![]() That's the point I nearly buried my head in a sick bag. They really were corny.Ĭan I just point out the incredible appearance of Queen Victoria as Kathy Bates, just at the moment when you really wanted it to be Judi Dench which might have been a last-minute pleasure, it's Kathy bloody Bates who doesn't have a clue where she is.Ĭan we mention the totally nauseating appearance of Richard Branson. I was also very depressed to see an actor like Jim Broadbent hamming it up so much. If that's not cynical, I don't know what is. The reason it's Coogan is it's some tax break - it had to be a British actor. I don't think anyone with an IQ of double figures would go and see this film. It's like most modern corporate performances these days. Do you buy that?Īs soon as Disney says the word "noncynical" it's instantly cynical. The idea about this film is it's supposed to be, I think Disney said a non-cynical film which is for children or families. But the old lady, when she fell, I winced every time it happened. Cartoon violence is one thing, you see Mickey Mouse go smashing into the wall, you're not bothered. ![]() I am not surprised he didn't call him master. I was very aware Chan was calling the shots. So in a way it has been made more politically correct, but you didn't get that. In fact one of the things, the master-servant relationship has been dropped from the original film and Jackie Chan doesn't refer to Steve Coogan or Phileas Fogg as master. There was something light-hearted about them. If you think back, because I am so old I can actually remember films like the Great Race and stuff like that, they were magical. It's got no redeeming features whatsoever. The way it just tramples through the cultures of the world. It's actually racist, if you want to be really brutal about it. So there's nothing even remotely educational, with a small 'e', about it. The most worrying thing was if you took your children to see this film, not only would they be misinformed about any concept of geography, but it all operates on such a crass level. He was this ghastly old alligator colour. Some people will hate Arnold Schwarzenegger. Janet, Paul's eluded to the fact these cameos were there. I thought it was a real shame to see him do this kind of thing on the screen. It was kind of like he'd ended up in Vegas doing some sort of sad veteran season. It's more Chan's film off the screen than on. If you look at the credits you notice that Chan had a producer role as well. It's not just a double act but Jackie Chan is almost the lead character with Steve Coogan supporting him. It's also fantastic because as you go around the world you don't go around the world at all, for $120 million of a movie it's extraordinary. But he signals this through his timing, sometimes brilliantly so.ģ7th choice, at least. He is in the worst double act since Sam Fox and Mick Fleetwood. ![]() He is signalling to everybody that he knows that he knows it is appalling, he knows it's a terrible script. Steve Coogan actually plays a silly-ass Fogg, a romantic weed, and he plays it in a most peculiar manner because he is enriching his performance. Connoisseurs of bad films will have a great time, and as one I had a fantastic time watching this movie. (Edited highlights of the panel's review taken from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight Review.)īuried deep inside the many cameos, Mark Addy plays a sea captain with no nipples, but despite that and an appearance by Schwarzenegger as a Turkish Prince who looks like a member of the Darkness, it's not the worst film ever made. The Oscar-winning movie from 1956 has been re-made with Steve Coogan playing the globe-trotting Phileas Fogg.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |