Around the World in 80 Days

Read the book, please read the books and you will be drawn into the most exciting, magical, bright story imaginable, and then watch this series.

Lifeless, it pains me to say it, because I am a massive fan of David Tennant, but having watched the first few episodes, that's the first word that sprang to mind. In the book you can feel the tension, the excitement, this had the thrills of people sat in a Dentist's waiting room.

I may well get captivated later on, it may move out of first gear, and I hope it does. Pacing initially though is the real stumbling block.

The positives, first on the list, the visuals, it is beautifully made and produced, production values are sublime, the clothes and location work are pretty jaw dropping. I thought the acting was terrific, Tennant never disappoints.

Some good elements in the mix, it looks good (even if I did have to look for the brightness setting on the TV for the first ever time,) but it just lacked any real thrills.

6/10 this should have been better.

I'm seeing lots of criticism for this show for not living up to the originals, but coming from someone who hasn't ever seen them, I thoroughly enjoyed this series. It doesn't have to be identical to the original to still be a really good series, you just have to look at it for what it is.

David Tennant is phenomenonal throughout and the supporting cast is very good. Okay, it's not a perfect series but what is? I'd highly recommend watching if you want some adventure!

An excellent cast makes a good fist of a very uneven script, but I was left feeling a great opportunity was missed. I read all the Jules Verne books when I was around 11, but couldn't remember the details of this one - and I'm glad I only looked up those details after watching this series. Had I done it before watching it, I would probably have ended up yelling at the TV like many other reviewers here, because so many great ideas (like the India part of the story) are absent and the evolution of the characters (who are all different) badly twisted. Beside all the that, the script they actually created is constantly frustrating and sometimes annoying, but the cast and production was good enough to keep me watching till the end.

I've read Verne's novel multiple times and watched its many adaptations over the years but this one is the most creative because it relies only slightly on the source material, leaves the most amount of pure adventures and discovering the world behind in favor of interpersonal drama of the main protagonists.

Phileas Fogg, played stupendously by maestro David Tennant, is naturally the highlight of the story, full of regrets of the past haunting him every day until he finally meets face to face with them and becomes the better man; his performance is at times overshadowed though by his two companions - Passepartout and Abigail Fix - played by Ibrahim Koma and Leonie Benesch respectively - who have the lives and struggles of their own and this journey of 80 days they took together opened them up perfectly to the viewer and made us empathize and care for each of them a great deal.

The main musical theme and overall soundtrack are amazing and is easily remembered from the get-go and you would not be able to let it go for a while there. The costumes and atmosphere are pretty accurate as well; I caught myself checking this and that event in the series and can tell for sure that there's nothing wrong with historical accuracies in here - well maybe Passepartout's skin color and the relationship towards him is a bit far-fetched and too 21st century at times but it doesn't spoil the narrative.

What does however is the lack of adventures per se. The book and some of its adaptations had those in abundance whereas this version plays with it as a tool to build the tension and move the characters' growth towards one another and help them overcome their own personal affairs - the book's approach was a lot different and offered many more locations, times to feel the places, had sense of urgency, had Fogg's immense knowledge of geography, his pedantry. David Tennant is a great actor hands down but he's not the Phileas Fogg I knew from the book. Instead he's a completely different character who bares his name and makes it work for the sake of the narrative and this is the most important thing in building a character - to make him alive by making him his own.

Despite all I've said I don't see myself ever returning to this miniseries (I just can't see what else there could be said in the season 2) because it's not sustained enough, not adventurous enough and feels more like a collection of episodes than the whole, complete series but engaging enough to stay with it till the end and deep enough to care for it till the end.

The key word here is adaption - this show is not the book, nor is it an attempt to represent the book in a methodical translation from page to screen - it's an adaption. That allows for some creative license and rejigging in its retelling of the original story.

For me, this was a successful retelling of a classic story. There was dramatic tension between the three protagonists - who go on the adventure - and the antagonists were suitably nasty and conniving. It seemed clear to me that one of the main themes of this version of the tale was the particular journey of Phileas Fog (David Tennant). His transformation from upper class man of leisure and suspended animation, who doesn't really care for anything anymore beyond his own comforts, into someone who eventually finds a part of himself and can begin to live, to be involved in his life.

This aspect of Fog's transformation plays out against the interesting main story arc of the 'romp' around the world in 80 days - an at times cavalier and hair raising journey that is quite entertaining - requiring some suspension of disbelief to be sure, but what classic heroes journey (within the realms of entertainment) doesn't.

This show is supposed to entertain rather than enlighten - and I think it does that very well.