User Score
6.7 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 30 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 30
  2. Negative: 2 out of 30

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. HarrisonF.
    Apr 12, 2009
    10
    Awesome movie with a great mix of comedy and action. Features some of the best actors around!
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  2. Charlie
    Aug 6, 2004
    10
    This movie offers romance, action, suspense and comedy good fun for family and a good night out for all ages. Jackie really works well with the mastermind comedian steve cogan (alan partridge) 5 star!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. PatrickM.
    Jun 19, 2004
    3
    No surprises here: the man makes it in 80 days. Whoops, I guess you wouldnt have figured that out on your own. Or all the other extremely obvious devices used throughout the movie. And I would say the reason I am panning this is simply the predictability involved. Not a single twist or turn. Indeed it was fun to watch for a time, but there were far too many Jackie Chan moments...expected, but while some of his movies have really cool fighting scenes, this suffers from the same fighting scene over and over again. It was far too boring to even last 90 minutes as it turned out. By day 30, I was ready to pack up and leave, but then I realized they still had to go and finish the movie, err...journey. And honestly, how funny is a man falling down or getting hit in the anvil for 90 minutes? Some of the gags were circa 1990. Meaning way outdated and truncated. I enjoyed when Kathy Bates, the queen, declared them to finish their journey. No, not because I was excited to see Phileas Fogg make it in 80 days, but because that meant the credits were soon to follow. I had to laugh at one thing though: Fogg believing Jackie Chan was French. He can say "wee wee" ahahahaahah...eh... I haven't seen a cornier movie all year. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. Sam
    Jun 29, 2006
    6
    Yes, the movie has a few funny lines, and yes it isn't a terrible disaster. However, I expected something more than what it was, and it was just okay.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. PaulsitoI.
    Jul 1, 2004
    10
    I am speecheles. all i can say is that when i got out of the theater i felt much better.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. C.
    Oct 2, 2006
    0
    God, what a f.cking piece of sh.t. I'm a fan of Verne's novel, and they've just butchered it. Again. Oh well, that's Hollywood for you. De France and Jackie Chan are the only ones who actually do well. Possibly because they're not taking their roles seriously and they're just in it for the money. They were wasted on this crap.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  7. AlansitoO.
    Jun 17, 2004
    10
    Spectacular movie. go see it.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. VinceH.
    Jun 19, 2004
    6
    Overall an agreeable time-waster that is nowhere near as offensively bad and worthless as say other recent blockbusters like "The Chronicles of Riddick" or the reigning king of crap, "Van Helsing". I wanted to see this movie mostly for the comedic genius of Steve Coogan, who was in one of the funniest BBC shows ever called "I'm Alan Partridge". Unfortunately he's given nothing to do here except hide his personality and be bland while Jackie has all the fun (he's done the same thing to Owen Wilson). Jackie, stick to working with Chris Tucker. You two work the best together. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. BennettL.
    Jun 20, 2004
    7
    Decent, for what it is: a kid's movie. I wouldn't call it "educational", but there are enough world historical and cultural references which kids might feel rewarded to recognise: Van Gogh and Starry Night, the Wright brothers, etc. I would not recommend having your child check out the original book: it is somewhat racist in its treatment of foreign cultures (which is understandable for the time period in which it was written). I think this Jackie Chan vehicle does a great job of giving the story a modern makeover, although the kung fu did get to be a bit too much for my tastes. The funniest line, about naming a steak after Lord Salisbury, met with deafening silence from the audience. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. JanA.
    Jun 30, 2004
    10
    This was a hilarious and very fun movie. I was delighted by it because it wasn't the predictable fare that I see everytime I go to the movies lately. Two Thumbs Up! I needed the laugh!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. ChadS.
