kensai-5
Joined Aug 2006
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings1.2K
kensai-5's rating
Reviews33
kensai-5's rating
Decent movie, but could have been great with a little bit more investment.
Overall, the director, with crucial help of the crew, has done a remarkable job, in not only shooting in a stylish manner, but also for meaningful effect. The actors were all great and the story, while lacking originality, was well written.
Were things didn't work out as they could (should, IMO) have, is the action scenes and use of somewhat outdated film tropes for story hooks.
The action scenes (especially in the showdown) didn't have impact, because there was no buildup, no pre-established setup to create tension for each individual encounter. (There's one exception, a certain duel, that had efficient tension, but disappointed me in how it was concluded). For the most part, there's just random scenes of over-stylized shooting, with unestablished goons falling dead into the screen. The kind of scenario that might be good for trailers or music videos, but just doesn't work well when watching a story unfold. It just detracts too much from making it seem like the protagonists are in any actual danger.
The overly tropey story hooks are mostly there as filler, bloating up events. Somewhat clumsy attempts at creating more tension, with the downside of shaking the believability, which then subtracts from the tension again. While those same tropes have been used to great effect in older movies, I still think they could have been written a bit smarter.
Overall, the director, with crucial help of the crew, has done a remarkable job, in not only shooting in a stylish manner, but also for meaningful effect. The actors were all great and the story, while lacking originality, was well written.
Were things didn't work out as they could (should, IMO) have, is the action scenes and use of somewhat outdated film tropes for story hooks.
The action scenes (especially in the showdown) didn't have impact, because there was no buildup, no pre-established setup to create tension for each individual encounter. (There's one exception, a certain duel, that had efficient tension, but disappointed me in how it was concluded). For the most part, there's just random scenes of over-stylized shooting, with unestablished goons falling dead into the screen. The kind of scenario that might be good for trailers or music videos, but just doesn't work well when watching a story unfold. It just detracts too much from making it seem like the protagonists are in any actual danger.
The overly tropey story hooks are mostly there as filler, bloating up events. Somewhat clumsy attempts at creating more tension, with the downside of shaking the believability, which then subtracts from the tension again. While those same tropes have been used to great effect in older movies, I still think they could have been written a bit smarter.
I've never read the book...
...but I assume it's not in madmen territory to expect at least a modicum of adventure in a Jules Verne story. Especially when it's a story about traveling across the world in 1872. This film adaptation just tries its best to dazzle the audience into ignoring expectations of any such kind.
Primarily, the movie is nothing other than a 3-hour long travelogue-variety show.
And that's exactly what the director set out to do - a pompous showcase of the Todd-AO 70 mm film format & camera, with as many stars and pretty sights as financially possible - story be damned.
For much of the time, the protagonists do little else than sitting or standing in place, watching the events around them with barely a hint of emotion...or at least no change thereof (e.g. Passepartout constantly smiling). Especially Phileas Fogg is doing very little else. When he is onscreen, it's usually just to establish his current whereabouts, or to make sure that the audience doesn't forget that what there is of a story is still kinda about him.
Only few of the events even try to attach to any narrative, though. The antagonists do very little to undo that impression. What the audience is given, is barely more than an overstretched amusement ride, portraying American romanticized fantasies of what other countries and cultures looked like, in the previous century. Regardless of how pretty the sets were, which I'm sure was a much bigger deal in the 1950s, it is now rather boring to watch. The few events that do happen are terribly underperformed and only rarely evolve around the actions or decisions of the protagonists. It's like they're just there to watch, like the movie audience. There's one exception to this, but it just emphasizes another design flaw of this overbloated production...
The 2nd biggest problem is Cantinflas.
Seemingly the biggest star in Latin countries, attempts to translate his movies into other languages were apparently only rarely made, because a lot of his comedic talent was based on verbal wits, like twisting and turning words and meanings in conversations and monolog. A language specific skill that found no room in this Jules Verne interpretation.
