I sometimes wonder how present-day movies would play to audiences sixty years ago. It's not so much the language, minority roles, or subject matter I wonder about, though. What would a 1946 audience think of the special effects of, say, Mission To Mars (the 2000 version, of course), or the pace of the story in Lost In Translation?
Tonight, we rented a movie that probably would have been accepted in 1946: Around The World In 80 Days. It was an old-fashioned, grand scale family movie, with just barely enough crudity to avoid a G rating. It's too bad it wasn't very good.
What bothered me the most was that it was turned into a Jackie Chan movie - and I happen to be a fan of Jackie Chan movies. It's just that, with Jackie Chan getting top billing, it meant that Passepartout became the main character, and Philias Fogg became just an excuse to move the fight scenes to different locations.
I've never read the book (I know I should), and I barely remember the original 1956 movie. I knew, somehow, that this remake wasn't very faithful to either. Jules Verne probably didn't write that many martial arts fight scenes into his novel. It wasn't until I watched the deleted scenes, with commentaries, that I remembered that Philias Fogg wasn't a crazy-genius inventor in the 1956 movie. I kind of remember David Niven playing him as a snobbish, humorless Englishman getting his eyes opened to cultures beyond his own.
Tonight, we rented a movie that probably would have been accepted in 1946: Around The World In 80 Days. It was an old-fashioned, grand scale family movie, with just barely enough crudity to avoid a G rating. It's too bad it wasn't very good.
What bothered me the most was that it was turned into a Jackie Chan movie - and I happen to be a fan of Jackie Chan movies. It's just that, with Jackie Chan getting top billing, it meant that Passepartout became the main character, and Philias Fogg became just an excuse to move the fight scenes to different locations.
I've never read the book (I know I should), and I barely remember the original 1956 movie. I knew, somehow, that this remake wasn't very faithful to either. Jules Verne probably didn't write that many martial arts fight scenes into his novel. It wasn't until I watched the deleted scenes, with commentaries, that I remembered that Philias Fogg wasn't a crazy-genius inventor in the 1956 movie. I kind of remember David Niven playing him as a snobbish, humorless Englishman getting his eyes opened to cultures beyond his own.