Directed by Harald Zwart

This movie suffers from comparisons. As discussed in my review of Steve Martin’s first The Pink Panther, it gets compared to the Peter Sellers’ movies and that actor’s performances as Inspector Clouseau. This second Steve Martin film, The Pink Panther 2, suffers from the same fate but also from comparisons to the first movie with Martin as Clouseau.

For me, the comparisons with Sellers were dealt with in the first Pink Panther. But comparison to that first Steve Martin Pink Panther are warranted, especially when this second movie is called Pink Panther 2. Sequels invite comparison and with such a title, are almost demanded. They are, after all, rooted in the first.

So, to deal with that and to be brief, while it has its moments, it’s not as good. The question is: why?

To be succinct, it tries too hard. There is much more, but in a nutshell, that’s it.

For one thing, it is less coherent – rather a bizarre word to use when discussing a movie such as this where a well-constructed storyline is not the point or even what is expected. But it comes across as much too episodic and with far too many scenes for the sake of the scenes.

I think there are two things that lead to this impression. The first, and as is discussed in one of the very brief features, the filmmakers wanted “more.” This is usually the case with sequels. Whatever worked the first time, do it more and make it bigger. But I think one of the things that works for the Pink Panther movies, both the Sellers films and the first Steve Martin, was an almost subtle set-up process. In Pink Panther 2, the jokes, largely slapstick, are set-up almost winkingly. It’s almost as if they’re being announced ahead of time.

The end result is a sense much like the one you get when someone, who is not a storyteller, tries to tell a joke and keeps doing things like saying, “Okay, now get this. Here it comes. The guy says — this’ll kill ya — Ready for it? He says …”

And so on. In other words, he kills the joke with an over pronounced set-up. In Pink Panther 2, there is almost nothing unexpected. You see the jokes coming.

The second thing that leads to the impression of excessively episodic are the romantic storylines, which I suspect are contributions from Steve Martin, both in the first and second film. It seems to match his sensibility. Whatever the case, they seem to demand more coherence. And much as I like them, and think they may be what pulled me in with the first film, they create a conflict with the “maguffin” of a thief, a storyline that exists only as an excuse to put Clouseau in comic situations. And a storyline like that, in a movie such as this, can pretty much go anywhere, at anytime, and an audience would likely go along because they’re aware on some level that it is only an excuse for comedy. But a romantic storyline engages much more and, I think, makes the audience want the story to make more sense.

In order to make the movie “bigger” and “more,” Pink Panther 2 pulls in many star names (all of whom need their scenes) and creates more elaborate Clouseau disasters. But for me, what I wanted more of was Nicole (Emily Mortimer), especially Nicole and Clouseau together, as well Ponton (Jean Reno) and, again, Ponton and Clouseau together.

What we get in Pink Panther 2 are Ponton as an afterthought (no room with all the stars that had to be there so it could be “bigger”) and Nicole almost as a prop, or plot device. In both cases, relationships that provided some of the best comedy in the first film, partly due to a degree of understatement, are here over-pronounced. Both the friendship with Ponton and the romantic aspect with Nicole go from being whispered to being shouted in the need to be “bigger” and “more.”

The twist Steve Martin brought to his first interpretation of Clouseau was character. There was a sweetness to his ineptness and refusal to articulate his feelings. Sellers may have done the same with his Clouseau, I don’t recall. But I do know that it is not what is remembered of Sellers’ Clouseau and so it allowed Martin to bring something new, or at least something that seemed new.

That bit of character he brought to the role was almost exclusively through the scenes with Nicole and Ponton. They were quiet, understated moments, the kind you miss if you’re not paying attention.

In Pink Panther 2, the need to jack everything up a notch kills this aspect, although you can see the filmmakers try to retain it. It doesn’t work. It’s lost because something quiet made loud loses its appeal. It’s simply an overblown plot device.

As mentioned above, it’s bizarre to say about a slapstick film but the over-stating aspect is what deflates the movie. I think this may be because the first movie, while being slapstick, was also something more than slapstick. It wasn’t a huge aspect, just a gentle, subtle note that ran through the movie. In Pink Panther 2 it is gone, replaced by excess that essentially eliminates it.

Having done all that complaining, it should be said that there are some very funny moments in the movie. Some of the slapstick works remarkably well. And I can attest to the fact that I was laughing. The scene with the wine bottles, for example, is hilarious and beautifully choreographed and executed.

But overall, some of the best aspects of the first movie are either abandoned or reworked in a way to divest them of their charm. I don’t think I’d call the movie bloated. Rather, I think it’s wrong-headed. As often happens with sequels, more is less and that’s the case here. Too much really is too much.

Yes, Pink Panther 2 made me laugh. So what’s the difference with the first Pink Panther? That movie made me laugh and feel good.

I guess my criticism of the movie is, ironically (given what I’ve said), I wanted more.

Directed by Blake Edwards

I have to be honest and say I never quite understood the popularity of The Pink Panther movies. Overall, to me it always seemed they had great comic scenes but by and large didn’t hang together very well as movies.

The best of the lot, however, has always been A Shot in the Dark. It is definitely the strongest script. But as with many of Blake Edwards movies in the sixties, all its great elements seem to be countered with bad ones.

Part of this is the result of changing sensibilities. Movies moved more slowly in the sixties; they didn’t have today’s frenetic editing. Sometimes this is a good thing but in the case of Blake Edwards it isn’t. I’ve always thought Blake Edwards’ biggest weakness was in not knowing when to leave well enough alone. He enjoys his setups so much, he can’t seem to bring himself to get out of a scene when he should.

Similarly, this has always seemed to me to be the problem with Peter Sellers in films. His scenes often tend to go just a bit too long. Either Sellers or his director can’t seem to stop when they should. The films rely too much on Sellers to carry all the weight.

Still … If you have to have too much of something it might as well be Peter Sellers. His best Inspector Clouseau is in A Shot in the Dark. It’s not too much, and not too little. The slapstick isn’t excessive; it seems to be just right.

The film begins with an extended setup scored by a very sixties sounding, Henry Mancini song. The movie is a sex farce masquerading as a traditional murder mystery. It’s up to Inspector Clouseau to solve it. Hi-jinks ensue, as they say. (The opening, however, doesn’t move fast enough – at least not for someone more conditioned by today’s movies. Even for an audience of the sixties, I think this goes on just too long.)

As with most Edwards films of this time, the rest of the movie is an arranging of various set comic pieces. For the most part, they’re brilliantly executed. There are also running jokes (such as the police van) and a wonderful supporting cast of characters such as Herbert Lom’s Chief Inspector Dreyfus, Elke Sommer’s Maria Gambrelli and the impeccable George Sanders as Benjamin Ballon. (Watching Sanders’ deadpan face as he watches Clouseau is one of the film’s highlights.)

The key to this movie is execution. There is nothing innovative or brilliant in the script. It is standard story elements, standard comic setups, and so on. But the way Edwards, Sellers and the rest of the cast and crew execute is what makes this movie work.

It may also be that this is the best of the Clouseau movies because in this one he is not quite a complete caricature. There are some identifiable human qualities to him that are primarily seen in the relationship he has with Elke Sommers. It’s not deeply developed by any means, but there is some degree of depth to the Clouseau character which helps to establish a relationship with the audience. (In later movies, Clouseau was almost entirely the caricature of the bumbling inspector.)

The DVD is pretty basic, as is usually the case with MGM releases. There are essentially no special features, though there is an 8 page booklet. The quality of the image is good (as is the audio) though certainly not great. But for the price, it’s a pretty good deal, especially if you like Peter Sellers and Blake Edwards.

Originally published in 2002.

Now that I’m seeing ads for The Pink Panther 2 (due for release in February, I believe), I thought it might be a good time to discuss The Pink Panther, the 2006 film based on the Blake Edwards and Peter Sellers films. As I recall, when it came out a few years ago it was less than warmly received by the critics. At least, the few reviews I saw were not enthusiastic.