The negative influence he had on this movie was not necessarily directly his fault. He appeared to be a fine enough actor and I initially liked his portrayal of Passepartout. That was until I noticed that he neither has any personality to talk about nor any character arc. All I can tell about him is that he seems friendly, is industrious to the point of risking his life for his employer and likes to clumsily and silently flirt with women...for a few seconds.
That could have been sufficient depth for a supporting actor. But this is where the movie bit its own behind. Cantinflas is basically the star of the story. I'd muse that maybe he paid a reasonable amount of money to help finance this oversized vanity project. To repay for this and his impactful popularity in the Latin entertainment industry, his character was given most of, if not the only plot driving role. Just about any time an event is put in motion by a protagonist, it's Passepartout. If there is an activity that requires any amount of physical effort beyond talking, walking or sitting, it's performed by him. As a consequence, he slowly becomes the sole protagonist of the movie and Fogg little more than a passive background sidekick.
What makes the viewing experience awkward, is that the script never cares to develop Passepartout's character enough to justify making him the center of attention. He's just a flimsy sketch of a silent-clown-turned-valet, without explained motivation or agenda. When he does things, it's to mildly goof around, giving the impression that some slapstick is supposed to happen...but it never does. Nothing leads up to any physical comedy, punchline or plot development. It's shallow non-verbal improvisation slapped onto a story stripped of all drama, tension and personality, to instead focus on an overblown variety show with the taste of a chewing gum in its 5th hour.
Passepartout's design seemed very inspired by Charlie Chaplin's "tramp" persona. It's a very similar clothing style and even some of the mannerism can remind of that aspect of the silent film era. More than once he gets into trouble in much the same way as the tramp may have. Except that there's not much comedy to point at.
In effect, it's like watching a Chaplin imitator on a journey, but without any humor and the plot given to his co-star, a rarely onscreen British pedant.
David Niven, the British pedant, is on record as citing this as his favorite role in a ~50 years spanning career. Such a shame that he was given barely anything to do with his acting talent or screen presence. His Phileas Fogg is just tossed along as things happen around him.
The cameos, another central aspect of this production, seemed particularly uninteresting to me. My imagination could have done a lot more with internationally known stars, in a story that has the entire globe as its playground. Most of them are just used as 2-dimensional, bland characters, that you simply won't notice if you don't know/recognize the actors.
All of the present stars just played second fiddle to the variety show.
Primarily, the movie is nothing other than a 3-hour long travelogue-variety show.
And that's exactly what the director set out to do - a pompous showcase of the Todd-AO 70 mm film format & camera, with as many stars and pretty sights as financially possible - story be damned.
For much of the time, the protagonists do little else than sitting or standing in place, watching the events around them with barely a hint of emotion...or at least no change thereof (e.g. Passepartout constantly smiling). Especially Phileas Fogg is doing very little else. When he is onscreen, it's usually just to establish his current whereabouts, or to make sure that the audience doesn't forget that what there is of a story is still kinda about him.
Only few of the events even try to attach to any narrative, though. The antagonists do very little to undo that impression. What the audience is given, is barely more than an overstretched amusement ride, portraying American romanticized fantasies of what other countries and cultures looked like, in the previous century. Regardless of how pretty the sets were, which I'm sure was a much bigger deal in the 1950s, it is now rather boring to watch. The few events that do happen are terribly underperformed and only rarely evolve around the actions or decisions of the protagonists. It's like they're just there to watch, like the movie audience. There's one exception to this, but it just emphasizes another design flaw of this overbloated production...
The 2nd biggest problem is Cantinflas.
Seemingly the biggest star in Latin countries, attempts to translate his movies into other languages were apparently only rarely made, because a lot of his comedic talent was based on verbal wits, like twisting and turning words and meanings in conversations and monolog. A language specific skill that found no room in this Jules Verne interpretation.
The negative influence he had on this movie was not necessarily directly his fault. He appeared to be a fine enough actor and I initially liked his portrayal of Passepartout. That was until I noticed that he neither has any personality to talk about nor any character arc. All I can tell about him is that he seems friendly, is industrious to the point of risking his life for his employer and likes to clumsily and silently flirt with women...for a few seconds.
