MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
You are ALL crazy! This movie is COMPLETELY and utterly valueless, boring, unentertaining and unfunny trash that should never have been made!
There's no vision, charisma or interesting story, and the performances couldn't be more cringy.
HOW can anyone like this and not be crazy?? Of course you are crazy, or at least have no taste or understanding of what makes a movie good.
I wish they had rather have cast(ed?) him than Steve Martin, as much as I love other Steve Martin movies and think he's a genius in them.
"In Bizarro World,"
THIS WORLD is not Bizarro enough for ya??
It's almost completely the opposite of a good world in every possible way.
"That ridiculous put on accent."
"Put-on"?
Yeah, watch the Steve Martin version, and Arkin with his accent will seem like a pair of geniuses.
Let's see.. there was Steve Martin, Alan Arkin, Roger Moore..
..I feel like I am forgetting someone, but probably not that important, must be a forgettable performance.
... well, let's just say that's 'feminism at its finest', while still doing the whole 'let's exploit men by showing scantily clad female bodies'-bit.
I seriously can't get into any of these movies, or understand why they made so many of them, when CLEARLY the humor didn't work most of the time even WITH Peter Sellers, and NEVER without him.
It's sort of miraculous how they got things SO wrong with SO many movies.
The first movie is ridiculously boring, it's very, very hard, if not impossible to watch it from beginning to the end without skipping anything or falling asleep or both. I would probably skip it in my dreams after falling asleep.
The second movie is better, but still very boring and doesn't quite work - it doesn't entertain enough, and even though some people seem to hold it as some kind of example of a good 'The Pink Panther' movie, I just can't see it.
This movie is boring, unfunny, un-entertaining and complete trash in pretty much every way possible, except of course the gorgeous 1960s sets, houses, cars, and so on. Sadly, the 1960s didn't ooze the kind of electric energy as the 1980s, so movies made in the 1960s tend to be boring in any case, unless someone expressly makes them energetic somehow (plus, the musics are really slow).
The modern remakes are just poor man's Johnny English - and those movies are nothing to write home about to begin with.
The 'clip show' movie is just weird, boring very annoying - Peter Sellers' random scenes from random periods and other movies, or so it feels. It doesn't quite mesh, pretty awful exploitation.
The Return of the Pink Panther is the only one of these movies I would consider 'good', and even that has boring bits you absolutely need to skip, but Sellers' magic comes through loud and clear in that one.
The.. what was it, 'Strikes Again'?, where Dreyfus becomes a supervillain, is quite ridiculous, and still manages to be a bit boring, and is no longer the 'best Sellers' - it's kind of hard to watch if you have ever had a toothache as well, and it's easy for your attention to wander.
The 'son' movie.. I just don't like that actor for some reason, he comes off as a poor man's Steve Martin that tries to look like Laurel - or was it Hardy?, and Steve Martin himself is awful on his 'The Pink Panther' movies. The female characters..
"I just get the feeling that people start watching this movie determined not to like it. "
Your feeling is wrong.
I am watching all these movies to evaluate, or re-evaluate them - I remember them as boring, stupid and silly waste of time, but often I have changed my mind once I have matured and seen things from a different perspective.
I am hoping, half-expecting and seeing whether that will happen again with these movies, so I have no eggs in any basket or any dog in the race. I certainly don't watch any movie determined to not like it - what would be the point of that? I WANT to enjoy movies, so I ALWAYS hope I will and can like a movie when I start watching it.
The rest is up tot he movie.. only IT will determine whether I will like it or not. If it's good, I will like it. If it's bad, I won't like it. Sometimes there have been exceptions, but your feeling is definitely wrong - in fact, it's almost the opposite for this movie for me; a reviewer trashed this movie and said it doesn't work, and I was - IF ANYTHING - 'determined to prove him wrong by finding something delightful about this movie' - perhaps they aren't mature enough, perhaps they can't appreciate certain things, perhaps...
...yeah. This movie IS trash, sadly. I wanted it to NOT be, so you are completely wrong.
When a movie you REALLY want to like and prove you can find something good about, turns out to be complete trash, it's a pretty big proof that the movie IS trash. If there WAS something good to be found about these movies, I would definitely have found it.
I guess in that sense, Steve Martin's movies are actually congruent; their quality is very much like this movie's. This movie might get a smile or chuckle out of me at some point, but those modern remakes were so bad, only the second one got one (1) chuckle out of me, the first one got nothing but 'I want to vomit and run through my window simultaneously just to escape the boredom and unfunny cringe of this movie'-reaction.