So … why do a sequel? According to the numbers, this ill-advised movie did rather well. According to the site The Numbers, the movie cost an estimated $80,000,000. It made, worldwide, $158,926,474. In DVD sales, it made $23,131,141. That’s a total of $182,057,615. So, when you subtract the budget, the movie earned $102,057,615.

A hundred million dollars seems incentive enough to make a movie. This is the cynical view, of course. But movies, certainly Hollywood movies, get made in order to make money. (I shouldn’t have put in the reference to Hollywood. Any filmmaker who manages to drum up financing for his or her film has gotten that financing from people or companies that hope to make money.)

With The Pink Panther, the 2006 edition, we have a movie that was, according to many critics, if not bad certainly not very good. Yet it made over $100,000,000. Apparently someone, somewhere, liked the movie.

I was one of those someones.

Yes, I liked it. In fact, liked it a lot. I’ve watched it many times and, each time, it has made me laugh, which is what the movie intended to do. It’s light, it’s fun, it’s funny. It’s thoroughly silly, but I’m a big fan of silly. It even has a few warm, sentimental moments that work, at least for me. (I loved Emily Mortimer and Jean Reno in the movie.)

However, the movie faces an uphill battle. A very steep uphill battle. And that is the legacy left by Peter Sellers and Blake Edwards. Roger Ebert states the problem perfectly in his review:

“What is the moviegoer with a good memory to do when confronted with ‘The Pink Panther,’ directed by Shawn Levy and starring Steve Martin? Is it possible to forget Blake Edwards and Peter Sellers? It is not.”

I’m old enough to remember all those movies when they came out, and have seen them off and on over the years, but I didn’t have the same problem as Mr. Ebert. In fact, while I enjoyed the movies, I was never a huge fan of them. With Sellers, I loved movies like The Party, Dr. Strangelove and Being There (to name a few), but the Pink Panther movies … I was always just lukewarm on them. Though I do recall the look of Clouseau and certain scenes are still very vivid (and funny) for me.

Others, however, are in the Roger Ebert camp and I can understand their problem. I suspect, however, that the people who allowed the 2006 entry to the Clouseau movies to make so much money were much younger and/or less cinema aficionados than most reviewers. The audience were less rooted to the previous films and thus more open to this Pink Panther and its own merits as a movie.

The film itself is structured much like the earlier movies in that it’s somewhat episodic. The plot is really just a way to connect a number of comic scenes highlighting the ineptitude of Clouseau and the unwitting victims of his fiascos. It’s very much slapstick comedy, very visual.

(I find it interesting that a friend of mine, who has not seen the movie, often goes into the hamburger routine from the movie – the mispronunciation that goes on relentlessly.)

For me, Steve Martin was a happy bit of casting in the role of Clouseau. It fits his comedic persona, at least that of his earlier days. In the L.A. Times review, Carina Chocano makes mention of Martin’s jerk persona meeting Seller’s idiot and I think that’s true, though I think it’s semantic slight-of-hand to suggest there is a difference in the terms. The point is that both find comedic mileage with the type and so, with Martin as Clouseau, you have someone who slips into the Clouseau character relatively easily.

When you combine this with Martin also being one of the writers on the film, you also get some of his sensibility which brings an additional dimension to the film, one that isn’t found in the Blake/Sellers films. At least, not as I remember them. This is the dimension of warmth, for want of a better word. It’s not an overwhelming aspect of the movie, but you do get something more than comedy in Martin’s Clouseau and his relationships with Nicole (Emily Mortimer) and Ponton (Jean Reno). Those characters and their relationships, and their interactions, also make for some of the funniest scenes in the movie.

In sum, I liked the movie. I imagine the filmmakers knew they would likely get something close to a roasting, however good their film was, simply because this was not a Sellers as Clouseau movie. But for those who can get past that, and keeping in mind humour is a difficult thing to finesse, I think this is an enjoyable, funny, light-hearted movie. One I continue to watch.

3 out of 4 stars.

Directed by Shawn Levy

Now that I’m seeing ads for The Pink Panther 2 (due for release in February, I believe), I thought it might be a good time to discuss The Pink Panther, the 2006 film based on the Blake Edwards and Peter Sellers films. As I recall, when it came out a few years ago it was less than warmly received by the critics. At least, the few reviews I saw were not enthusiastic.

