buster Keaton.

• Simeon D

  
  Read the book, saw the play, and now watched the movie. And do I get a gold star? No! On another note this movie was undoubtedly poorly made, with flat acting, and with a dreadful screenplay. Save the main characters and the basic premise, this is nothing like the book. It's… More
  Read the book, saw the play, and now watched the movie. And do I get a gold star? No! On another note this movie was undoubtedly poorly made, with flat acting, and with a dreadful screenplay. Save the main characters and the basic premise, this is nothing like the book. It's like the writers threw it in a blender and poured it, very slowly mind you (3 hours?!), into a movie. The dialogue was all declarative, none of it was used for character development. The characters are in 2D: in the book Philleas Fogg is a stuck up British gentleman who resents everything in life, and in the movie he shows none of these traits, even contradicting them at times. Passepartout is supposed to be an oafish comic relief, but I didn't even smile once when I saw him. I'm giving this a Fresh rating because it's more fun than it is good. That is not to say that this is good; it's just awful! But, I do have to give credit to some of the thrills and the extravagant movie sets. Though the sets and costumes are stylish, every other aspect of the direction is flawed. The cinematography is sunbaked, which causes everything to be glowing white, and the entire cast had no significant presence in any of the scenes. And now to the flaws. I watched this on a laptop, so I was able to pause and rewind each time there was a movie mistake. And man, were there a bunch. To begin with: 1. During the Japanese gymnast scene, one of the dancers trips and falls over as the curtain closes. 2. After Passepartout first meets the British detective, the image slowly fades away in silence, but you can see that the detective is still talking. 3. After Phileas Fogg, the Princess, and an Englishmen discuss how they will sail home, the camera cuts away to a shot of the ocean, then abruptly cuts back to a shot of them and they are all looking at the ground awkwardly. 4. When Phileas Fogg and Passepartout first fly into Spain in the hot air balloon, they knock over part of a building and ram into a fountain, which almost topples over. 5. During the Indian attack when Passepartout is climbing on top of the train, he is hit by an arrow which simply bounces off of him. 6. While Passepartout is bullfighting, there are two men standing right behind him for obvious safety purposes. 7. When Passepartout meets an American at a bar in front of a serve-yourself-dinner, they begin a little comedy routine where they start handing each other food and stuffing it into each other mouths. After a while this becomes apparently improvised and the comedy becomes strained. One thing that bored me the most about the film was that for every culture there was an excessively long montage showing one of their celebrations. It might have been entertaining in the 1950s, but this definitely did not age well and is simply obnoxious nowadays. Shirley MacLaine was really hot when she was young, and she could act too, but there's no evidence of that in her soulless performance as an Indian (WTF?!) princess. Cantiflas... I don't want to be too harsh, but he has a weird mustache and he wasn't the comic relief he should have been. And now to David Niven. Oh David Niven. You win an Oscar a year later, and you can't manage to carry on one decent performance as the most basic movie character you can play? Well, Niven's lack of talent in this role makes his chemistry with the other characters non-existent, and seeing as he's the main character, all chemistry between all the actors is lost in the entire movie. The bright side of the acting is the numerous cameos of 1950s celebrities in suitable roles. Buster Keaton as a train conductor, Frank Sinatra as a pianist (and possibly the best cameo of all time?), Trevor Howard as a British gentleman, and my favorite: John Carradine in a bombastic performance as a stereotypical 1800s American. Should this have won Best Picture: Fuck no. Ten Commandments, Giant, and The King and I are reasonable contenders, and Around the World In 80 Days should have just won all the technical stuff. I wouldn't generally recommend seeing this movie in your own free time, but if you're with a group of children or your younger relatives, than it should be mostly painless. 62/100

• Lord N

  
  This film is one of the least deserving Best Picture recipients I have ever seen. it was just horrible. it was too long, the acting was horrible, and I didn't really care if they won the bet. i just wanted the movie to end! it was just not that good. the characters annoyed me,… More
  This film is one of the least deserving Best Picture recipients I have ever seen. it was just horrible. it was too long, the acting was horrible, and I didn't really care if they won the bet. i just wanted the movie to end! it was just not that good. the characters annoyed me, David Niven spent most of the movie talking about his wist game or whatever the heck it was called. a huge problem that this movie had was that it was 3 hours long! it would be a much better film if it was about an hour and a half shorter. also, another problem that I had was that the score was composed of three total notes and the played those notes continuously whenever the camera wasn't on a character. it was slightly entertaining in some points but on the whole, it was a poor attempt at a movie. one of the least deserving Best Picture winners. Final Verdict (as if you couldn't figure it out on your own): this movie was a huge mistake. not deserving of Best Picture at all. replacement Winner: The King and I. it was so much better. plus Yul Brenner absolutely rocked.

• Ivan D

  
  When looked upon today, this film is not remembered as a Best Picture winner, but as a picture with a gazillion of cameos, packed upon a running time that could have been very shorter(at almost 3 hours). The title speaks about the plot itself, with a very moody atmosphere, sometimes… More
  When looked upon today, this film is not remembered as a Best Picture winner, but as a picture with a gazillion of cameos, packed upon a running time that could have been very shorter(at almost 3 hours). The title speaks about the plot itself, with a very moody atmosphere, sometimes being full of tracking shots of beautiful landscapes all over the world, as if a travel show but without any hosts, and sometimes, in an adventurous mood, which, in my opinion, should have stayed in that latter quality for it to prevent its sometimes dragging nature. Yet, the two leads(David Niven and Cantinflas) gave very entertaining performances, with a Shirley Maclaine awfully miscast as an Indian princess. Another thing that puts me off from the film is its savage, animalistic depiction of Cherokee Indians, a proof that Marlon Brando's stand against Hollywood's treatment of Native Americans was rightful. Peter Lorre gave the best cameo in the film, being an "M"-like menace in the first shot, then came out to be a ship steward(!), followed closely by Buster Keaton's appropriately placed one in a train.

• alan j

  
  enjoyable if a bit outdated..dine acting..and movie keeps you involved..family fun

• Barry L

  
  Niven is a God. Dont you just love the architipal Englishman.

Read all 13 featured audience ratings