Posted on 03/16/2006 1:35:32 AM PST by nickcarraway
In a world of movie remakes, it's not unusual to see a remake flop. Steve Martin's recent Pink Panther is, unfortunately, no exception. Take the first few painful minutes of the new film as a warning: it really doesn't get any better. Steve Martin is a very funny and talented actor, but that doesn't come through in this newest addition to the Pink Panther movies in which he plays the famously incompetent Inspector Jacques Clouseau.
Drawing from elements found principally in the first two films in the series, The Pink Panther and A Shot in the Dark, this latest film tells the story of stolen diamond and a beautiful heroine wrongly accused of murder. The film also includes actors Jean Reno and Kevin Kline who play the roles of the Inspector's sidekick and the Chief Inspector Dreyfus respectively. All of them did a fine job, but they didn't make a real Pink Panther movie.
In addition to that first tedious scene of Clouseau trying to park a ridiculously small Smart Car in a space big enough for a Humvee, the movie includes a lot of unnecessary references: Viagra jokes, allusions to Internet porn and sex, and a few extremely graphic -- but fully clothed -- sex antics. Despite these elements, the film is still rated a mere PG and, if the previews of animation films and ads for McDonald's are any indication, it is being targeted at a very young audience, namely children ten and under. It's an adult-themed film being sold to children, an indication of a substantial error marketing and production.
Now the original Pink Panther movies were never meant for children. They were adult films before the term came to include pornography. Starting with the 1963 film, audiences around the world were given a truly sexy cast of characters and very funny dialogue full of double entendres, chief among them Inspector Clouseau, brilliantly played by Peter Sellers. In fact, you get the sense that director Blake Edwards and his cast might even have been poking fun at the developing sexual revolution and they do it while keeping almost everybody's clothes on.
Take for example the dinner party scene in the first movie. The young and beautiful Princess Darla (Claudia Cardinale) invites the suave Sir Charles (David Niven) to dinner at her chalet with other elite guests in a ski village in the Italian Alps. Conversation turns to Sir Charles's Don Juan-esque romantic style.
PRINCESS: Well it seems to me, any middle aged bachelor who has never desired the basic rewards of wife and family and finds it necessary to occupy the major portion of his life making one conquest after another is trying to prove something that he can never possibly prove...that he is a man.
SIR CHARLES: A tired Freudian cliche.
PRINCESS: But true.
SIR CHARLES: I wouldn't know. I've never been on the couch.
PRINCESS: Not true. That's part of your problem.
In his pursuit of the notorious jewel thief the Phantom, Inspector Clouseau makes clear that he considers himself quite a debonair lover. This self-delusion plays out charmingly in the contrast between the inspector and his wife, Madame Clouseau (Capucine), who really is intelligent and a vixen in her own right. Unbeknownst to Clouseau, she's the Phantom's accomplice. As the movie ends, the Inspector unpredictably has become a national heartthrob, leaving the audience amused and yet not quite sure who's got the last laugh.
Similar humor plays out in the 1964 movie, A Shot in the Dark, which starts with a series of men and women sneaking in and out of each other's bedrooms. It's all fun and games until someone gets murdered. The prime suspect is Maria (Elke Sommer), a beautiful maid. Clouseau (still Sellers) is brought in to solve the case by those who hope he'll simply bungle it, similar to the plot in Steve Martin's Pink Panther.
As one murder after another occurs, each makes Maria look guiltier. Nevertheless, the story maintains its comedic character including a hilarious, but tastefully filmed, scene in a nudist camp. The revelation of the criminal at the end of the movie gives a new twist to the concept of "collective guilt." Taken in conjunction with the start of the movie, there's more than a hint of a morality lesson.
The new film will no doubt prove an "it'll do" DVD rental or airplane movie; but the script, the lewd humor, and perhaps our own time, will never allow the actors to make a real Pink Panther movie: something witty, sexy, and extremely funny. Without at least two of these elements, a comedy can hardly been a box office success.
If you want to watch a Pink Panther film, skip the new one and buy or rent the originals. For those who appreciate the occasional cocktail, by all means sip away as you watch and laugh. These films, especially the earlier films, provided a way for adults to laugh at themselves. And if children happened to be watching, as was the case when I was growing up, the innuendos and humor convinces them all the more that adults are simply a strange breed and not nearly so reasonable as a child.
Pia de Solenni writes from Washington, D.C.
I liked the original movie and I like Martin, but I saw the commercial and NEVER had any desire to see this movie.
With that, good night.
a bomb
The movie has actually performed well at the box office. It aint at Titanic levels, but it aint a flop either.
I have been a huge fan of all the original Pink Panther movies since I was a kid. Saw the last few in the theater, and I've owned them all on VHS and now DVD. BIG fan. But it never occurred to me to go see the recent Steve Martin remake for the same reason that I wouldn't buy a CD of other bands doing Beatles songs.
If you can't improve on the original, there is simply no point.
And NO WAY can anybody but Peter Sellers ever be Inspector Clouseau.
I've always liked Steve Martin as an actor, but he's no Peter Sellers, no one is.
Amen.
You're probably right, but I saw the commercials and the moview looks less funny than a Pink Panther cartoon. The kind of movie that is embarassing just to watch the promo.
Or buy a CD of the Beatles doing a song written by Berry Gordy.
that was my impression also.. once or twice through the painful looking preview was enough to convince me to skip it. I'm not sure there is someone out there who can do Clouseau better than Peter Sellers.
Don't you mean "a beaumbe" ?
An excellent point and an enduring commentary against most remakes out of Hollyweird these days.
There are some movies that certainly come out better in a remake, but sadly most of them turn out to be special effects showcases with inferior acting ruining the scenes with any potential.
Like the Batman series from '94. What a waste of celluloid. It bordered on cruel and unusual treatment of a movie audience. Michael Keaton, darn good in many roles, but NOT BATMAN. I'll stop before I go into an uncontrolled rant.
I wonder sometimes, after years of embracing liberalism, is there enough brainpower left in Hollywood to produce decent quality scripts that don't completely offend at least half the potential audience? It's not promising.
I feel that way about most remakes of movies.
I'm sitting her trying to think of a "remake" that I felt was better than, or even as good as, the original and the first one that popped into my head was "Last of the Mohicans."
"Ocean's Eleven" was a pretty good remake, "The Fly" was gorier than the original, but I still liked the Vincent Price one, LOL. "Cape Fear" and "Thomas Crown Affair" might belong on the list.
I'm sure there may be others, but I'm hard pressed to think of them.
Peter Sellers was a genius. Martin isn't.
"sigh"
Just saw M. Night Shamalayan's The Village, a horror film set in a 19th century utopian commune. Incredible dialogue -- the villgers speak in complete, elegantly-constructed sentances. Whooops -- this "exception" proves your rule -- this director is hard-core Pennsylvania, not Hollywood.
The upcoming "Miami Vice" movie is similarly non-exciting.
When half the movies that come out are remakes (and the other half are sequels or gay ranchers eating pudding), you gotta know that hollywood is not only morally bankrupt, but mentally and creatively bankrupt as well.
Remakes of perfectly wonderful movies (well, maybe except for King Kong) are horrible defacing wastes, akin to painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. What next, remake Citizen Kane? Wizard of Oz? Gone With The Wind?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.