So … why do a sequel? According to the numbers, this ill-advised movie did rather well. According to the site The Numbers, the movie cost an estimated $80,000,000. It made, worldwide, $158,926,474. In DVD sales, it made $23,131,141. That’s a total of $182,057,615. So, when you subtract the budget, the movie earned $102,057,615.

A hundred million dollars seems incentive enough to make a movie. This is the cynical view, of course. But movies, certainly Hollywood movies, get made in order to make money. (I shouldn’t have put in the reference to Hollywood. Any filmmaker who manages to drum up financing for his or her film has gotten that financing from people or companies that hope to make money.)

With The Pink Panther, the 2006 edition, we have a movie that was, according to many critics, if not bad certainly not very good. Yet it made over $100,000,000. Apparently someone, somewhere, liked the movie.

I was one of those someones.

Yes, I liked it. In fact, liked it a lot. I’ve watched it many times and, each time, it has made me laugh, which is what the movie intended to do. It’s light, it’s fun, it’s funny. It’s thoroughly silly, but I’m a big fan of silly. It even has a few warm, sentimental moments that work, at least for me. (I loved Emily Mortimer and Jean Reno in the movie.)

However, the movie faces an uphill battle. A very steep uphill battle. And that is the legacy left by Peter Sellers and Blake Edwards. Roger Ebert states the problem perfectly in his review:

“What is the moviegoer with a good memory to do when confronted with ‘The Pink Panther,’ directed by Shawn Levy and starring Steve Martin? Is it possible to forget Blake Edwards and Peter Sellers? It is not.”

I’m old enough to remember all those movies when they came out, and have seen them off and on over the years, but I didn’t have the same problem as Mr. Ebert. In fact, while I enjoyed the movies, I was never a huge fan of them. With Sellers, I loved movies like The Party, Dr. Strangelove and Being There (to name a few), but the Pink Panther movies … I was always just lukewarm on them. Though I do recall the look of Clouseau and certain scenes are still very vivid (and funny) for me.

Others, however, are in the Roger Ebert camp and I can understand their problem. I suspect, however, that the people who allowed the 2006 entry to the Clouseau movies to make so much money were much younger and/or less cinema aficionados than most reviewers. The audience were less rooted to the previous films and thus more open to this Pink Panther and its own merits as a movie.

The film itself is structured much like the earlier movies in that it’s somewhat episodic. The plot is really just a way to connect a number of comic scenes highlighting the ineptitude of Clouseau and the unwitting victims of his fiascos. It’s very much slapstick comedy, very visual.

(I find it interesting that a friend of mine, who has not seen the movie, often goes into the hamburger routine from the movie – the mispronunciation that goes on relentlessly.)

For me, Steve Martin was a happy bit of casting in the role of Clouseau. It fits his comedic persona, at least that of his earlier days. In the L.A. Times review, Carina Chocano makes mention of Martin’s jerk persona meeting Seller’s idiot and I think that’s true, though I think it’s semantic slight-of-hand to suggest there is a difference in the terms. The point is that both find comedic mileage with the type and so, with Martin as Clouseau, you have someone who slips into the Clouseau character relatively easily.

When you combine this with Martin also being one of the writers on the film, you also get some of his sensibility which brings an additional dimension to the film, one that isn’t found in the Blake/Sellers films. At least, not as I remember them. This is the dimension of warmth, for want of a better word. It’s not an overwhelming aspect of the movie, but you do get something more than comedy in Martin’s Clouseau and his relationships with Nicole (Emily Mortimer) and Ponton (Jean Reno). Those characters and their relationships, and their interactions, also make for some of the funniest scenes in the movie.

In sum, I liked the movie. I imagine the filmmakers knew they would likely get something close to a roasting, however good their film was, simply because this was not a Sellers as Clouseau movie. But for those who can get past that, and keeping in mind humour is a difficult thing to finesse, I think this is an enjoyable, funny, light-hearted movie. One I continue to watch.

3 out of 4 stars.