A tale of two movies

I'm a firm believer that remakes rarely outshine the original movie's acclaim.

To test my theory, I saw two very different films, both based on the Jules Verne classic "Around the World in 80 Days": director Michael Anderson's 1956 version and the latest effort from director Frank Coraci. After reviewing and analyzing both films, the classic wins hands down over this year's Jackie Chan rendition.

I judged both films on the following five categories: plot, acting, special effects, cinematography and length.

While the 2004 version was more visually appealing at times, its plot was far from perfect. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a "true romance" blossoms after Phileas Fogg catches a glimpse of travel companion Monique's leg. The newer film also strays far too much from the book. Instead of an epic journey around the world, it turns into a showcase of Chan's stunts and fight scenes. I couldn't recall any of the scenes two days later, while images from Anderson's film are still ingrained in my mind.

The cast of Coraci's movie places great emphasis on physical humor. The stunts, falls and animated expressions take talent, but I still feel that their portrayal of the characters lacks depth and emotions seem underplayed. Anderson's film had a much more in-depth perspective. The lack of physical humor forced the actors to pull spectacular performances. Humor came from dialogue and actors carried themselves as the characters they played, not high-paid stunt artists.

Technology sides with Coraci's version. The 1956 classic was plagued with cheesier examples of special effects - something I regrettably have to hold the older film accountable for. Modern advances have given moviemakers new techniques, including the green screen, which is digitally enhanced to simulate various backgrounds. The green screen allows Phileas Fogg to soar through the air. Coraci rushes the plot, but definitely tries to impress with the explosions and sweeping global views.

Anderson's film had some elaborate scenes of bullfighting, greenery and ships. On the other hand, Coraci's most elaborate scene is either the view of Fogg's house or the palace of Prince Hapi, played by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The cinematography seemed much more worldly in Anderson's original, and it gave me the sensation that I was present in the film.

In a day and age where people rush about most of the day and traffic stands still at rush hour, time is unforgiving. Anderson's "Around the World in 80 Days" was more than three hours long. Coraci's version is a polite hour and a half. Venturing to see the 1956 original is a considerable task and requires significant time. For those of us with shorter attention spans, 2004's "Around the World in 80 Days" is the solution. I found the original movie more rewarding, but as a student I don't have three hours to watch a movie.

Anderson's movie will always be the original film version of "Around the World in 80 Days." Comic relief from the real world comes in the form of Jackie Chan, but if you want a true movie experience, classics are the way to go.