ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

TheLittleSongbird The book by Jules Verne is a masterpiece, and of all the three versions of it I've seen(this, 1956 and 2004) in my opinion this mini-series is the best version. There are some scenes that are not in the book, but they didn't bother me, they were just as entertaining as the ones that were. I had no problem with the length either, to give the book justice I personally think it works better as a mini-series. On its own terms, the mini-series is very entertaining too. The costumes, photography, geographical locations and sets are wonderful, the various scenes and going-ons are consistently entertaining and interesting completely with some fun references to various historical figures and the writing is excellent and has the feel of Verne's style too. The acting is right on the money, Pierce Brosnan and Eric Idle are both superb, and spotting familiar faces such as Robert Morley, Roddy McDowell and Peter Ustinov is a sheer delight in itself. All in all, excellent mini-series and for me the best version, if more deserving of a better DVD. 9/10 Bethany Cox

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.

cxc620 There is no scenario about the forbidden city in Jules Verne's original novel. John Gay added this to this film and made an absurd mistake: move the forbidden city from Peking to Shanghai(From North China to South China). This indicates that John Gay has a poor geographical knowledge and does not qualify to write this travel film. It is pity for this film.THe original novel is very good. Any modification of this original novel should be more carefully. John Gay's modification did not only make an absurd geographical mistake, but also make a logical error. The captured time of Mr Fogg by Chinese Emperor will use up Mr Fogg's time several days and make him failure for this wager definitely.It is pity for this film although the performance of the actor and actress are much good.