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
Oh the 70's... safari suites, shiny puffy shirts, velvet jackets with lacy cravats, tape decks and huge, open topped convertibles. How could the 00's ever hope to compete on clothing, music and cruising around in those gas guzzlers??
Yes... I'm reviewing
The Omega Man - staring Charlton Heston
I am Legend - staring Will Smith
AND
Both movies are based on a 1954 novel by Richard Matheson, 'I Am Legend', which is generally acknowledged as the forerunner for the zombie genre and the notion of a 'worldwide apocalypse due to disease'. It was also the inspiration for the classic 'Night of the Living Dead' of 1968.
However, neither of the movies have stuck very closely to the original story line.
Where are the Vampires??
Matheson's novel, along with 1964's first attempt at getting the story to the big screen in 'The Last Man on Earth' with Vincent Price, both show the world overrun with vampires, not ...
Albino Cult Members
OR
Nasty, loud, super aggressive mutants
--- The Scare Factor ---
Now I'll be honest, when I first saw The Omega Man it scared me to death - and gave me nightmares for months afterwards... it was scary for 1971. But re-watching it as an adult, I giggled more than screamed! It's still creepy in parts though and there's no way I'd let my kids watch it - it would freak them out too!
Fast forward to 2007 and wow... now we're talking scary! I've seen this version several times and still can't watch (without half covering my eyes) the dog running into the dark building scene or the horrifying, full on assault of Will's 'fortress' near the end.
--- A Real Man ---
There are leading men (and there are leading men) and Charlton Heston plays the lead well. He is just all kinds of modern 70's man! He keeps his cool in most situations and he's in control.
He keeps a gun belt strapped around his leisure suite...
Bares his well haired chest!
AND
But he is also refined, a romantic, plays chess, is always cleanly shaven... with not a hair out of place.
AND
He drinks brandy from a brandy balloon...
He dresses to impress!!
Poor old Will just likes to sleep in the bath tub with his dog!
No - now that's too harsh. In Will's case, he feels responsible for the whole 'end of humanity as we know it' deal (he's actually right-he co-caused it) and has witnessed his wife and daughter blown up, while trying to escape an infested Manhattan. Also these mutants are completely bad ass, tear-you-apart-from-limb-to-limb and enjoy every moment of it, creatures. The Omega Man's mutants simply want to live a pre-industrialised life and burn Charlton at the cross!!
--- The Real Differences ---
There are so many differences between these two film that they hardly resemble each other. While Will hunts for food, Charlton hunts for mutants. While Will is constantly adjusting to the fear he has to overcome just to survive, Charlton is laid back about it all. While Will is quite confrontingly going potty with loneliness and isolation, Charlton has a few 'crazy' moments, but overall is quite relaxed.
The Omega Man also includes important social issues of the day, from interracial relationships, to views on the evil technology has brought upon humanity. I am Legend doesn't go that deep.
The Verdict...
I am Legend is amazing with it's action and fast paced, confronting, in-your-face scenes. Will's character is believable in the way a lone human, especially one obsessed with putting things right, could act. It is truly scary, on the edge of your seat viewing. One question though - what have those mutants been eating for the last few years??
The Omega Man on the other hand is quite cheesy. In its favor however, is that I really enjoyed the strong female lead, unusual for it's time and the inclusion of character development in actors other than the main lead. This made a much more interesting story overall.
So surprisingly my winner, by a narrow margin, is --- The Omega Man ---
By Sharon Bejjani Wow heavy opening, but really it could just have easily read
"If it bleeds, we can kill it"...
No, hang on a minute, that's another Arnie film -- Although it would have been a great fit for Conan the Barbarian.
Arnie always has great lines in his films, so when asked - "What is best in life?" - by the bad ass Mongol General, Conan (Arnie) replies:
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!”
... what a Barbarian!! As I've said before, love that Arnie, but Conan pushed me to my absolute limits of trying to like the film. In saying that, skip forward nearly 30 years and Jason Momoa didn't do much better!
Even the fluffy, animal skin undies, carnivore tooth necklace and studded leather head band couldn't save it for me.
Annabella was right in saying that the original provided a more realistic feel with it's settings and fight scenes. Even the witch craft and sorcery played minor roles in 1982, keeping the focus on the actual quest. As Annabella said, this was Arnie's vehicle to 'stardom', but Jason hasn't been so lucky - best keep that Game of Thrones contract alive. I can't really pick a winner here. Conan 1982 had a bit of a 70's porn feel to it, whereas the 2011 version had a better story line, great monsters (who doesn't like creepy, sand warriors and multi-headed snake creatures) and it had much better scenery shots. But I think the relationship side stories added more feeling to Arnie's Conan. So there you have it, by a slim shot, Conan 1982 slips in as my pick.
There
is no denying that Roald Dahl’s Charlie
and the Chocolate Factory is an all-time favourite children’s book. I
remember reading this book at least five times in school; I would imagine the excited look on Charlie
Bucket’s face when he found a golden ticket, the silky dark ribbons of
chocolate rippling down the waterfall and the Oompa Loompa’s singing cautious
warnings to the winners with funny and catchy lyrics.
Every
time the TV would be airing Willy Wonkaand the Chocolate Factory, I would
also make sure to stay home that night and enjoy all the tantalising sweets
shown, over and over again.
When
Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate
Factory, I was just as excited in experiencing the same excitement with a
touch of the director’s usual weirdness.
To
start things off, Mel Stuart’s adaption of Willy
Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) was very different to Tim Burton’s
approach. Stuart’s direction was aimed for children and I felt it was more
family friendly. The music was very animated and lively which I found to be
very suitable for his film. However with Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), it wasn’t “cartoony”
enough – I just don’t think the kids would like it! But on a positive note, in
Burton’s film, it was very modern and not old-fashioned.
In
WWatCF, there wasn’t much character
development which I felt was important to understand why the naughty little
children and Wonka act as they do. It was a good move on Burton’s part to
include in CatCF more character
development; for example, Violet Beauregarde’s competitive personality stems
from her mother’s insistence on being the winner.
Both
films proved to have provided good actors (even for kids, which I hear is very
difficult!); especially Stuart’s choice in picking Gene Wilder as the title
role. I felt that the dialogue was very well delivered in the 1971 film, and
fell a bit flat in the newer adaption. This could be because both directors
were using the same source material and certain things such as dialogue and
scenes would remain the same. I should quickly add – I particularly enjoyed the
graphics and CGI of the CatCF and I found
it very visually stimulating.
I thoroughly enjoyed the two different
approaches that Stuart and Burton undertook in portraying the Oompa Loompa’s. I
liked how in the 1971 film, they were all different shapes and sizes and how
they provided comedic look about them. In the 2005 movie, the Oompa Loompa’s
were portrayed by one actor with tricky CGI or whatnot, but I still enjoyed the
amusement that came along with it.
It’s
not surprising that I favour Willy Wonka
and the Chocolate Factory; ever since I can remember I sat in front and
centre of the television waiting for this the film to air and trying to sing
along to the songs. I adore how this movie was very family friendly and how I
could relate and empathise with Charlie Bucket and his grandfather, Joe.
However in saying that, I did enjoy all of Tim Burton’s trademark quirkiness
and how Johnny Depp portrayed the eccentric chocolatier.
.jpg)
.jpg)
