Why is this movie so popular?

I agree that, although I did love Sellers as Clouseau, The original Panther film is overrated. The plot is so damn convoluted for a comedy, and nothing about Niven is funny, and he has more screentime then Sellers.

That's why A Shot in The Dark is so much better and funnier.

I disagree with a number of comments. I'm 20 and I think that the original is possibly the best. These days it's so easy to create humour out of slapstick comedy, childish voices, gimmicks, obsurd, sexual innuedos etc.

I think this film is terrific because it fits so well together. It's theatrical, but never outragious by most standards (not even the grand finale with the fireworks is that over the top).

To me, subtle comedy, although hardly belly laughs, is great because you can enjoy the jokes not only for being funny, but well written and well acted. That's skill.

its not great I would classify it as cute and its very very slow paced it was created at a time when people had more patience.

The Steve Martin Pink Panther movie is not a remake, it's a reboot.

in terms of physical comedy, in 1963 Dick Van Dyke was doing funnier stuff every week on TV than what Peter Sellers does in this entire movie.

but if you're looking for Jim Carrey's influences, go watch a Jerry Lewis movie. Any of them.

I did not care for this film very much, but I did like Peter Sellers' later Pink Panther films in the mid to late 70s the best. He is hilarious in those films. I am almost as old as the original too. I thought he was great in Being There.

Expecting Bundle Number 3 in April..
The Divine Genealogy Goddess

A childish question (you ARE a child, no?).

You could not possibly know how much you don't know, or what is impossibly out of your reach forever. This is one of those things. Having been raised, I must presume, by Sesame Street, and MTV, or whatever crap raised you, you have extremely dulled or destroyed aesthetic sensibilities.

Know this: I recall seeing this film when it was released (I was ten) in NYC at a theater with a packed house (uh...that means, "sold out.") The audience laughter was virtually continuous, and at moments, defeaning. Everyone thought the film immensely entertaining.

Does THAT answer your question as to it's popularity?





Actually, no it doesn't answer the question. Its a rather idiotic response as a matter of fact. If someone asks why so many people think a film is funny, "because so many people think its funny" is not an answer. Typical of some people though. If someone disagrees with you resort to name calling. It's such a mature response.

I agree with the OP. I don't see the appeal of this movie and because of that I never watched the sequels. Having read some of the more helpful responses in this thread however, I will give them a shot (in the dark if you will)No thanks to you.

Why do people have to resort to age putdowns? This film is just plain dull when Sellers is not on screen, and I saw it when it was first released.

What's so childish about the OP's question?

So the OP didn't enjoy the film. I consider it to be one of my favourites. I don't see what watching Sesame Street or watching MTV has to do with liking/disliking this film. Just for the record, I watched both Mr. Dressup and Sesame Street when I was very young and I still adore this movie. I barely remember the Steve Martin remake, although I thought at the time that it was okay (but nothing special).

By the way, the phrase "a packed house" is still used today.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

"A childish question (you ARE a child, no?).

You could not possibly know how much you don't know, or what is impossibly out of your reach forever. This is one of those things. Having been raised, I must presume, by Sesame Street, and MTV, or whatever crap raised you, you have extremely dulled or destroyed aesthetic sensibilities."

I never knew that Harlen Ellison had an IMDB account.

I'd be willing to bet that you were raised on comedy shown on TV after 1990, including reruns of "Giligan's Island," and/or, "The Brady Bunch," which means, essentially, you clueless regarding comedy.

"It's not meant to be a "roll around on the floor laughing" type of movie."

I don't agree with that. A movie's technical prowess doesn't prevent it from being hilarious, an though it's been a while since I've seen the first one, I do recall laughing a great deal.

Now I'm thinking I should watch these all again sometime soon!

I'm probably the only one on this board old enough to have seen this film in the theaters during it's initial run in 1964. I can tell you that audiences roared from beginning to end.

Sad that you don't "get it."

I'm probably the only one on this board old enough to have seen this film in the theaters during it's initial run in 1964. I can tell you that audiences roared from beginning to end.

Sad that you don't "get it."

The sequels were indeed much funnier.