The Pink Panther 2

**Frankly worse than its predecessor, despite an all-star cast that does everything they can to save the movie from complete disaster.** After a good commercial success, the production of a second film "Pink Panther" was foreseeable, in an eventual attempt to resurrect the franchise that was successful thirty years ago, thanks to the talent of Peter Sellers. Despite the chorus of negative revie... Read more

**Frankly worse than its predecessor, despite an all-star cast that does everything they can to save the movie from complete disaster.** After a good commercial success, the production of a second film "Pink Panther" was foreseeable, in an eventual attempt to resurrect the franchise that was successful thirty years ago, thanks to the talent of Peter Sellers. Despite the chorus of negative reviews, the film went ahead, but was unable to learn from the predecessor's weaknesses and weaknesses. All the salvific qualities that I observed in the previous film are still very present here, but the problems and the less positive points became even more evident. Steve Martin continues, for me, to be one of the strengths of the film. It may displease a lot of people, but I think the actor was competent and did what was asked of him well. However, it seems to me undeniable that the material he was given to work with was weak, and the jokes designed for the character are not very interesting and do not deviate from the usual clichés of cheap and easy-going American comedies. Jean Reno and Emily Mortimer are still here, and both actors received more attention, more screen time and more relevance in this film. The two, each in their own way, play key roles in the plot and continue to do so to the best of their ability. The addition of John Cleese was really a bonus, as I felt several times that there was good working chemistry between him and Martin. The film also has good performances by Alfred Molina, Lily Tomlin, a decent (although not so good) performance by Andy Garcia, a cameo by Jeremy Irons and an unknown but sexy Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, who was chosen, I think, precisely because she's beautiful. If the level of the cast has improved, and almost everyone seems to give a reasonably decent performance, the same cannot be said for the script, a ream of paper that has not been able to give them something truly good to shine. In fact, the script is the biggest problem with the film itself: the story told is too unrealistic, too far-fetched to be logical. Starting with the simple idea of a "dream team" of international detectives, full of egos and vanities, but condemned to work together to solve a series of crimes, different from each other, although apparently committed by the same man! It doesn't make sense, just like stolen items, precious pieces of art or history, but impossible to generate real interest in a thief (unless the idea was to ask for a ransom on the return of the stolen object). And then there are some details that are simply not acceptable: the fact that Clouseau doesn't seem to have the slightest idea who the Pope is, for example... Technically, the film is very similar to its predecessor: the cinematography and film work reasonably well, and Paris is a beautiful, cinematic city. Again, the opening credits are very well executed, and Mancini's melody is well-used. However, the film has almost no soundtrack beyond that, and what it does have isn't particularly good or well-used. The editing seems clumsy and the pacing of the film is awkward, inharmonious, wasting time on silly things and rushing into scenes that deserved a few more minutes. The effects aren't great, and the movie, as a whole, looks cheaper and less professional than its immediate predecessor.Show less