Every dog bites, it's just that WHAT they bite is not always the body of a human being, and it is the human's responsibility to make sure the dog only bites the appropriate things, like the food the human gives the dog.
It's not the dog, it's the human behind the dog. These movies have TERRIBLE dog handlers, and in one of the movies (A Shot in the Dark, I think), a herding breed is not given a correction when it does its breed stuff - it attacks and focuses on the feet, as you can clearly see. It's like someone never corrected a sheep dog and just let them do whater it wants, and then they used THAT in this movie. These herding dogs always go for the feet, but if you let it go too far, it becomes dangerous, as this dog's clueless handler or owner clearly did.
It's painful to watch these dogs in these movies, but it's even more painful to see that no one ever gives any dog a proper correction.
I know, comedy and all, but it's still painful to watch. It doesn't matter if it's 'his dog' or not, no dog should ever bite a human being, and the dogs should always give a correction and proper followthrough, if they attempt to do something like that. It shouldn't matter WHOSE dog it is.
Also, it's a really stupid philosophy to think that a dog is the 'biting kind' or the 'non-biting kind', when it's REALLY the human behind the dog, and no dog should EVER bite humans, it's not a matter of what the dog chooses to do, it's what the human chooses to do or not do.
There are no dogs that either 'bite or not', there are just dogs with rules, boundaries and limitations, and dogs without rules, boundaries or limitations. The latter ones can bite, because no one ever corrects them, the former ones don't bite, because they are given proper corrections. It's not a matter of what kind of DOG it is, it's the matter of what kind of HUMAN handles the dog.
So instead of asking 'does your dog bite', he should be asking 'are you a good dog handler' or something like that.
Lay off the caffeine, will ya?
Saying 'The Pink Panther movies are great' (with or without exclamation points) would be like saying 'Food is great!'.
There is good food and bad food. There are mediocre meals, well-prepared cuisine, there are healthy snacks and unhealthy junk food and so on and so forth. One could describe different foods for days and not have enough time to explain everything about food and varieties of food.
The same goes with these movies; some movies are passable, some are OK, some are bad, some are HORRIBLE, some are bad for completely different reason, and so on and so forth.
Then there are the.. no pun intended.. GEMS.
If you think all the movies are great, you are someone who would think all food is the same. Surely you must understand the fallacy of such a viewpoint..
You could say this movie is pretty funny, but there's nothing in it that isn't done better and in a more funnier and energetic way in better movies, and Closeau is surprisingly dull and boring - as well as overly serious without much quipping - in this one. He even falls a bit towards the old 'Darling'-routine of the first movie, which almost made me tear out my hair.
It's supposed to be COMEDY, use funnier words than 'darling', damnit. There are zillions of 'terms of endearment' that would've been funnier than constant 'darling, darling'. It would've been comical if they had come up with some kind of original and inventive terms instead of 'darling, sweet darling'. This was done MASTERFULLY in the old TV show, ''Allo 'Allo', when they started calling each other names of vegetables and such, and climaxed the joke with mention of a 'heckuva soup' if I remember correctly. Beats repetition of 'darling' and 'sweet' ad nauseum without a punchline.
In that TV show, it was even done with a deadpan, serious delivery without ever trying to sound silly.
Sellers' schtick is very underdeveloped in this movie, he screams in an unfunny voice a lot, and makes other people scream unnaturally as well (In the 'explanation scene' near the end, just before he reverses into the table and accidentally turns it over, the all-white-dressed woman screams really annoyingly)
This is not yet a good movie, it's not yet particularly funny. It even opens slowly and annoyingly, we have to spend like 5 or more minutes with slow, crappy music while people just sneak from room to room. Yaaaaawn!
A lot of these movies are boring, others are pure cash cows.
Then there are the really weird attempts at something that didn't quite work.
Then there are awful remakes without Sellers, and that one mish-mash movie put together from leftover pieces.
In the earlier movies, the formula (if such even exists) hadn't quite been perfected yet, and they suffer from too much random stuff and boring "non-Sellers"-scenes, non-interesting stories and so on (this movie falls under that category - it's not QUITE there yet, even Cato/Kato isn't as funny as he's going to be later on).
Ultimately, this means that only 'The Return of the Pink Panther' is the PEAK movie in this particular 'franchise' (if you want to call it that).
I don't understand why they made the first movie (possibly the most boring movie ever), or the 'modern remakes' (possibly the WORST movies, at least worst 'reboots' or 'remakes' or 'sequels' ever, where the characters were not understood at all, and unnecessary crap was shoved in, perhaps in hopes that -something- would stick), but at least there is one redeeming movie.
However, even THAT movie comes with plenty of boredom - Niven would've been better in the role of the Phantom, this other, non-charisma dullface just doesn't deliver anything but yawns and boredom - simultaneously.
In 'The Return of the Pink Panther', Closeau's accent is the funniest, and people's reactions to him are the best, and his deadpan delivery of visual silliness is top notch, as well as Dreyfus is shown to be as mad, crazy and insane as he's ever going to get while still retaining his job, and after he loses it (in more meanings than one), what happens is just absolutely perfect and hilarious. Talk about the perfect ending to a movie!
I am watching these other movies just to see if any of them are any good, perhaps I have misjudged them. So far, it seems I was right the first time - the other movies are either boring, not fleshed-out enough yet,bad remakes with no value,etc
What kind of point would there be to just be created, live ONE incarnation in some randomly selected body and circumstances (you must think the Creator HATES crippled people and retarded-body visitors), and then that's it, no point, no continuance, no existence, when in that short time, even with a REALLY fast spaceship, you could only experience a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, minuscule fraction of even just the physical side, let alone if you start considering other dimensions and frequencies of existence..
Your nihilistic theory makes no sense, no matter how you think about it, and what I explained here, explains EVERYTHING perfectly, just like Earth being round explains every single phenomenon that have ever been recorded or studied about the planet, the moon, the other planets, stars, etc., but flat theories always HAVE to just leave some things as 'mysteries'.
Progidies being old souls = perfectly logical explanation (round Earth).
Prodigies just 'somehow happening', dunno = illogical, unnecessary 'mystery' (flat Earth)
Don't be flat, be round.
I think what you are TRYING to say is that kids don't view nudity as something bad or shocking, but adults feel ashamed about letting kids see nude people, so that's why nudity and sex is so much more controlled than war and violence. Then again, I saw plenty of nude people when my body was a kid (I never identified or felt as a 'kid', I was always telling people I am actually an adult, but of course no one took me seriously - I had a similar experience when I was completely sober one night when we were drinking heavily, but my physical body was drunk - it was a surreal experience and happened to me only once, but guess if anyone believed me when my drunken-sounding, stammering mouth in a body with bad balance tried to tell people that I am actually completely sober, it's just my body that's drunk..), and it felt natural and normal to me.
After all, human body is something we all temporarily inhabit, what's so special about whether it's clothed or not? I think it has to do with sexuality and arousal; it'd be deeply embarrassing to be part of causing something like that to inappropriate audiences, or something.
People need to stop this fantasy about 'blank slate' - kids are not created out of thin air, they are people with PAST, with memories, with experiences, skills, etc. You can't explain prodigies with any other way that would make as much sense - Mozart wasn't good because he somehow developed faster than other people. He was good because he had been practicing for numerous incarnations, and because of THAT, he reached an amazingly high skill level and understanding in the world of music.
You can never match his genius level no matter WHAT you do, because one incarnation is not enough for that kind of (or spiritual) learning. One incarnation is too short time for spiritual cultivation, and you can realize this thinking about how big the Universe is (or watching those youtube videos that have so much propaganda about things before they reveal the scales).
Fourth, you can't "possibly" know what other people can "possibly" understand at any age. You are not a blank state when you appear to this world, you come with past incarnations, knowledge, wisdom, skills, abilities, memories and understanding of ALL KINDS of concepts. Just because the body you are inhabiting isn't quite developed enough yet to give you access to express that understanding very eloquently, doesn't mean it's not there SOMEWHERE.
This means, 'the concept of shame' can be understood by someone living in a 1-second-old physical body, a newborn already knows all kinds of stuff, they have just forgotten a lot of it and their access to a lot of it is delayed due to requirements of the physical world - they HAVE to focus on the task at hand first, to learn how to live and cope in the physical side, to re-learn how to use vocal cords to form sounds and thus speech, and so on.
You'd be surprised how much someone I knew understood BEFORE they could speak. I asked them to point at things, and they always pointed at the correct thing, and this astonished me, as someone who can't yet even speak is not supposed to know or understand much, especially 'concepts'.
