L'infaillible inspecteur Clouseau

I guess it would be redundant at this point to say Alan Arkin's Clouseau can't touch Peter Sellers, which is certainly true. Nevertheless, I admit I liked this movie (though a lot less than the Pink Panthers, of course), the plot is actually credible and there are some truly funny moments. I give Arkin credit for attempting a role heavily identified with another- and better- actor, and he's OK in it. It's not a total disaster, as some people have claimed and worth watching, if only for the comparisons. ** 1/2 out of 4

Many reviewers claim this production stinks because Sellers isn't in it. Okay, those are the Sellers fans. But fans of the Pink Panther series (rather than die-hard Sellers fans) may not have minded so much that it wasn't Sellers in the driver's seat so much, had the movie not been a completely disgusting spectacle. This work holds NOTHING of the wit, the humor, or the heart of the others.

I'm sorry to say that this attempt was a failure, and this chapter may comfortably be left out of your Pink Panther collection, as the finished product holds nothing in the way of charm or character.

Sadly, it rates a 2.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.

One has to keep in mind that, when this was made, only 2 other Clouseau movies existed, THE PINK PANTHER and A SHOT IN THE DARK. At that time it may not have been clear to the whole world that only Sellers could really play Clouseau. Maybe this movie helped prove that.

Anyway, it seems that Arkin's Clouseau starts with the character as he was in SHOT and takes him in a different direction than the '70s movies with Sellers would. Sellers' Clouseau at that point didn't yet have his totally ridiculous accent but sounded more like a real Frenchman, so it's only natural that Arkin would sound like one as well. Like Sellers' Clouseau, Arkin's is well-intentioned but with incredibly bad judgment, clumsy, prone to focus on what's not important, and easily thrown off course by a pretty face. Unlike Sellers' Clouseau, Arkin's is not only emotional but prone to panic, and is not only aware of but comes to mourn his ineptitude. It takes some time to get used to his voice, lower and thicker than Sellers. So, this is not the Clouseau we know, though the character here is well-defined and interesting in its own right.

The animated opening credits barely even try for the humor and charm of those in the Sellers films. The score by Ken Thorne (who scored the Beatles' "Help" and the Monkees' "Head") is the next best thing to Mancini, though.

Whatever complaints one might have about the plot and the directing (I won't repeat the ones already made, other than to note that the flow early in the movie is rather bumpy), I'll say this: the Pink Panther films made after this one came so much to rely on familiar formulas that it's actually refreshing how this film does NOT use them. There is no superior of Clouseau's being driven mad by Clouseau's ineptitude -- just one reacting to it like a real person would. The crime plot here is actually pretty interesting -- much more so than the theft of the Pink McGuffin that got so overused later. Sellers' Clouseau always sounded like a Frenchman among Englishmen, even when he was in France, which didn't make sense. So it was a good idea in this case to actually *put* him among Englishmen. (His malapropisms come off, quite logically, as due to his unfamiliarity with English.) And the rather obnoxious fantasy elements present in STRIKES AGAIN are nowhere to be seen here.

So, to sum up: Different from, and not as good as, most of the Sellers entries. But give me Arkin's Clouseau over Ted Wass' Clifton Sleigh.

A few highlights:

• The nicely choreographed scene in Braithwaite's office near the beginning ("And what makes you think I trust YOU?")

• The scene with the tape recorder in the graveyard.

• Clouseau "eavesdropping" on the gang's bank robbery plans.

Item of special interest: the use of an Amphicar as a getaway vehicle. Cool!

Alan Arkin playing Clouseau would have to rank as one of the most awful casting choices ever made. (Will Smith as Mohammed Ali? Close. Di Crapio as a tough guy in 19th-century New York? Very close.) Arkin has never played clowns, nor is he one. He is far too cynical-looking for this type of role. Watching him say his lines was an exercise in embarrassment and major cringing. I suppose that die-hard PP fans who have nothing better to do can have endless discussions as to who was worse: Martin or Arkin. Maybe it'll take another 40 years for someone to attempt to make a PP movie without Sellers. What with the direction Hollywood is heading towards in recent years, it'll be someone like David Arquette's son who'll be cast to play the goofy Frenchman...

One person here wrote that one should forget about Peter Sellers and watch this movie on its own merits. Maybe he/she can do that, probably with some help from hallucinogenic drugs, but personally I'd find that a task both impossible and stupid. The fact is that Sellers DID do Panther earlier and was about 1000 times better.

Arkin is terminally unfunny with the sight gags, but it's the dialogue that really exposes his miscasting: there isn't a single line he says that is even remotely funny.

In all fairness, though, the script is garbage. The story has no flow, just a bunch of barely connected scenes strung together, the gags being rare and rather pathetic. The only thing the movie has going for it are the high production values, which make it watchable, if nothing else.

Comparisons between Alan Arkin and Peter Sellers may be unfair, but let's face it, there's no way they're not going to be made, and when they are, Arkin unfortunately comes out on the short end of the stick. Sellers is so closely identified with the role of Jacques Clouseau that it's doubtful if ANYONE could have succeeded in playing him. Arkin actually wasn't a bad choice, though, when you get down to it. His comic talents have been proved time and again, he bears a close enough resemblance to Sellers to make die-hard Sellers fans comfortable, and the script is by two veteran "Pink Panther" writers.

So why is it such a complete dog?

Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of director Bud Yorkin, who completely botched the job, but the script is no prize, either; maybe the Waldmans didn't have their heart in it because Sellers wasn't doing it (or maybe Sellers and/or Blake Edwards had more input into the scripts of their films than anyone realized). Part of it is that Arkin doesn't have anyone of the caliber of the great Herbert Lom as Inspector Dreyfuss to work off of, or even a top-notch character actor like Graham Stark as Hercule, Clouseau's much-put-upon assistant. But I think a lot of the reason is, unfortunately, Arkin himself. Sellers' Clouseau was a catalyst for the disasters that inevitably befell him; he CAUSED most of his own problems without ever realizing it. To him they were just minor setbacks on the way to solving the case he was working on, because he was so thoroughly convinced of his own abilities--which, as we all knew, were virtually nonexistent--that he knew beyond a doubt he would solve the case and become the hero, which he usually did. You felt comfortable laughing at Sellers' Clouseau because, for all his bluster and misplaced conceit, you actually liked him. That's where Arkin's Clouseau fails. Whatever he is, he's not likable in the way that Sellers' Clouseau was, and doesn't engender the affection and sympathy the audience had for Sellers' Clouseau, despite his many failings.

While James Bond can go through several different actors' characterizations of him, there's really only one Inspector Jacques Clouseau, and that's Peter Sellers. Arkin tried, but he just couldn't do it. He shouldn't feel too bad, though; I don't think anyone could have.