Clouseau whilst an idiot did not deserve to end up the way that he did. It is unjust and wrong that a character who has such admirable qualities ends up so badly whilst the downright despicible characters (the rest of the main cast) get off scott free. Not a very good example to project I think. (For more see my review.)
shareI can see how the ending can be "frustrating" but I felt they made it light enough by establishing that Clouseau would soon be cleared, and by having him enjoy the newfound prestige he gets because people think he's the phantom. I mean in the car he basically confesses to the crimes with a smile.
shareYes, I expect Sir Charles made a point to quickly pull another heist to show the Phantom was still at large and clear Clouseau - who of course was back at work mere months later on the Maria Gambrelli case!
shareI'm sure Tom Dent was perfectly aware of these qualities to make the ending "light enough". I was aware of them, too.
The ending still stinks.
Let's face it, aside from a couple well choreographed set pieces, the whole movie stinks. This is the most disappointing "classic" I can remember seeing. I was really looking forward to finally seeing this -- now I don't think I can trust the taste of anyone who accepts this for entertainment. It's time to let the reputation of this movie wane.
shareI agree with "mann-alive".
This movie is NOT funny and is NOT very well made. It looks cheap and is just boring. I couldn't even smile! Wasted 2 hours of my life!
The Steve Martin version (2006), tough idiotic, was a lot more fun. At least it had the "hamburger" scene.
I think it's a great movie and I didn't hate the ending, it is way more to me about Peter Seller's performance than the movie he was such a great talent!
share[deleted]
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, however pedestrian and unimaginative it may be. The best humor is subtle, unexpected and restrained. Clearly you prefer idiots to artists.
shareI saw this movie for the first time in many decades last night! Yes, the ending does STINK. I'm one of those weirdos who believes in crime being punished, and there was plenty of crime to BE punished here. Sir Charles is an adulterer and a thief; the nephew is a sex fiend and a thief (probably a family tradition...); Clousseau's "darling" wife is unfaithful and greedy; "her highness" (give me a BREAK!!!) has no qualms about setting up Clousseau. I wish the script would have featured Clousseau's surprise testimony somehow exposing this fantastic four. Now THAT would have been a satisfying ending to this otherwise stylish and funny look back at the early Sixties.
shareSome great movies have down endings.
shareI agree the ending was frusterating; the redeeming qualities were that it was meant to have a sequel from the beginning and that the Phantom was determined to clear Clousseau. Good on him for that.
The ONLY things that really pissed me off were one, that poor Clousseau found out his wife's true character, and two, how that STUPID bitch Princess Dala protected the Phantom and framed Clousseau for NO good reason!! What the hell was that about? Why would she want to protect the man who she KNEW wanted her diamond?? Because he talked smoothly? She was just an easily seduced, bimbo tramp. I'm glad the Pink Panther was clearly taken from her and placed in the hands of her people in the later films.
I thought the whole second half of the film was hillarious, including the ending. The first half seems like a different film to the second half though, not really too funny at all.
shareI found Princess Dala's willingness to do "anything" to help Charles a puzzle also. Especially since she had realised he and Simone had something going on as well. But then again they call him the juggler...
Another problem though is the idea that Clousseau would walk free from prison the minute the Phantom struck again.
That doesn't solve the problem of him being discovered, in a packed courtroom no less, in poccession of the Pink Panther. Surely he'd still have to serve out a jail sentence for the (supposed) theft of the jewel, regardless of what the Phantom was doing?
Having said that though I still enjoyed the movie even if the ending was a little fanciful.
Clouseau whilst an idiot did not deserve to end up the way that he did. It is unjust and wrong that a character who has such admirable qualities ends up so badly whilst the downright despicible characters (the rest of the main cast) get off scott free. Not a very good example to project I think.
[deleted]
"You *do* realize that the whole notion of punishing evil and rewarding good is one of those things that's an integral part of human morality that transcends the Hays code by thousands of years, right?"
You *do* realize that thousands of years of human history show that to be complete cow excrement and that, regardless of your rose-tinted view of the world, the opposite happens everday, right?
