Michael Anderson's elongated, award-winning Around the World in 80 Days has the reputation of one of Oscar's great calamities, another example perhaps of the Academy's willingness to praise anything bright and shiny and more importantly, big.
-
The film, however, is hardly a real catastrophe, in fact, it's quite pleasant at times. Truly, it's more successful as an exotic travelogue than a compelling drama and thus is pleasant in the way that kicking your feet up with a beverage on a cool, breezy day is.
-
It truly is a matter of excess over substance, with master showman-producer Michael Todd sparing no expense, filming quite literally around the world and collecting an envious all-star assemblage of renowned international starpower, occasionally turning the film into a veritable "who's who?" when the adventures of Phileas Fogg and his companions catches a rut or two along the way.
-
In this respect, Around the World in 80 Days becomes more about the "production" than the "film" and no one would bother to argue (including me) that this isn't at least the majority of where the appeal of the film stems from.
-
And thus is where, I suspect, the film's stinking reputation comes from as a product of a time where movies were made to be huge and not necessarily good. Nevertheless, as long as we're not discussing a film's awards merits, I'd like to go back and watch those title credits again, if you don't mind. [B-]
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment