MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
I am trying to rewatch these movies now to be fair, as I happened to bump into these modern remakes, so I got interested in the whole 'The Pink Panther-phenomenon', as my previous opinion was that only 'The Return of the Pink Panther' is worth watching, and even that has boring bits when Sellers is not on screen.
It's pretty amazing how many movies they made, how much they ABSOLUTELY MILKED this whole phenomenon, and that they even made a cartoon (or few) about this stuff.
It's also amazing how they didn't seem to have ANY idea about what to do with the characters or the whole premise, so they experimented with all kinds of stuff. If I remember correctly, the best part was the commissioner completely and utterly hating Closeau, and yet Closeau innocently being able to escape the consequences of his hatred.
In some sense, the modern remakes, as COMPLETELY AWFUL as they are, aren't that far off the mark, considering there are some real stinkers among the movies, sometimes even with Peter Sellers in them.
So, as I am re-watching these, I am also re-evaluating each movie and this whole 'franchise' as a whole, and trying to understand what the core point of all of it is (so far, it looks like Peter Sellers' unique comedy style is the main reason for the existence of these movies, not the story or the usefulness of the big diamond or whatnot)
These modern remakes are not really that different from the 'Johnny English' movies, except that even those movies are better than these ones (then again, what movies wouldn't be)?
BTW, why the heck does a real japanese actor mis-pronounce 'Kenji' so badly? The way he stretches the 'i' is just ridiculous.. 'Kenjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'
In any case, what kind of casting would make sense in a franchise that makes no sense from the beginning to the end? I guess right now I would evaluate this whole thing only through 'The Return of the Pink Panther', so if I had to make a casting choice, it would have to reflect that.
Instead of butchering both the english language and people's names (How does 'Ubcool' become 'upcool'?), why don't YOU just learn some english and perhaps buy a better keyboard, understand that english has something called 'capitalization' and that there is such a thing as SHIFT-key in existence...
Maybe then someone could actually try to decipher what you are actually trying to say with your verbal vomit that's stinking up these boards.
"Somone"?
I think you are correct, when you look at Sellers, you can feel the intensity and serious intentions of this man, and that makes the comedy all the funnier.
When you look at Steve's version of the character, you immediately feel like he's faking something to try to make you laugh, he's TRYING HARD to be, sound and act 'ridiculous' so you would laugh. Sellers comes off as a GENUINE CHARACTER, Steve's version comes off as a RIDICULOUS, STUPID CARTOON.
It wouldn't EVEN be that bad, if he was at least funny. But he isn't.
Sellers DIDN'T HATE the 'The Pink Panther' movies. He couldn't have been so brilliant in something he hated, and also, he wouldn't have CUSTOMIZED the movies to his comedy style if he had hated them. Maybe he hated them BEFORE he customized them, but come on.
I can understand him hating the VERY FIRST movie, as I am pretty sure I have never tried to watch a more boring movie. It's almost miraculous as to how horrible and boring that 'movie' is.
To add - would ANY studio really put their foot down against someone this famous that's GUARANTEED to bring them big bucks? WHAT DO THEY CARE what the script says as long as they get the money? I mean, would someone really NOT let Steven do what the damn ever he WANTS to do in a movie, if Steven has good, comedic ideas?
Do you really think Steven and his lawyers couldn't NEGOTIATE a contract that gives him creative freedom?
WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?!
"..be given some creative freedom."
Freedom can't be given.
Also, he's one of the wealthiest and most famous people on the planet, and you think he needs to "BE GIVEN" creative freedom?
If some college students can make a successful comedy with nothing but a hand-cranked camera and their mom's oven, why would someone with tens of millions of dollars need to be _GIVEN_ 'creative freedom'? ANYONE can have creative freedom (within reason) - you don't need to be GIVEN that by any studio.
Steven is so rich, he can easily form his own studio, buy a studio, build a whole mansion that's nothing but a damn studio, he can afford to buy cameras, hire actors, write scripts, there's _NOTHING_ stopping him from having 100% creative freedom!
He just doesn't CARE to make anything creative. I have creative freedom with no money, I have a pen and paper, I have a laptop I can use to make music with free software with my self-sampled mouth-made instrus edited with some other free software.
I can make pixel art and animations and comics with my old Amiga, why would someone as rich as Steven need to be _G_I_V_E_N_!?! any kind of 'creative freedom'?! In your opinion, SUPER RICH PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE CREATIVE FREEDOM without some pre-established studio GIVING it to them?! HUH?! WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?!
Nothing is limiting Steven but Steven himself. HE needs to give himself creative freedom, not any god damn studio!
Hey, it's just a comment post in a discussion board! No need for so many exclamation points.
" Steve as low as Chevy Chase? No one can be as bad as Chevy Chase."
Will you stop insulting great comedians that have proven to be more successful than you?
(Success doesn't mean money in this case)
Chevy Chase is HILARIOUS in many movies, but he became a cringy sellout, like pretty much all great comedians seem to. Maybe they just burn their flame so brightly, it dies out so then they have nothing left but greed.
"Steve Martin has become one mild and money-crazy guy. What a jerk!"
Beautiful!
You made a nice pun of his old 'wild and crazy guy'-identity he used to spread around, and even pointed to the title of a movie he made ("The Jerk").
Brilliant.
"Steve Martin was never very funny."
Wrong.
He has, for a long time, been one of the funniest comedians on the planet.
He's not funny in these movies, but watch something better, like 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles' to see when he still had a soul and comedy in his heart, and I DARE you to not laugh when he performs on screen, just try it. If you still don't find him funny, the problem is with you, and it's a deep-seated psychological issue that can't be fixed, solved or cured.
It's you again. You can't even spell 'Martin' correctly, so your lies are not believable. If you REALLY admired someone's movies, SURELY you could at least type their name.
Also, please learn english already, your posts are a PAIN to try interpret and convert to something legible.
" And better of some of the original Pink Panther movies (only half of them were watchable)."
You mean, 'better THAN'?
In any case, the original 'The Pink Panther' movie is a real marathon to endure, one of the most boring and painful movies to watch and try to not fast forward (I couldn't do it, I had to start skipping after the misandristic, bulgy-eyed whiskey-voice hag that wears 2 tons of make-up started claiming any man that doesn't imprison himself and condemn himself to 'eternal work-camp' by tying himself to naghag wife and kids is somehow INSANE, while implying that wife and kids are a REWARD instead of shackles).
So sure, I'd rather watch THIS movie than that first 'The Pink Panther' movie, even if the great Peter Sellers IS in it - he's not doing anything too interesting anyway, and the movie feels like it never, ever ends, it has so many opportunities to end, but it just keeps going.
Then it keeps going some more.
There's a REASON some things are 'priceless'.
You can't buy a spiritual insight, inspiration or Zen.
In any case, 'art' is an actual toilet glued to the wall (someone did this to parody what others call 'art', but people took it seriously, so it BECAME 'art' - this tells EVERYTHING anyone should know about 'art').
Anyone that respects 'art' is an idiot who doesn't know what's going on in the 'art world' right now. A blank canvas called 'untitled' was sold for millions, if I remember correctly. A blue line on white background, just a completely blue canvas - these kind of things are called 'art', and they are HIGHLY valued in coins.
However, even a kid without no artistical sensibility whatsoever can tell the difference between something painstakingly created by Raffaelo and a toiled glued to the wall or just a blue line on a white canvas called 'Untitled'.
'Art' is anything you want it to be, so it CAN be a thing of beauty, but if it can ALSO be a turd stain on Pollock's work trousers, the word means absolutely NOTHING, at least nothing good.
If a toilet glued to a wall and a blue line on white background can be ART, then I don't want to associate that word with anything good. Steve Martin doesn't seem to understand any of this, so it pains me to say it, but one of my favorite comedians and people I USED to look up to is a horrible, cruel, selfish monster that doesn't give a crap about anything TRULY VALUABLE, and spends his money and our money that we pay for his crap movies for completely worthless causes and fuels the modern 'art world' that is a travesty in itself.
How low the mighty have fallen, how deep into the abyss they have shoved themselves in. I can NOT respect this !@%#hole any deeper than I can shove him up his own ar5e.
You are telling the truth, so I must agree.
I am wondering the same thing, it's VERY hard to believe this is the same man that made me lough so hard I almost fell out of my chair in 'Planes, Trains & Automobiles' and some other stuff he's been in.
It's like someone replaced his soul with a talentless hack, so now actual Steve is gone, but his body is still here, animated by something other than the genius it used to be.
I mean, I can't understand what happened, so I am grasping at straws, but it IS such a puzzling mystery. One of the top 5 funniest comedians I've ever known about suddenly becomes among the top 5 UNfunniest talentless hacks I would never, ever want to see again.
What the F happened... and how?
If Hap is right, then it means Steven has sold something important, divine and true art just so he can buy crap some morons have fabricated, just because those things have a big price tag attached to them.
If your hobby or "passion" (yeah, right!) is 'buying', especially something that has to always be 'expensive', and then you even want something called 'art' in your possession, there's NO HOPE for you and you have no taste, clue or understanding of what creativity or beauty is.
Why buy an expensive, ugly bunch of ink and paint splashed on some fabric by some famous, talentless hack, when you can just go to actual nature and witness the most fabulous, DIVINE-created art in the world?
You can admire Hubble nebula and deep space, galaxy and planetary photos for free - what could be more beautiful and amazing art than THAT? Not to mention it's so big in scale, it's not even for sale (I don't mean the pictures, but the actual nebulae, for example)?
Anyone that thinks "art" is valuable, just because of a number written on a cheap pricetag, is a hopeless cause, clueless pedestrian, unwashed moron, and barbaric philistine. Money doesn't necessarily guarantee value, worth or goodness in something, but rich people seem to think it does.
You lost all credibility at this statement - you laughed at them both? Hmm.. AT them? Well, sure. I guess you can laugh at how bad they are, so you are laughing at their expense, not because they are funny or contain any humor.
Watching Steve Martin trying to do some spanish dance makes me wonder how can the same guy have been SO funny in other movies, and even in the seventies stand-up. Is this even the same guy, maybe he was cloned and switched or something? I am grasping at straws, but holy cow, there has to be an explanation.
Funnier than the first one - that's not SAYING much, because the first one is NOT FUNNY AT ALL. At all!
This is certainly funnier than the first one, because I had one small chuckle so far, it was something so stupid, I couldn't help myself.
Maybe I'll have another chuckle at some point, who knows. But 0 chuckles vs. 1 chuckle means the latter IS funnier, so technically, you are correct.
Why is Cato a politically-incorrect character? Is casting a chinese actor politically incorrect for some reason? Look at what they're doing NOW to appease the CCP... China is always some kind of praiseworthy thing, and can never be shown in a bad light whatsoever.
But Cato was a respectable, good character that most people like, a good servant and all. Is it because the 'servant' position? How sensitive can you get?
In any case, it's GOOD they didn't cast Cato, because it's like not having any original character making a cameo - everything good was removed from this movie.
This way, Cato didn't get tainted, and that can only be a good thing. This movie would've absolutely defacated on the character, so it's good Cato escaped this horrible fate, just like Closeau's boss and the actor as well. Phew!
Don't simplify. Everything requires more complex answers to be honest. You can't just like or not like something, there are shades, variations, colors, complexities, different things to consider, different perspectives and so on.
I LIKE this movie, because it underlines the brilliance of Peter Sellers and the funniness of the original movies.
I HATE this movie, because it's a horrible turd and insult to Peter's legacy.
See? You can see things from many perspectives. Also, why only concern yourself with like or non-like, when there's also hate?
I mean, one, zero, minus one. Why limit yourself to one and zero, that's like removing the HATE button from youtube. Yes, I know youtube didn't have the guts to call it that, so they had to water it down to 'dislike', but that word shouldn't even exist, there's no such thing as DIS-like, which sounds so neutral anyway.
It's like you LIKE something, then some maintenance man comes and inverts it, so now it's a DISlike. Why not 'unlike' or 'sublike' or 'antilike' or... yeah. HATE is the opposite of like, so just hate already, and do it honestly!
In case you're wondering, 'love' is a word used so wrong in this world anyway, but even so, hate is not the opposite - fear is the opposite of love.
Is "okay" or "alright" the thing you want from an actress of a big budget movie? Why not cast a talented unknown instead of talentless popular 'known'?
It's all about the money, dum dum dududum dum... even the singer that SANG that lost herself in the world of wealth and power.
It's not that 'Don't cast Beyonce' (learn punctuation and capitalization, what the hell is wrong with people? If you don't know how to write, DO NOT POST, you're worse poster than Beyonce is an actor!)..
..it's more like 'Why do they SHOVE her into so many bad movies'.
I want to know the reason besides money. It's exactly like that terrible Austin Powers sequel - hard to even believe it's an Austin Powers movie, it's so awful.
I don't know if Beyonce RUINS these movies, or if she's deliberately cast to movies they will know are bad, or if it's just the greed that ruins the movies, and Beyonce is just the symptom of that greed, but at least you will always know when you see her name, that it's gonna be a BAD movie.