    Aug 11, 2004
    4
    Since "Around the World in 80 Days" is so slack in the period detail department, why not just give the film a contemporary setting. Jackie Chan is a walking anachorism. We don't need a barrage of derogatory reminders that he's Chinese, but one confrontation about his heritage, would've gone a long way in reminding us that it's England, 1899. Steve Coogan and Chan don't need to be tight like Sidney Schanberg and Dith Pran, but they have very little chemistry, which is probably due to Coogan's lack of chopsocky spirit. "Around the World in 80 Days" is a Jackie Chan film; an inordinate amount of time is spent in China, when the key to this film's success would've been a breezy excursion around the world, not around Jackie's. Steve Coogan, so brilliant as Tony Wilson in "24-Hour Party People", is miscast here, because he's too anal and can't fight. This film was obviously made for the young and sexy demographic, but the problem is, they'd rather see "Around the Galaxy in 80 Days". Those familiar with the 1956 version, starring David Niven and Sir John Gieguld, will feel alienated by the gentrification of an utterly English institution. But maybe this is a good thing; this is progress. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. HarrisonB.
    Aug 8, 2004
    8
    Around the World in 80 Days was funny. Jackie Chan was hilarious, and very good at Martial Arts. My favorite part was when Arnold Schwarzenegger came in. The only thing I didn't like was some of the parts were a little silly.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. CaptainCraig
    Feb 20, 2005
    6
    If you approach this as a kids move you will enjoy it. Has nothing to do with the original except the basic story plot. Jackie is fun and as always non-offensive.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. ChuckM.
    May 31, 2005
    7
    Pretty good movie, as long as you don't hold it to the standard of the original book. I viewed this as "based on the novel" and not a re-telling.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. Robin
    May 21, 2007
    7
    Its a fun and pleasurable movie. Its just something for people to enjoy when they just want to enjoy some simple, mild entertainment. There are parts that is funny and amusing in a mild way. Its best for kids.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. GregT.
    Nov 8, 2004
    7
    This film is a cute family/kids film. Any parent could sit with their 8 or 12 year old child and enjoyably watch Jackie Chan smash his head into a post or leap 12 feet into the air and wipe out at least 8 Oriental Gentlemen. Or fly through the air by bicycling. It is all for the entertainment of children and achieves its purpose.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. DanS.
    Dec 1, 2004
    8
    Hollywood needs MORE innocent, playful adventure movies like this that appeal to all ages. Felt like a classic Disney adventure, and it felt good.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. JayK.
    Jun 17, 2004
    9
    The movie was a lot of fun. I especially liked the end sequence. Yes, it's a family film; and yes it's light & thin. But it doesn't pretend to be anything but light family fun and it succeeds.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. CameronS.
    Jun 25, 2004
    8
    Great family fun! Nothing like the book but it is still a fun family adventure. Kudos to Jackie Chan and the cast of making a really good family movie. Better than Fahrenheit 9/11 and White Chicks.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. ChandlerS.
    Nov 15, 2004
    9
    Excellent Movie. Extremely funny. The plot and pace of the movie worked very well, not a dull moment in the movie. I highly recommend watching it!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  21. Nov 2, 2010
    8
    screw the critics. I don't care if its bad. this movie is perfectly harmless and the jokes are really funny. thats all I have to say.
  22. Jan 7, 2011
    5
    It's a standard Jackie Chan film. Timing directed cheap action on a beautiful story. This movie it's just a pale shadow of the '56 movie.
Metascore

Mixed or average reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 33
  2. Negative: 10 out of 33
  1. 60
    As the tourist on a time budget, the usually brilliant Coogan merely mugs and flails (we can only imagine what Johnny Depp would have done with Fogg), while he and able straight man Chan enjoy scant opportunity to develop any comic rapport.
  2. Despite its contemporary touches Around the World in 80 Days is a satisfying slice of old-fashioned storybook entertainment.
  3. With the exception of one masterfully choreographed - and improbably bloodless - martial-arts gang fight, the new version of Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days is one of the lamest remakes of a classic film I've ever seen.