Fifth, who says 'nudity' equals 'shame'? First you say kids don't CARE about it, then you cay they can't understand 'shame' as a concept. Wait a moment, since when did we move from 'nudity' to 'shame'? Shame has nothing to do with nudity. Shame is a learned, psychological construct, when it has to do with natural things, like nudity (we come to this world nude, so why WOULD kids be bothered by nudity? After all, that's the first thing they (re-)know about this world!)
You can feel shame if you do something bad or unnatural, but to feel shame about a natural thing like nudity makes no sense unless it's been HAMMERED into you. Are you filled with guilt and shame every time you take a shower? Does using the toilet make you sweat profusely because of the shame of the nudity?
"Kids don't care about nudity. The first three years of our lifes we cannot possibly understand the concept of shame."
What blanket statements you write.
Some kids care about nudity, some think it's fun and clothes are bothersome, it doesn't occur to others to even distinguish between 'nude' and 'clothed', others might be enjoying clothes very much. Give a kid a poncho and watch them have fun with it.
Don't paint a group of people with a broad brush based on a bodily thing like physical age! It's no better than racism - in fact, it's the EXACT same premise, just focusing on number instead of color.
Obviously there's 'development of brain' and 'RE-learning' of values, ways and thought patterns of the physical world, but it doesn't mean the kids don't or can't 'possibly' (a stupid word to use here) 'understand' (whatever you mean by this) some concept. They might have forgotten about it, but that understanding is still within them, even if it's LATENT.
You have to realize sooner or later, that people are not CREATED by so-called 'birth' (which is only the creation of the physical body, that allows someone to comes to this world FROM a different dimensional existence we mostly visit when we dream and then forget, because the frequencies differ so much we can't retain the memories when we lower ourselves back to this level).
When you realize this much - you are not your body, you HAVE a body temporarily - you can begin to be shocked as to how much WRONG exists in your short post.
First, no one mentioned three-year olds specifically, so you drew THAT number out of your .. hat.
Second, the first three years of an incarnation are CERTAINLY not the first three year of anyone's life!
Third, you spell plural of life with a 'V', like this: "lives". You could have used a singular instead anyway - 'the first three years of our life' - it's almost as if you sub-consciously KNEW there are more 'lives' than one (incarnation, reincarnation, deincarnation and so on)
None of these movies are 'panther-movies' or even 'Panther-movies'.
These movies are never about panthers. They're originally supposed to be about a diamond, then they change into being about an inspector called 'Closeau', while often having the words 'The Pink Panther' in the title somewhere, regardless of if has anything to do with the Pink Panther-named diamond or not.
This movie, in any case, is just as 'The Pink Panther'-movie as ANY, and probably more than most, so I don't see your point in any case.
Do you have examples of what you mean? As far as I know, John Cleese is not racist.
Arrogance is one thing, but I think he can afford to be arrogant, having been an enormous success for most of his life.
What does anything you wrote have to do with anything the original poster wrote?
Would you please stop recommending him in every single post? I can't see Kevin Kline (with a K, by the way) as Closeau. I just can't see it.
Who could bumble as convincingly and yet seriously as Peter Sllers? The world is rapidly losing all the good comedians, like Leslie Nielsen, who is also best when he's doing something very deadpan.
Jim Carrey, even at his prime, would be too wacky.
Rowan Atkinson could possibly cut the mustard, as he's also quirky and good at bumbling, but it would just become another Johnny English, which he has already done, so it wouldn't be quite the same. He would of course be too old anyway already.
Robin Williams had same kind of amazing improvisational ability, but his style would be also perhaps too different, and also, he also left this world a long time ago.
If only one could go back in time and choose people from their prime, like some of the Monty Python people could possibly fulfill a role like this, as well as some people from the old TV show ''Allo 'Allo'.
Michael Richards? I mean, he seems to be kind of ... something... but the Kramer character does resemble Closeau somewhat sometimes.
Stephen Fry?
Yeah, I think maybe Mike Meyers would've been pretty good match, except that he can also be tediously and seriously unfunny, and there seems to be something genuinely weird about him, I wouldn't want to hire him for anything after watching that 'Let's mock indian culture'-movie, the name of which I forgot. Love Guru or something?
It's surprisingly hard to find a comedian able to pull off what Sellers did seemingly so effortlessly in these movies, although it doesn't seem like he's doing anything THAT special or doing anything that complicated.