pifkeyraoul My grandfather told me he did not see this film at a younger age when it came out because it would be stupid. Probably a musical with dumb songs and just a fleeting glance at old stars that no one cared about any more. Then I saw it recently and it is none of the above. Perhaps it"s because I am older now and love to watch old movies on TCM.. I mean back to the 20's through the fifties---and on---and I know most of these actors in cameo appearances.I am sure a Millenial would think a movie from the 80's to be very old, and a Gen Xer a movie from the 60's or 70's the same. And this is being generous. Perhaps also I discovered that I love David Niven as an actor. It was this movie that got me to appreciate him. I bought his autobiography and a biography on him as a result. Now onto the film itself. I thought Contanflas would simply be clownish in his acting, but he played his comedy straight. He was excellent. I agree that Shirley McClain was a poor choice as a Princess from India. This was ridiculous. But she did not ruin the movie. She was perhaps a 1/2 star off the rating tho. She was just wrong for the part. Now as to the story. It was a joy to see that there was an Intermission. Films now have no Intermissions even if they are 3 hours long. It is great that TCM shows the entire movie unaltered. So I ask you to look at it as a iight comedy with excellent acting and I think you will enjoy it. It is extremely colorful and yes, should be seen in widescreen. It is funny, my grandfather recalled, that when he was a boy it cost $2000 or more to fly from Chicago to Los Angeles. Today, this flight could cost 100 bucks! Therefore more people of the 50's would have been more interested in seeing the actual scenes from around the globe than this generation. This was mentioned by another reviewer. Still, it is a Jules Verne book. It is a futuristic book and must be approached as such. We do so with other books/movies such as 1984, released in 1949, and ATWIn80Days was released in 1873 and is set in 1872. I have deducted 1/2 star for Shirley McClain, who I otherwise think is a fine actress, and 1/2 point for the travel scenes which do tend to elongate the movie and not enhance the plot. But I don't think that is a big deal overall. Great Film!

petra_ste Everyone enjoys taking a cheap shot at the Academy Awards, and this movie offers a great chance to do just that - Around the World in Eighty Days won Best Picture, while in the same year John Ford's The Searchers, one of the most iconic classics in the history of American cinema, didn't receive a single nomination.Around the World is three hours long, and feels like it. Every few minutes the movie stops to gawk at its exotic locations and smugly chuckle at its endless celebrity cameos ("Look, isn't it funny that the saloon pianist is Frank Sinatra?"). It has certainly aged badly. I remember enjoying it as a kid thirty years ago; rewatching it recently, I was surprised by how overlong it feels. I had a similar reaction to another on-the-road adventure/comedy of the same era, The Great Race, except the latter is propelled even today by Jack Lemmon's villainous glee as Professor Fate and by the sight of the adorable Natalie Wood in her lingerie. Around the World features also-adorable Shirley MacLaine - but, distractingly, she is unlikely cast as an Indian princess.Overall, though, this Jules Verne adaptation isn't a bad movie - a mildly entertaining travelogue with luscious vistas and a tone-perfect David Niven as a British gentleman so prim and fastidious that, if you tossed a couple of eggs in his luggage, two minutes later he would produce from it still immaculate clothes and a perfectly cooked omelet on a silver platter. In fact, Around the World is at its best when it focuses on Niven's Phileas Fogg dryly dealing with annoyances, obstacles and threats, and at its worst when it pauses to showcase the physical skills of co-star Cantinflas as Passepartout - so we have a dancing number, a bullfighting number, a circus number, and so on.The result is drawn-out; we complain that Peter Jackson added at least a whole hour of bloat in each Hobbit movie, but Hollywood was already doing that sixty years ago.6/10

k-thomas This was movie making at it's best. Unlike the movies of today. Fine Acting, Photography, Costumes, Filming, Script and especially the who's who in the movie world doing their cameos. In my view the finest performance came from Robert Newton, who in my view stole the picture. It was reminiscent of his performance as Long John Silver in Treasure Island. Just as devious. Young children of today enjoy this version, even though they have been brought up on the Jackie Chan version, which is far inferior. David Niven himself stated that this was his favorite film and i can see why. I would also imagine that the participants all had a great time.A true masterpiece.

SnoopyStyle From the Jules Verne book, Englishman Phileas Fogg (David Niven) accepts a bet from his fellow Reform Club members to travel around the world in 80 days putting up £20k. Passepartout (Cantinflas) comes looking for a job and becomes his valet for the trip. The Bank of England has been robbed of £55k. Inspector Fix (Robert Newton) believes that Fogg had stolen the money and follows him in pursuit. It's a wild ride across the globe. On the way, they rescue Indian Princess Aouda (Shirley MacLaine) who joins them on their quest.Without a doubt, this is a grand movie with lots of footage from all around the world. It was probably quite an eye opener for its time. With the exception of these exotic footage, the movie is a slow, prodding, unfunny affair. The trip is monotonous. A lot of it is wild, some are insane while others border on racist. I guess people actually believed that ostriches pulled carts in HongKong back in the day. However one must admire the daring it took to make such an impossible film.