Everyone has different tastes, in cinema and in humor. No matter how well reputed, what one person finds fantastic and/or hilarious might make little impression on another. It may amount to barely a blip on anyone's radar to remark, in the face of otherwise almost limitless praise, "This isn't for me." Yet here we are: for all the high expectations I had when I sat to watch 'A shot in the dark,' I'm altogether flummoxed, for apparently I'm just not seeing the same movie everyone else has in the past 58 years. I don't dislike it, mind you, but I'm also far less than inspired.
I recognize plentiful cleverness, silliness, and otherwise comedic stylings that make this solidly enjoyable and amusing. Peter Sellers is a legend, as is Blake Edwards, to say nothing of the other well regarded contributors to the picture. Any stunts and effects are terrific, and this is finely made in most every regard: writing, direction, acting, all the work of those behind the scenes. What I think it lacks, however, is any significant spark. 'A shot in the dark' earned plenty of smiles as I watched, but never any real laughs. There's nothing wrong with this, of course - save for that I'm quite sure mere smiles aren't generally what comedies are intended to elicit.
Is it weak timing, not least as some bits are allowed to drag on much too long? It it a lack of any major vibrancy? Is it a failure of balance between the mundane and the ridiculous, such that the resulting attempted humor falls flat? It it some combination of these factors, and/or something else altogether? I have difficulty pinpointing what I think the problem is. All I know is that while this was passing light entertainment for most of its duration, I never once saw in 'A shot in the dark' the type of abject brilliance that has given its director or stars such renown. Clearly I hold the minority opinion here, and that's fine. To each their own. I guess this is just another example of the lesson that just because a title has earned substantial acclaim almost across the board doesn't mean it will find the same success on a case by case basis. Should anyone read these words, I hope their experience with the movie is more valuable than mine was. C'est la vie.
I recognize plentiful cleverness, silliness, and otherwise comedic stylings that make this solidly enjoyable and amusing. Peter Sellers is a legend, as is Blake Edwards, to say nothing of the other well regarded contributors to the picture. Any stunts and effects are terrific, and this is finely made in most every regard: writing, direction, acting, all the work of those behind the scenes. What I think it lacks, however, is any significant spark. 'A shot in the dark' earned plenty of smiles as I watched, but never any real laughs. There's nothing wrong with this, of course - save for that I'm quite sure mere smiles aren't generally what comedies are intended to elicit.
Is it weak timing, not least as some bits are allowed to drag on much too long? It it a lack of any major vibrancy? Is it a failure of balance between the mundane and the ridiculous, such that the resulting attempted humor falls flat? It it some combination of these factors, and/or something else altogether? I have difficulty pinpointing what I think the problem is. All I know is that while this was passing light entertainment for most of its duration, I never once saw in 'A shot in the dark' the type of abject brilliance that has given its director or stars such renown. Clearly I hold the minority opinion here, and that's fine. To each their own. I guess this is just another example of the lesson that just because a title has earned substantial acclaim almost across the board doesn't mean it will find the same success on a case by case basis. Should anyone read these words, I hope their experience with the movie is more valuable than mine was. C'est la vie.