Around the World in 80 Days is a lesser Best Picture winner, but it's still far from the worst. It has an epic scope and some inventive camerawork for its time, plus lots of detailed sets and varied locations, and plenty of cameos (but given the film's so old, modern day viewers will probably only recognise a couple- myself included).
It suffers from its length to a degree- it's almost three hours, and doesn't have an excuse to be that long beyond wanting to show off as many locations as possible. I feel like if they'd emphasised the ticking clock element inherent in the title (you know, needing to get around the world in 80 days or less) it might have stayed more engaging, but the characters barely seem worried about achieving their goal until the last 10 minutes or so.
Four years later, Shirley MacLaine would go on to star in another (much better) Best Picture winner, 1960's The Apartment. This is the kind of movie where back when it came out its flaws would have been more forgivable, but nowadays seeing lots of countries on screen in a short amount of time isn't as special. Fair for its day, and not too bad for today, maybe.
It suffers from its length to a degree- it's almost three hours, and doesn't have an excuse to be that long beyond wanting to show off as many locations as possible. I feel like if they'd emphasised the ticking clock element inherent in the title (you know, needing to get around the world in 80 days or less) it might have stayed more engaging, but the characters barely seem worried about achieving their goal until the last 10 minutes or so.
Four years later, Shirley MacLaine would go on to star in another (much better) Best Picture winner, 1960's The Apartment. This is the kind of movie where back when it came out its flaws would have been more forgivable, but nowadays seeing lots of countries on screen in a short amount of time isn't as special. Fair for its day, and not too bad for today, maybe.