That could have been sufficient depth for a supporting actor. But this is where the movie bit its own behind. Cantinflas is basically the star of the story. I'd muse that maybe he paid a reasonable amount of money to help finance this oversized vanity project. To repay for this and his impactful popularity in the Latin entertainment industry, his character was given most of, if not the only plot driving role. Just about any time an event is put in motion by a protagonist, it's Passepartout. If there is an activity that requires any amount of physical effort beyond talking, walking or sitting, it's performed by him. As a consequence, he slowly becomes the sole protagonist of the movie and Fogg little more than a passive background sidekick.
What makes the viewing experience awkward, is that the script never cares to develop Passepartout's character enough to justify making him the center of attention. He's just a flimsy sketch of a silent-clown-turned-valet, without explained motivation or agenda. When he does things, it's to mildly goof around, giving the impression that some slapstick is supposed to happen...but it never does. Nothing leads up to any physical comedy, punchline or plot development. It's shallow non-verbal improvisation slapped onto a story stripped of all drama, tension and personality, to instead focus on an overblown variety show with the taste of a chewing gum in its 5th hour.
Passepartout's design seemed very inspired by Charlie Chaplin's "tramp" persona. It's a very similar clothing style and even some of the mannerism can remind of that aspect of the silent film era. More than once he gets into trouble in much the same way as the tramp may have. Except that there's not much comedy to point at.
In effect, it's like watching a Chaplin imitator on a journey, but without any humor and the plot given to his co-star, a rarely onscreen British pedant.
David Niven, the British pedant, is on record as citing this as his favorite role in a ~50 years spanning career. Such a shame that he was given barely anything to do with his acting talent or screen presence. His Phileas Fogg is just tossed along as things happen around him.
The cameos, another central aspect of this production, seemed particularly uninteresting to me. My imagination could have done a lot more with internationally known stars, in a story that has the entire globe as its playground. Most of them are just used as 2-dimensional, bland characters, that you simply won't notice if you don't know/recognize the actors.
All of the present stars just played second fiddle to the variety show.
The movie has a few good moments, but they are watered down by horrible use of sound/music and by being centered around characters that you'll have a hard time caring about. No one has any interesting back story or at least attention-grabbing personality. They're all either bland or wrestling with the confused script they've been given. Mostly both.
The sound and music design is annoyingly bad. In order to get any emotional reaction out of the audience, the movie relies on being excessively loud whenever something happens. Sometimes it's entirely unclear whether a sound is caused by something happening within the story or just part of the soundtrack.
The story is shallow and badly constructed. There are parts of which the writers and/or director seem to have believed they'll add to the mystery and/or tension. Instead they just help in breaking tension, by making the involved characters less relatable/likable, without helpfully adding to the story at all. There are quite a few moments where characters seem to teleport to their positions. At least teleportation would seem like the only feasible explanation for how they got there without anyone else noticing them. Unless the annoyingly loud ambient music was actually part of the world/story, cause that too could then explain why no one heard them.
In conclusion, I'd say aVOID this movie, unless you really need to see the special effects, which are good but not to the extent to call it a "must-see".
The sound and music design is annoyingly bad. In order to get any emotional reaction out of the audience, the movie relies on being excessively loud whenever something happens. Sometimes it's entirely unclear whether a sound is caused by something happening within the story or just part of the soundtrack.
The story is shallow and badly constructed. There are parts of which the writers and/or director seem to have believed they'll add to the mystery and/or tension. Instead they just help in breaking tension, by making the involved characters less relatable/likable, without helpfully adding to the story at all. There are quite a few moments where characters seem to teleport to their positions. At least teleportation would seem like the only feasible explanation for how they got there without anyone else noticing them. Unless the annoyingly loud ambient music was actually part of the world/story, cause that too could then explain why no one heard them.
In conclusion, I'd say aVOID this movie, unless you really need to see the special effects, which are good but not to the extent to call it a "must-see".
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken