Since Claudia has said enough about the story, so I'm going to skip it again. In terms of my point of view, I do find difficulties on understanding the sense of humour in the time of 1963. Therefore, I found 2006 Pink Panther more easy to understand. Indeed, I have to say some of the "funny moments" are a little bit lame.
Inspector Clouseau
To me I prefer 2006 Clouseau more than the 1963 one. Both of them have assent a french assent. However, Steve Martin has done a great job on giving just french assent but more funny one. Inspector Clouseau is meant to pretend he knows everything but he is not. Steve Martin has give me the best feeling that suits the character. However, like I said some funny was really too straight forward. They are not necessary to be humour but funny instead.
X factor
I have to say I have bias on 2006 because one of my favourite actor Jean Reno is there. He is a French Actor that actives in Hollywood for several years. Indeed, he does not have a huge role in the Pink Panther. However, he does a huge contrast on Inspector Clouseau that how dump Clouseau is. Well, it is often to have a trend nowadays is that the cast is always more important than the story itself.
Conclusion
I have to say 2006 wins because I don't really understand the funny part of the 1963 ones which makes me no point on commenting that a movie meant to be funny.
Rating:
The Pink Panther 1963: 4/10
The Pink Panther 2006: 5.5/10
I understand that there shouldn't be french that speaks like this but this is definitely why I chose 2006 instead.
I think its about time I did my own movie review as it has
been a while :P only because im a big fan of movies J
Now for all you people who have been living under a rock and
have not seen any of the Pink Panther movies …. And im not talking about myself :P
Pink Panther 1963
The first Pink Panther 1963, directed by Blake Edwards is
about a globe trotting bachelor who is a secret thief also called the Phantom
is Sir Charles Lytton. He is a super thief and he has not been caught by the
police worldwide for 15. However Inspector Clouseau, have been pursuing the
Phantom but he is always one step behind .. but he was able to pinpoint the Phantom’s
next target to be the Pink Panther diamond that is worn by Princess Dala. The
princess was at a ski resort in the Alps and so Clouseau travels to catch the thief
and as planed Sir Charles comes and charms Princess Dala and soon Sir Charles
becomes his number one suspect. But aside all the comedy of the movie the Phantomn
is nephew of Sir Charles.
Pink Panther 2006
Now don’t judge me that I didn’t watch the first film before
this but I had watched the Shawn Levy 2006 version as it had my all-time
favourite Beyoncé and Steve Martin. The same humours detective Clouseau is the
same however there is a new crime and adventure. But I felt I could relate and understand
this version better as it the world’s most inept detective returning to screens
in a modern slapstick comedy. In this case the Pink panther is the diamond ring
of Beyoncé that is stolen as it the world’s most valuable jewel. But it was
still the humour that caught the audience’s attention like the 1963 version.
Inspector Clouseau
Clouseau in the 1963 version was played by Peter Sellers and his crude comedy was in no comparison to Steve Martin. i laughed alot more during the original film as the humour and actions of Sellers better fits the character of Clouseau. Even though i watched the 2006 version first and had imagined Martin as Clouseau, Sellers is definitely the original Clouseau and maybe cannot be replaced .
Shooting and filming
Disregarding the obvious time differences of the times as the technology and ability of film techniques are different, but still Edward's was able to shoot a comedy film with a strong storyline. There were obvious differences in the location as the first film was mainly shot in the Apls and the second was in France. Due to better lighting and editing techniques, even though the 1963 was in colour it was still not the best quality we are used to watching but i was able to watch it and im very fussy when it comes to boring films.
If you havnet already be sure to check out both films as they are both great for a laugh or to watch from some relaxation :)
It's not from a lack of acting talent. You've got some standout actors from that era; Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, Sir David Niven, Orsen Welles, Woody Allen, Deborah Kerr and William Holden just to name a few - it's just that they don't have much to work with.
If the directors had gotten their heads and collective creativity together
- and brainstormed the movie in the first place -
maybe they could have made a really funny winner.
--- Hello Daniel Craig ---
Ok, I know I've carried on about Arnie in previous reviews,
but move over Mr Big and let Daniel take the spotlight...
