'Pink Panther 2' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Nate has reviewed 'Pink Panther 2.' You might say he didn't like it. This Blu-ray has fairly strong video, sorta weak audio, some fawning extras, and not much to recommend any of it. You can skip this one.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2349/pinkpanther2.html

[septim]

I agree with Nate, this movie was an abomination. I actually thought the first "remake" was alright, but this was a huge piece of shit.

So sad to watch an obvious Steve Martin stunt double do lame slapstick schtick. Pitiful.

[Mark Booth]

Wow Nate, tell us what you REALLY think!

Seriously... I laughed out loud at your first paragraph. And that's all I needed to read to know I won't be bothering to rent PP2. The first Steve Martin PP was bad enough (which is tough for me to admit, because I am a BIG Steve Martin fan). If this one isn't better, I won't waste my time.

Mark

[InspectorToschi]

The only reason I saw this (And the first one for that matter) is because of Steve Martin. There's so many bad films out now that even a poor Steve Martin film is enough for me to go to the theater. It's bad when the film is merely an excuse to get out of the house...

Not that I'm trying to defend the film, but all this being said, Pink Panther 1 and 2 are harmless fun for young viewers. I'm assuming thats who they're aiming for. Ya, it's easy to trash them when they're following Peter Sellers. Personally though, I would actually rather watch SM's two Panther films instead of 4 from the original series. Inspector Clouseau with Alan Arkin was awful IMO. Same Goes with "Trail", "Curse", and especially "Son" of the Pink Panther.

Though Sellers initial four from Pink Panther, Shot In The Dark, to "Return" and "Revenge" are classic IMO. They should have stopped while they were ahead.

[Motorheadache]

Originally Posted by InspectorToschi

Though Sellers initial four from Pink Panther, Shot In The Dark, to "Return" and "Revenge" are classic IMO. They should have stopped while they were ahead.

Hell, they should have at least stopped when Peter Sellers was NOT ALIVE. Trail of the Pink Panther is a very bizarre attempt to fake a character's presence when the actor playing him has died.

[mictrmbl]

Originally Posted by ZollyPlexReturns

Personally i enjoyed the movie, and i would hardly call the extras fawning. how can you not like the 3 hours of classic pink panther cartoons,the gag reel was quite funny as well. well worth the 23.47 i paid for it . . . and funny how the reviewer calls andy garcia,john cleese, and jean reno(all of whom still are seen quite often still in the multiplexs) has beens.

You hit it right on the nail. While this sequel wasn't as funny as the first one, this one is still very good. I couldn't help but detect an unfair bias and contempt from Nate for this movie, which I daresay clouded his mind to unfairly judge the video and audio. The first looked and sounded great, and I'm sure the second will be just as good if not better.

[RoadLizard]

Originally Posted by InspectorToschi

Though Sellers initial four from Pink Panther, Shot In The Dark, to "Return" and "Revenge" are classic IMO. They should have stopped while they were ahead.

Yes, they should have. For all the anger I hear when they remake other types of films it surpirises me when you hear nothing of the blasphemy that these remakes are. And, I like Steve Martin a lot. Its nor his fault. Probably needed some cash.

Whatever.

[project-blu]

Originally Posted by mictrmbl

You hit it right on the nail. While this sequel wasn't as funny as the first one, this one is still very good. I couldn't help but detect an unfair bias and contempt from Nate for this movie, which I daresay clouded his mind to unfairly judge the video and audio. The first looked and sounded great, and I'm sure the second will be just as good if not better.

uh huh...2 things wrong here.

1- you said this film was very good. that's like saying "hey i murdered someone before" as an excuse to try to get out of jury duty. some things are best never admitted.

2- 4/5 and 3/5 are respectable scores, and the reasonings why they got said marks are detailed.

cry foul all you'd like (as your post history shows, you do like to do such), but believe this or not, i write and score the audio and video reviews BEFORE i sit down to write out the film section. there are more to reviews than just the star ratings, you know, words in bunches, forming sentences, that explain how the scores were come to. WHARGARBL, much?