If you want your good triumphs over evil fix, go back to Disney flicks instead of expecting it from each and every film you watch.
yeah a couple of years in a jail is a long time
share[deleted]
[deleted]
"The idea that good has to be rewarded and evil punished is not only an over-simplification, but often ridiculous and false as well." Not to me. I've observed that in the world evil is rewarded, and good punished--and ridiculed. Therefore when I watch a movie I WANT to see the rapist, the violent psychopath, the unfaithful wife, the child molester, the mugger, the drug dealer, the abusive parent et al get their comeuppance, since in real life they often get away scot free. I don't want to be reminded of this when I watch a movie: I want to see a saner version of life where good people aren't trampled on and told to "get over it".
THE PINK PANTHER was a fine film, despite the ending, from which modern film-makers could learn several lessons, among them: you don't need tons of bad language, complete nudity, sex scenes, and brutal violence to make a good movie. Kubrick could have benefited from this with CLOCKWORK ORANGE. So could have Tarantino with PULP FICTION. If those are your idea of the "unexpected," you can have them. I'll stick with Bogart, Cagney, Heston, (early)Mitchum, James Stewart, Ladd, Robert Ryan, the Three Stooges and many other Hayes Code ancients...
Yeesh. Lighten up.
I don't know how old you are, but I can recall seeing this film in NYC with a packed house and the audiences reaction to the end of the film was one of absolute hilarity.
I repeat, "Yeesh."
I think people fail to realize that the Phantom is the good guy and Clouseau is the antagonist of the film.
shareExactly. Clouseau is not the hero in this film, he's the patsy and it was set up from the begining. It was not a great movie by any means, during the time, only Billy Wilder seemed able to transition from the wholesome comidic atmosphere to the more adult themed plot lines. I thought the only creative part of the film was how they ended the film.
shareExactly. Clouseau is not the hero in this film, he's the patsy and it was set up from the begining. It was not a great movie by any means, during the time, only Billy Wilder seemed able to transition from the wholesome comidic atmosphere to the more adult themed plot lines. I thought the only creative part of the film was how they ended it.
shareI agree, the ending was disappointing. The only redeeming quality was that he was rid of his whorish wife. And as others have pointed out, they did allude to the idea of pulling another Phantom theft, thus showing Clouseau wasn't really the Phantom.
share I agree with the original poster: the ending left a very bad taste in my mouth.
I don't expect or want a "happy ending" from every movie. Criminals can "win" in a movie sometimes, as they do in real life. But this isn't that kind of movie. It's not a black comedy like 'Dr. Strangelove' or a crime drama like 'No Country for Old Men.'
This is a light-hearted farcical caper. This movie isn't attempting to be a realistic examination of the criminal world or the mindset, character, and tactics of the people in it. If it was that kind of movie, the "framing" of an innocent character might be appropriate.
But I didn't think it worked here. It might have worked if Clouseau's own bumbling had led to Sir Charles and George escaping or being accidentally cleared of the charges. I could have lived with that.
What I really disliked was that the characters I found especially unsympathetic and unlikable -- Sir Charles, George, and Clouseau's wife -- were the winners in all this, while the only honest, decent, honorable character was the one going to jail. Clouseau's wife in particular really deserved to get her comeuppance. She was unfaithful to him, and played him for a sap the entire movie -- and in the end, she wins while he loses? Why am I supposed to be satisfied with that? Am I supposed to "like" her? Am I supposed to be rooting for her? Why?
You can have likable con men or crooks in a movie. But Sir Charles, George, and Clouseau's wife weren't likable, at least to me.
And why did the Princess go along with all this? Why did she sign on to a plan to frame Clouseau? Clouseau was making a sincere and honest attempt to protect her diamond and capture the thief who threatened to steal it. She should be grateful to Clouseau for his committment to duty. Instead, she sides with the man she believes to be a crook.
I'll say it again: the crooks can win in a movie, if it's the kind of movie where that's appropriate. I don't think it was the right kind of ending for this particular movie, given the tone of the film, and the personalities of the characters.