User reviews

I confess to not having read the classic novel by Jules Verne ,and I'm rather pleased that I did not, having no preconceived opinions on this series as a result, although I did watch the film version a while ago, with David Niven in the leading role.

I find ,per current BBC programs, that it's 'right on' on terms of it being scrupulously PC ;but the main protagonist (Fogg) seems to have been utterly hollowed out-as if being a doughty Englishman may offend in certain circles which is a shame. Fogg is portrayed as cowardly,uncertain,morose,and reliant on his companions to a larger extent, something that the character in the book,or David Niven would certainly not have acceded to.

The performances are sound, the costumes are perfect, and the locations are excellent, although I'm left with a nagging doubt as to whether or not I'll get 'in' to it eventually.

I have watched three episodes so far and I'll probably watch the rest, but I'm certainly not swept away, but it passes the time I suppose.

There is a biblical principle that is worth taking into consideration, even for secular and semiscientific fiction, particularly when evaluating them.

This principle is: Do not add to or take away from the original. Of course one cannot be absolutely perfect when it comes to this in making a film or a series, but still.

This mini-series has so many additions to the original, while at the same time so many omissions from the original that even those that have been made earlier - and are deemed poor - are to be considered better.

David Tennant makes a decent role, as Phileas Fogg, but that is about the only positive thing that may be said about this product.

Shame on the people. Jules Verne is rotating in his grave.

I'm honestly bewildered at the creative decisions made by those in charge of constructing the aesthetic for this series because the visuals in "Around The World In 80 Days" are literally so dark - without any reasonable justification - it's hard to believe that this "style" the crew created was somehow intentional? Bear in mind the TV adaptation is supposed to be a fun, family friendly, globe trotting adventure & it's shot / colour graded to look barely visible? You can hardly see the poor actor's faces in scenes filmed during sunny weather / broad daylight. There's such a high contrast / over saturation of all the images captured (exacerbating the shadows), I fail to conceive what motivated this ineffective approach? For the love of god, can someone please brighten it? Yearning for an ounce of naturalism.

After two episodes I just had to find the book, the story seemed so obviously altered. There's a great new translation (2021) which I highly recommend. It seems that a lot of people, including the writers of this series, don't know that Verne's book is a satire. It's a satire about a wealthy, unemotional, self-centered englishman and his negligent attitude towards the wonders of the world. Also the character of Passepartout includes satire of eurocentrism. Inspector Fix makes us laugh about English byrocracy. The book also includes straight criticism of some colonial practices, also of violence and fanatism whomever it's practiced by. All in all, it's not a wide-eyed admiration of colonialism at all.

So why not make an adaptation of all that? I understand that some changes would have had to be made, since some scenes wouldn't have worked anymore. But why change it out of all recognition?

The substories that every episode had were often cheaply emotional and/or preachy. They also made the main story about circumnavigating the world drag badly. Fogg seemed to have all the time in the... world. The original excitement of time running out was very much lost.

Still, I couldn't hate it. The main actors were great, Tennant made this version of Fogg work. The chemistry between Abigail and Passepartout was not quite there, still I started to care about their story. The sets mostly worked, sometimes the background looked too obviously fake.

More identity politics from the BBC. Why do they have to subvert everything. Detracted from the excellent acting and camera work. David Tennant was superb.

Perhaps "inspired by" is more accurate, but certainly not "adapted from the Jules Verne novel", as claimed in the credits. All that seem to remain of the eviscerated original are the character Fogg, The Reform Club, the 80 days; and the plot device for the final denouement. That's it! It's like taking the headlamp, wing mirror and bumper trim from a Porsche, attaching them to a bicycle and advertising the result a custom-911.

I couldn't go as far as giving it 1 or 2 stars, as some have, because it has got a number of good scenes, decent camerawork and an excellent central actor. So it deserve a five, just.

The main "plus" is David Tennant, who makes an excellent job of the naïve, arrogant, foppish Nineteenth Century English Gentleman. It's just that everything around it is a sham, a not-quite-Jules-Verne illusion, created by the same artificial intelligence that wrote the rejected version of the very first draft of the Matrix. It fails to live in its own parameters. And, yes, I am looking at you Mr Tennant, since you are named as Executive Producer of two episodes.

While we weren't yet talking of Doctor Who, we have to refer to the Chibnallisation of an artistic endeavour that was once brilliant, even if a little flawed by modern standards. How so?

Firstly, there has to be an ensemble cast. Since the main character is difficult to recast as other than an English gentleman, Passepartout becomes a black hanger-on with a troubled past from the turbulent politics of the Third French Republic. Now we have the racial mix, clearly we are missing a woman with central role. (Excellent in principle, but not necessary in every reboot.) So now Detective Fix becomes Journalist Ms Abigail Fix.

Secondly, the presumptive guilt of today's English race has to be apologetically projected back onto a story from another era. So disgust around slavery, Empire, chauvinism, misogyny and the like are levered into the plot with an XL-sized large crowbar. Yes, most of these historical realities were entirely despicable, but there is no need to address them at every conceivable (if barely credible) turn; thought-provoking subtlety can achieve much more than in-your-face, "see how woke I am" heavy handedness.

I am going off to watch the rest of Episode 4; I may be sometime.

It is hard to put my finger on why I didn't care for this other than the impression that it couldn't figure out if it wanted to be Disney-esque family fare, or an exciting adult action film a la Indiana Jones. In the end it was neither. The scenery/CGI was nice, as was the costuming and such, but the lead David Tennant's heart was clearly not into his performance, which I find rare for him. He was dull and unbelievable as a world explorer. The role of his female companion, played by. Leonie Benesch was as irritating as fingernails on a chalk board. I found myself on more than one occasion telling her character on the screen "oh would you please just shut up!". She's intermittently whiny victim one moment, and "I am woman hear me roar the next". Just go away! The only bright spot was Passepartout, well-played by Ibrahim Koma. He's the only reason I got to the 5th episode. I'd like to see more of him in future roles.

For some reason the BBC decided to use the well-worn American trope of having the lead actor be a bumbling dolt. This combined with a very washed-out, dreary shooting style and side-story melodrama makes this a tough watch.

I have no problem with a modern interpretation of a classic tale done right - Sherlock Holmes comes to mind as an example of one the BBC did well. Injecting a mix of diversity is also fine. I think a brighter, more adventure-style reimagining with Idris Elba as the lead would have been fantastic For example.

How can one make so boring series, with so marvelous actors, from so amazing book. Sorry Jules, this time it's just didn't work. Why they had to change adventure to drama series? Shame...

There might have been a lot of hot air ballooning but this series was only luke warm. David Tennant playing the lead roll wasn't enough to lift it above mediocre because the supporting actors were disappointing and very hard to warm to. On a positive note it was refreshing to watch a program that wasn't full of violence and swearing . It was a good old fashioned adventure story!

While this new take tried to stay faithful in the novel and hsd it's moments it was too long and too boring while the actors were wooden and the subplots were forgetable. I watched this in a fast forward and there were only a few scenes that kept me intrested. The 1956 film and the 1988 tv mini series are still the best versions that u should stick with. Avoid this new version and the silly 2004 jackie chan comedy version.

...but I felt I had to after episode five, in which Lord and Lady Guvnuh make Lord Grantham look rabidly conservative (to flog or not to flog?). What the actual? Is this the same story? This is Jules Vern, not Julian Fellows. This was Victorian Co!onialism at its peak! Can we dispense with the status quo / happy Liberal bullsh!1 please? Don't get me wrong. I am a Liberal, and I enjoyed the story, but enough. Enough with the propoganda. Colonialism was not friendly.