quarterwavevertical
Joined Mar 2018
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews67
quarterwavevertical's rating
The main reason I watched this film was because of Cyd Charisse. I had seen excerpts of her final dance scene on TV and I wanted to see the whole thing.
To be honest, it wasn't worth the wait. Starting from the beginning of the film, I wondered what all the fuss was about. The plot is an incoherent mess and, frankly, didn't make much sense to me.
I found most of the musical numbers to be irritating, such as the shoeshine scene, and, in the case of "Triplets", cringeworthy. The final dance scene I mentioned earlier was part of a larger story which I found ridiculous.
Even the song "That's Entertainment" couldn't salvage this film.
Avoid this clunker.
To be honest, it wasn't worth the wait. Starting from the beginning of the film, I wondered what all the fuss was about. The plot is an incoherent mess and, frankly, didn't make much sense to me.
I found most of the musical numbers to be irritating, such as the shoeshine scene, and, in the case of "Triplets", cringeworthy. The final dance scene I mentioned earlier was part of a larger story which I found ridiculous.
Even the song "That's Entertainment" couldn't salvage this film.
Avoid this clunker.
I first saw this movie while it was still being shown in theatres in 1975. It was near the end of the registration week for my junior undergraduate year and it was, for me, a good way to being another term of studies.
The place was packed and, as I remember, the audience enjoyed the movie. I was unfamiliar with the background story as I hadn't seen either "The Pink Panther" or "A Shot in the Dark", so, by itself, I thought it was a pretty decent film and quite entertaining.
Now that I'm 50 years older and I saw the two preceding flicks, I find TROTPP to be somewhat disappointing. The first half of the movie was fun but, it seemed, the story ran out of ideas after that.
The Clouseau gags began to be tiresome and I found that the business with Dreyfuss had dragged on for too long, becoming ridiculous in the end. Even the Cato sketches quickly wore out their welcome--watching Clouseau fly through the air in slow motion and landing disastrously didn't add to the humour.
Switching geographical locations didn't make the story interesting for me, detracting from the overall plot.
I've seen "A Shot in the Dark" several times because it's a good movie which still makes me laugh. This one, however, doesn't come close.
The place was packed and, as I remember, the audience enjoyed the movie. I was unfamiliar with the background story as I hadn't seen either "The Pink Panther" or "A Shot in the Dark", so, by itself, I thought it was a pretty decent film and quite entertaining.
Now that I'm 50 years older and I saw the two preceding flicks, I find TROTPP to be somewhat disappointing. The first half of the movie was fun but, it seemed, the story ran out of ideas after that.
The Clouseau gags began to be tiresome and I found that the business with Dreyfuss had dragged on for too long, becoming ridiculous in the end. Even the Cato sketches quickly wore out their welcome--watching Clouseau fly through the air in slow motion and landing disastrously didn't add to the humour.
Switching geographical locations didn't make the story interesting for me, detracting from the overall plot.
I've seen "A Shot in the Dark" several times because it's a good movie which still makes me laugh. This one, however, doesn't come close.
I vaguely recall when "Being There" was made and in the theatres. It received high praise, particularly since it turned out to be the last movie that Peter Sellers made.
I started watching it earlier tonight and switched it off after about half an hour. One reason was that I found it boring. Nothing much happened in the story during the time I was viewing it. When a movie doesn't catch my interest within that time span, I do something else.
Apparently, it was supposed to be a comedy, but I failed to see any humour. Satire? Perhaps, but even that aspect quickly became tiresome. Sellers plays a character whose only connection to the outside world is through what he watches on television. OK, I get it: too much TV can distort one's perception of reality, but it seems that the movie has to keep reminding the viewer about that every few minutes, just in case one might forget it right away.
During the time since "Being There" was made, I kept putting off watching it. I vaguely recall attempting to do so once or twice but, this time, I was going to try and see it in its entirety. I wish I hadn't bothered.
I started watching it earlier tonight and switched it off after about half an hour. One reason was that I found it boring. Nothing much happened in the story during the time I was viewing it. When a movie doesn't catch my interest within that time span, I do something else.
Apparently, it was supposed to be a comedy, but I failed to see any humour. Satire? Perhaps, but even that aspect quickly became tiresome. Sellers plays a character whose only connection to the outside world is through what he watches on television. OK, I get it: too much TV can distort one's perception of reality, but it seems that the movie has to keep reminding the viewer about that every few minutes, just in case one might forget it right away.
During the time since "Being There" was made, I kept putting off watching it. I vaguely recall attempting to do so once or twice but, this time, I was going to try and see it in its entirety. I wish I hadn't bothered.