[Dr Kain]

Just because it is a new series with a new actor does not make it bad, it makes it different. It aims to be funny, and that is what is achieved, what more do you want? It is not supposed to be the Peter Sellers series, otherwise it would have Peter Sellers. It is Steve Martin's series, just like how Daniel Craig's Bond is Daniel Cragi's and Connery's Bond is Connery's.

[damonous]

Originally Posted by ZollyPlexReturns

Personally i enjoyed the movie, ...

...and funny how the reviewer calls andy garcia,john cleese, and jean reno(all of whom still are seen quite often still in the multiplexs) has beens.

Originally Posted by InspectorToschi

...Personally though, I would actually rather watch SM's two Panther films instead of 4 from the original series. Inspector Clouseau with Alan Arkin was awful IMO. Same Goes with "Trail", "Curse", and especially "Son" of the Pink Panther. ...

Both of you echo my opinion on the Martin Panther movies, to varying degrees. Actually, I'm much more with Zolly. I can't help it: maybe it's "wrong"; maybe no one else is laughing ..... but I'm barely able to keep my spleen from bursting every time I watch Martin as Clouseau. Take PP2: I had the free movie ticket from the PP1 BD (a double-dip for me, after having previously bought the DVD). I couldn't convince any friends to go, so I did the rare trip (for me) to go to the theater by myself on opening weekend.

And, while the fairly-well packed theater was fairly-well quiet for most of the show ...it was NOT quiet from my row. I was busting-up and cackling throughout the first half (although, I'll admit the 2nd half was not as good). I have yet to re-watch on BD, but it was a 'must buy' for me.

I have a friend who (like Nate) swears by Sellers ....yet, you'd have to hold a gun to my head to watch that guy prance about. You'd probably have to pull the trigger to make me laugh, too.

With Steve Martin, there's just something so quietly preposterous with him just walking into the room with that stupid Clouseau ego/conceit .....I'm already laughing before he's said a word. And, if the words he does utter have anything to do with a particular American fast food ....


I think the movie does deserve to be judged on its own right (and not on the basis of some 30yr-old movies that no one today is bound to go out of their way to watch on video). It's Steve Martin. It's funny.

[D_Strasse]

Originally Posted by damonous

With Steve Martin, there's just something so quietly preposterous with him just walking into the room with that stupid Clouseau ego/conceit .....I'm already laughing before he's said a word. And, if the words he does utter have anything to do with a particular American fast food ....


I think the movie does deserve to be judged on its own right (and not on the basis of some 30yr-old movies that no one today is bound to go out of their way to watch on video). It's Steve Martin. It's funny.

I just watched this last night and I have to thank Nate for his review. My expectations were so low, I REALLY enjoyed this movie.

I am totally with Damonous on this, Martin is just so absurd that I find him hillarious. Now the movie wasn't laugh out loud the entire way through but there WERE some really and truly laough out loud funny moments. In fact there was a spot at the beginning that had my wife and I completely cracking up. The middle and end were a little slower but I was happy to have rented it.

Considering the retail package comes with 3 hrs of classic PP cartoons I will prolly pick this up if I find it under $15.

Also, re: sellers, I have never seen (or can't remember seeing) him in the old Blake Edwards flicks. He might be funny as well, or even funnier, but I walked into this without the baggage of him owning the character and was able to enjoy this movie.

[mictrmbl]

Originally Posted by project-blu

uh huh...2 things wrong here.

1- you said this film was very good. that's like saying "hey i murdered someone before" as an excuse to try to get out of jury duty. some things are best never admitted.

The movie was very good. This isn't an excuse, but a fact.

Originally Posted by project-blu

2- 4/5 and 3/5 are respectable scores, and the reasonings why they got said marks are detailed.

I stand by my original remarks. It is more than obvious that Nate's prejudice against this movie tainted his supposition for the aq and vq in the negative. The first looked and sounded stellar, and so will this one.

Originally Posted by project-blu

cry foul all you'd like (as your post history shows, you do like to do such), but believe this or not, i write and score the audio and video reviews BEFORE i sit down to write out the film section. there are more to reviews than just the star ratings, you know, words in bunches, forming sentences, that explain how the scores were come to. WHARGARBL, much?

