MOVIE '80 Days' remake doesn't cut it

The film didn't have the cash to compete with the Oscar-winning original.
By CHRIS HEWITT
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
I don't know why they call it "Around the World in 80 Days." Watching it feels like it takes only five, maybe six days.
It's a what-were-they-thinking? movie not because it's horrible but because it's so difficult to imagine anyone eager to see it. Clearly, the idea was to reproduce the no-expense-spared, celebrity-cameo-filled experience of the original "80 Days," which was an Oscar winner 47 years ago. But they didn't have the cash to do that. So the sets are skimpy, and the cameos are bizarre. Instead of thinking, "Holy cow! It's fill-in-the-superstar!" we think, "Holy cow."
Is that Macy Gray? Isn't her career over? Rob Schneider's here, too. And, even worse, Arnold Schwarzenegger pops up to continue Jesse Ventura's tradition of cruddy gubernatorial cameos.
Mostly bland
Except for the "Home Alone"-style violence, "80 Days" resembles frenetically bland '60s comedies like "Fitzwilly." The film is loosely based on Jules Verne's novel about a 19th-century inventor (Steve Coogan), his valet (Jackie Chan) and a love interest (Belgian actress Cecile De France, which means two-thirds of the leads speak iffy English), trying to circumnavigate the globe within 80 days to win a bet. To beef up Chan's role, the movie makes him the main character, which is a mistake since it forces the story to turn the brilliant inventor into a dope.
There is the potential for amusement here. The design of the film charmingly recalls pop-up books, and Coogan's self-deprecating wit would be perfect for his role if he'd been given any clever lines. As it is, when someone tells his character, "Most people would laugh at you but not us," we're forced to agree: There isn't much here to laugh at.