Doctor Gonzo

Im still on the fence about this one - one of those "not quite best" best pictures (like the greatest show on earth) although they are both sort of guilty pleasures of mine. have any reviews been posted anywhere yet?

LasVegasMichael

I don't know about reviews, but I will definately be getting this one. I am, however, trying to collect all Oscar Best Pictures, though, so I would buy it irregardless of reviews.

nemein

Never seen it so I'll probably rent it first.

illennium

Not a word.

RobCA

Incomplete sentence.

I know, mine was too, so

Rob

layth1

I'm gonna pick it up. I always liked the movie and it looks like it's going to be a great DVD as well.

PatrickMcCart

Pre-ordered.

I'll post a review on the Home Theater Forum with screen caps... if this is a DVD done right, the caps should entice more buyers.

Pressplay

I'm getting it. What are we to expect regarding the bonus material?

Mao

Finally in its original aspect ratio? You bet I'm buying it!

eedoon

I'm getting it regardless what the bonus material is, but Warner has always been great with their 2 disc set, and I expect no less from this movie.

movielib

Absolutely. I've been waiting forever for an OAR copy of this film.

BTW, anyone looking forward to the new Disney remake coming June 16 with Jackie Chan playing Passepartout, becoming the main character instead of Phileas Fogg and using "his amazing martial arts abilities to defend Fogg from the many dangers they face"? (quote from summary on IMDb)

Wow, that looks like a disaster (although I could be wrong).

PatrickMcCart

Not really, but the idea was nice. Judging from the trailer and pre-release buzz, it lacks what the '56 had more than enough of... charm.

Now that I think of it, Jackie Chan was an excellent casting decision... but a lot of the excess baggage like making Fogg an inventor, the whole subplot on the "Jade Buddah", etc... just crap. Also, the cameos aren't nearly impressive as the '56 version... with $110 million in the budget, you'd think they'd try to aim for getting as many big names as possible. Arnie is impressive... and Kathy Bates and Jim Broadbent are greats... but Michael Todd was able to get Marlene Dietrich, Peter Lorre, Sir John Mills, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, John Carradine, Sir John Gielgud, Ronald Colman, and Sir Noel Coward. How many films have that many knights in just cameo roles?

Besides 3 character names from the book, the concept of going around the world in 80 days on a wager, and the title... it's a totally different story.

Adjusting for inflation and equalizing the 1956 and 2004 films... the 1956 film cost 6 million dollars to make (roughly 40 million in 2004 dollars) while the 2004 film cost 110 million (roughly 70 million in 1956 dollars!!!).

I hope I'm proved wrong. With 110 million at stake, I hope it does well.

Dan Average

It does have Steve Coogan, which is a plus.

marty888

I'll definitely be grabbing this one! For those who haven't seen it, there are literally dozens of cameos by famous performers. The closing credits (as I recall they run about 7-8 minutes) is basically an animated version of the entire movie with great caricatures to help you identify all those cameos.

Pelayu

of course I will

The Exister

I'll be getting it.

bboisvert

English is a fluid language. You can't claim something 'isn't a word' -- just that it isn't widely accepted or prefered usage.

Although I dislike 'irregardless', it is most certainly a word. It's what's known as a portmanteau -- a blending of other words('irrespective' and 'regardless'). Also sometimes called a blend or frankenword. Others would be smog, brunch, etc.

(I certainly agree that it's a silly, useless word that most careful speakers and writers do not use.)

Laser Movies

Yes I will be getting it. I'm just sorry I didn't preorder it at Columbia House while it was $14.95 and counted as a fulfillment title.

LasVegasMichael

Fortunately, I am neither a careful speaker nor a writer, so all is good, irregardless of your and his opinion.

illennium

Sorry, my statement was inaccurate. Still, I don't think it's a portmanteau so much as a vulgar amalgam of "irrespective" and "regardless." The other words--"smog," "brunch," etc.--all have meanings distinct from the words from which they are created. "Irregardless" just means "regardless."

Sex Fiend

True enough, actually. Those who follow lexicography are well aware that, although 'irregardless' has been certified as a 'real' English word for years now by the Oxford and (several) other authoritative dictionaries, it has only been accepted as such not because it had any original or elegant expression, but because so many undereducated English speakers use it as a part of everyday speech. When a word (even one that is essentially the result of illiteracy) passes into such popular usage that most speakers of a language accept it as having validity, lexicographers are somewhat forced to add it to the language. Another well known example would be "ain't".

LorenzoL

I picked up the DVD yesterday and after reading Patrick's review at HTF today, I don't regret it at all.

I have seen the movie when I was a child, and don't remember much of it, just that it had Cantinflas which I really liked. Going to spend some time over the weekend watching this movie.

marty888

How did this thread morph into "Around The Word In 80 Days" ?