I am not crying foul, but simply holding him accountable for his review. You may find sub-standard s to be acceptable, I on the other hand do not. If a doesn't meet the highest of highest standards that the format allows for, then I'm going to point it out, as you so kindly refer to my post history; thank you.

[project-blu]

Originally Posted by mictrmbl

The movie was very good. This isn't an excuse, but a fact.

if you say so. ask nearly any critic and you're going to get the exact opposite opinion on this film. get used to it. 87% of critics called it a bomb. 87%. that's 5/6. or you can look at the other blu-ray sites. many found it to be equally dreadful.

I stand by my original remarks. It is more than obvious that Nate's prejudice against this movie tainted his supposition for the aq and vq in the negative. The first looked and sounded stellar, and so will this one.

if you look for a conspiracy hard enough, eventually you'll find it. by find it, i mean convince yourself of it. and by convince yourself of it, i mean, seriously, get over it. you don't listen to the horse's mouth because you have a preconceived notion of what the horse thinks. and that right there is the horse's shit.

I am not crying foul, but simply holding him accountable for his review. You may find sub-standard s to be acceptable, I on the other hand do not. If a doesn't meet the highest of highest standards that the format allows for, then I'm going to point it out, as you so kindly refer to my post history; thank you.

him? when you're replying to him, shouldn't you be holding me accountable? unless my reviewer persona and my forum persona have split.

ironic, when i find something substandard, it's in my scores, then it gets freaked out about. hmmm....doesn't sound like i found it "acceptable"...wait, that's not acceptable! think about your last sentence, and realize what the reviews on this forum are about. ironic, really.

[mictrmbl]

Originally Posted by project-blu

if you say so. ask nearly any critic and you're going to get the exact opposite opinion on this film. get used to it. 87% of critics called it a bomb. 87%. that's 5/6. or you can look at the other blu-ray sites. many found it to be equally dreadful.

Since when do my likes have anything to do with what a professional Critic thinks? Also since when do I have to like movies based on what others think? You can take your mind-indoctrinating critics (whom you obviously can't live without since you need them to dictate your likes and dislikes) and shove them down your brittle throat. And keep them there!

Originally Posted by project-blu

if you look for a conspiracy hard enough, eventually you'll find it. by find it, i mean convince yourself of it. and by convince yourself of it, i mean, seriously, get over it. you don't listen to the horse's mouth because you have a preconceived notion of what the horse thinks. and that right there is the horse's shit.

You're one to talk because from this vantage point you write like an inane cretin. Seriously.

Originally Posted by project-blu

him? when you're replying to him, shouldn't you be holding me accountable? unless my reviewer persona and my forum persona have split.

ironic, when i find something substandard, it's in my scores, then it gets freaked out about. hmmm....doesn't sound like i found it "acceptable"...wait, that's not acceptable! think about your last sentence, and realize what the reviews on this forum are about. ironic, really.

How am I supposed to know that you're the reviewer? It's not like you advertise it. For your information, I do know what these reviews are about, and let's keep the focus there: video, audio, and supplements. If I wanted your inchoate opinion on the movie itself, I'd go to a professional critic, not you! So please, whoever you are, stay on the subject and we'll both be happy. Great.

[Z0d]

Originally Posted by mictrmbl

The movie was very good. This isn't an excuse, but a fact.

I don't think you know what a fact is

Originally Posted by mictrmbl

I stand by my original remarks. It is more than obvious that Nate's prejudice against this movie tainted his supposition for the aq and vq in the negative. The first looked and sounded stellar, and so will this one.

So you haven't even seen the disc yet you acuse him of bias?

Originally Posted by mictrmbl

I am not crying foul, but simply holding him accountable for his review. You may find sub-standard s to be acceptable, I on the other hand do not. If a doesn't meet the highest of highest standards that the format allows for, then I'm going to point it out, as you so kindly refer to my post history; thank you.

So you have high standards, but are angered by reviewers not giving a disc perfect ratings? You sound confused.