Reviews

Some may wonder why these men of status, the influential financier, the President of U.S., and so many VIPs couldn't see that Chance the gardener was a real gardener. The trick is very simple and that makes this film a great comedy.

We believe what we want to believe. This is the case of the mass media and the ordinary people in this film. And sympathy makes you believe someone. This is the case of Ben Rand (Melvyn Douglas), the old financier. When he heard that Chance had been forced to leave his master's house by attorney, he believed him because he hated attorney,too. And if your friend believes and trusts someone, you will respect him,too. This is the case of the President(Jack Warden). When he first heard Chance spoke, he felt a strangeness but not enough to doubt him, because Ben believed and trusted him sincerely.

This film reminds me of the Eighth Day, directed by Jaco Van Dormael, rather than the Forrest Gump. There are many similarities between Being there and the Eighth Day, but they give us completely different impacts. One is comedy and the other is tragedy. Precisely speaking, Chance and Georges are different. But they act very similarly; meet strangers and change their lives not on purpose.

Dormael's decision is the emotionalism. Georges and Harry laugh and cry so straight out that we also laugh and cry with them. In fact I sympathized with them so much that I felt badly sorry for what happened to Georges in the end. I understand this is the one and only choice as long as the director takes the intensive emotionalism, but this is too much, too sad for me to accept.

Hal Ashby's decision, on the other hand, is the stoicism. He never allow us to release our emotion. There is no moment of emotional burst throughout this film. This is not an easy way. Success depends entirely on the comic sense. And it does work as I've already pointed first.

Ashby has such a clever mind that he takes a comic style to give Chance the chance to live. This makes me very happy. After all I prefer comedy to tragedy.

When I saw Dr.Fu began to sing before ending,I almost fell off the couch.I couldn't soon believe this is Sellers' last work.As a matter of fact,this is not a masterpiece at all.But I think this is not so bad as everyone says.I do like some gags and comic parts of this film.For example,the sequence of our familiar Cato (Burt Kwouk) who spills that mysterious medicine.Or the sequence of young delightful Robert (Simon Williams) who smashes up the mechanical spider,which is Nayland's favorite.Both scenes are done with good timing enough to make me laugh. Details are also fun;the lawn mower,two-seater bicycle,balloon house,and so on.Nonsense gags are almost surreal.If you see this film carefully (and patiently),you will become to love it.Actually I can't hate it,like mother who loves her misshapen child.

This is one of my favorite piece of the series.And no doubt it should be marked as a brilliant comedy.No originality?Forget it.Plot and Story are not to be discussed here.All you have to see is Peter Sellers.He does really good job also this time. I thought Sellers shouldn't do hard actions because I thought he is no longer young when I saw The Return of the Pink Panther.But I was wrong.This time Sellers looks much younger than the precedence.See the sequence of Fassbender's gym.He fell down the steps in such a incredibly skilled motion.Or,remember the sequence of moat,the toilet paper scene at October Fest,and the opening scene with Dreyfus.In each part you can see Sellers' precious acts.His timing is always perfect. I admit that the last few parts with Lesley-Ann Down are dull.But that doesn't deserve to destroy charm of this film.

I'm a big fan of Peter Sellers and I welcome his return to this series.But I regret that Sellers looks a little tired in this film.Maybe he is over age for hard physical actions.(I think he is 50 or so at making this film.) Apart from that,his French-English is great. A simple question:Why Catherine Schell laughs at Sellers'acting that often? She laughs every time Sellers do funny things.She ignores comedy rules.I can't understand why the director allowed that.

I think this is a quite unique and very interesting film.Some ugly qualities of human are displayed and they all can be true.Violent scenes are horrible and terrifying but I can't forget that eye of Alex and the song "Singin'in the Rain".How can man sing that song kicking and beating someone?

I was very impressed by beautiful hair of Pocahontas.It is almost breathtaking.Her hair waves in the breeze gently and lively as if it presented her emotion. Although the story is a little weak and unrealistic,the vividness of the waving hair,almost real facial expressions and beautiful music and songs make this film incredibly tasteful.

I think the judge Frollo is very interesting character.His evilness presents modern psychological theme just like those in recent bestseller gPeople of the Lie.hHe is a very selfrighteous man and never thinks he might be wrong.Even when the archdeacon blames him for killing a gypsy woman,mother of Quasimodo,he says he is not guilty because he believes gypsies ARE evil and deserve to be destroyed.Even when he is charmed with a gypsy girl named Esmeralda,he blames her for corrupting him. Pitifully,he never notices HIS evilness until God punishes him. This making of character refers to a question of humanity and morality.And that is why this animated film is remarkable.Can anyone say still this is sugar-coating?