I'm going out on a limb here, but I think Daniel Craig is the best James Bond to date!!
He adds a great 'coolness' to his Bond character and wow, can't he handle some great action scenes??
Swimming is action - right?
I think we've come to expect a certain type of movie from the Bond series and unfortunately, the 1967 pseudo-comedy just doesn't fit the genre. I still think it would make a great remake as a comedy - even done in a 1960's type setting - like the Austin Powers movies.
So, I'm with Gordon on the action, actors and love story and my winner (by a long shot) is...
Casino Royale 2006
For a fabulous action scene from Daniel's Casino Royale, have a look at the clip below!!
Down in 1967, I would not expect there are any animation and stuff that makes the movie more exciting. Even so, I found the overall story of 2006 is more exciting than the one in 1967. Perhaps 2006 has more people died in the story, which makes the story more interesting and mystery.
This time I would stop commenting on differences about the story. Perhaps it would be unfair to judge 1967 Casino Royale while it has technological disadvantages.
Daniel Craig Vs David Niven
To me, I prefer Daniel over David. Obviously the recent James Bond series have a trend of adding more and more fight scenes. Daniel acted more rough than that of David. I have to say David was a bit too gentleman, the way he speaks was not strong enough to impress me. At this point, A rough James Bond looks better to me.
Villain
Orson Welles is a good actor overall, he acted Le Chiffre in away that he acted like a powerful man. And I might understand that by that time, the typical Villain in that time. Normally, they are bigger in size and tell you he is the bad guy, even he doesn't act like one.
I think Mads Mikelsen is way better, he is another type of Villain which has wisdom against James Bond. He acted so sneaky, tricky and unpredictable. It would be what you expect from a Villain of new generation.
Vesper Lynd
Pretty Woman seems to be a feature of James Bond. This time again I prefer the 2006 Vesper Lynd. Eva Green the actress of 2006 Vesper Lynd, throughout the whole movie Eva Green was always be so mysterious. However, still good enough to fool James Bond. In the ending, Daniel Craig still forgive her and tried to safe her life. By that scene, 2006 Casino Royale manage to get a better love story than the one in 1967.
If I have to rate,
2006 Casino Royal 5/5
1967 Casino Royal 3/5
After all I want to make it clear that, the reason I prefer 2006, is because of Mads Mikelsen being a Villain. So 2006 Casino Royale Wins!!!
This is reblog of Sharon's review on The Omega Man and I Am Legend. So I am not going to repeat those story stuff. First thing first, I watch "I Am Legend" before "The Omega Man". Let me tell you about how I see those differences and similarities.
Vampires and Zombies
Vampires in The Omega Man have higher intelligent. Perhaps back in 70s the idea of zombies might not be that popular or back in those days there are lots of vampire movies.
Zombies based on my interpretation, they also afraid of daylights and they definitely are cannibal. However, they are not necessary high intelligent like "The Omega Man", they normally lost the scene of being a human. So in "I am Legend", They often act like berserk once they detected Humans.
However, I have to say "The Omega Man' has done a tremendous job down in 1970s. I cannot imagine such an innovative idea of such vampires or zombies apocalypse. Charlton Heston acted like a stand alone person fighting in the site and finding cure for those mutants. I would say it is more difficult for similar situation happens in 70s instead of 2000s.
My Favourite Scene
Despite the Meme's pictures, I do feel the death of Will's beloved Dog is the most touching moment. It makes me prefer I Am Legend than The Omega Man. Actually the dog is the only thing Will's daughter has left him. So perhaps in a stand alone area for nearly 3 years, Will and Samatha(The Dog) are like family.
I Am Legend Steal the House!!!
Despite the Omega Man did a really great job even in 1970s. Since those zombies in I am Legend more precise to me. And the storyline is a bit better than The Omega Man. Therefore I would say I am Legend over the Omega Man.
Rating:
I Am Legend 4/5
The Omega Man 3.5/5
Below is the Best scene in the I Am Legend.
Caution!!!! Do not click on this link without a box of tissues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuVNOR3I7hc
.jpg)
.jpg)
