I loves me my Monty Python, but this film falls quite flat. Mr. Creosote is good for a laugh, but come on, that whole intro film? That was terrible.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
I think it had a few other moments but in general I can't disagree with you. Maybe they just set the bar too high for themselves.
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
It really has it's moments, some are on par with classic python (the tiger, creosote), and is far superior to most comedy films out there, but compared to their previous films, it's really bad. This occurred due to some reasons:
1- Early 80s UK was in a different mood setting and the Goon/Pythonesque humour was not mainstream anymore.
2- They choose a poor subject for the film, too vague. They should`ve chosen one that could hold a plot and central characters.
3- They had a hard time writting, and were frequently stumped. Also, John Cleese got tired of the writting process and demanded they started shooting immediately or shut the whole thing down, while the rest of the group thought the script needed one more draft, adding a central character.
4- Terry Jones simply did not do a good job directing this film.
"You keep him in here, and make sure HE dosen't leave!"
I think it's almost trendy for Python fans to be down on this movie but it has in my opinion some of their most memorable scenes and without doubt their best songs.
Creosote, Death, Sex Education, Organ Transplant, Sacred Sperm and Marching about the squaaarrreee are all classic scenes in their own right. I'd rate this slightly higher that Holy Grail and while it doesn't compare to Life of Brian what film does.
I watched this film last night on ITV4. I found most of it unfunny and overlong. The segment about war, went on far too long.
shareTrendy? Even the Python members admit it doesn't quite work. I'm reading the Python's biography and they all point out the movie didn't work as well as their other stuff and why they think that is.
I just bought the movie (reading the book made me want to see it again), I have seen it several times but haven't watched it in probably 20 years. My memory of it is it wasn't nearly as good as LOB or HG, both of which I still watch regularly. It had good parts but as a movie I didn't really care for it.
It has nothing to do with "being trendy", even as a kid I could tell it wasn't on the same level as their other movies (not including ANFSCD).
[deleted]
"1- Early 80s UK was in a different mood setting and the Goon/Pythonesque humour was not mainstream anymore."
Nonsense. UK's time frame, setting, mood or what the mainstream likes does _NOT_ define anything. If something is funny, it's funny. Monty Python's funny stuff are and will always be funny, as long as they exist - not because of UK anything or mood something, but because THEY ARE FUNNY.
Holy Grail will always be funny regardless of UK's mainstream moods or settings, so what the heck are you talking about?
That might be why it wasn't a box office hit or success, but if you are real about it, the actual reason is that the movie was gross, grotesque and weird, but not funny.