Around the World in 80 Days (2004) | How Woke Is It?

Our VerdictMildly Woke

25%

Around the World in 80 Days2004

In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected speech. These reviews reflect personal opinions and not statements of fact.

What We Think

While ‘Around the World in 80 Days’ (2004) updates its cast and some character dynamics to suit modern sensibilities, it doesn’t aggressively ram ideology down the audience’s throat. It’s goofy, lightweight family fare with only mild ‘woke’ flourishes.

Score Breakdown

Compromised:Narrative Integrity

Mildly Woke

What is this?

While the film does update the original with a more diverse cast, most notably making Passepartout a Chinese martial arts expert played by Jackie Chan, it largely remains a slapstick adventure. Identity elements feel more like box-ticking than core to the story, but narrative isn’t fully overrun by modern ideology.

Compromised:Cultural Foundations

Mildly Woke

What is this?

Traditional gender roles and Western cultural norms are gently subverted, for example, with female characters given expanded roles. However, this is done for comedic and lighthearted effect, not as overt ideological messaging or attack on cultural traditions.

Compromised:Ideological Monoculture

Mildly Woke

What is this?

The film keeps things fairly apolitical, lacking obvious villainization of alternative worldviews. Some modernization is present, but it avoids heavy-handed moral posturing or pushing a single worldview as gospel truth.

User Reviews

No user reviews received yet.

Please leave a review and let the world know what you think.
Your review will be kept completely anonymous.

Your Review

Comments

Users Also Viewed

Movie poster for The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising

35%

10%

Movie poster for James and the Giant Peach

38%

10%

15%

Disclaimer: In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected as a form of free speech and freedom of expression. The reviews and commentary on this site represent personal opinions and interpretations. They are not statements of fact and should not be taken as factual claims about any individual, company, or creative work.