ReelTalk Movie Reviews  


New Reviews
Beauty
Elvis
Lightyear
Spiderhead
Jurassic World Domini...
Interceptor
Jazz Fest: A New Orle...
Chip 'n Dale: Rescue ...
more movies...
New Features
Poet Laureate of the Movies
Happy Birthday, Mel Brooks
Score Season #71
more features...
Navigation
ReelTalk Home Page
Movies
Features
Forum
Search
Contests
Customize
Contact Us
Affiliates
Advertise on ReelTalk

Listen to Movie Addict Headquarters on internet talk radio Add to iTunes

Buy a copy of Confessions of a Movie Addict



Main Page Movies Features Log In/Manage


Rate This Movie
 ExcellentExcellentExcellentExcellentExcellent
 Above AverageAbove AverageAbove AverageAbove Average
 AverageAverageAverage
 Below AverageBelow Average
 Poor
Rated 3.1 stars
by 720 people


ReelTalk Movie Reviews
A Worthwhile Quest
by Geoffrey D. Roberts

Although Monty Python’s take on King Arthur’s famous quest in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is often hilarious, it also includes some boring moments. Fortunately, the amusing scenes are enough to carry the movie along, despite its stumbles.

The problem here lies mainly with the screenplay. Six writers were involved in its creation: John Cleese, Eric Idle, Graham Chapman, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones and Michael Palin. The film consists of comedic fragments loosely connected to the main storyline by Gilliam’s animation.

There are a few tedious scenes in the film, which co-directors Gilliam and Jones should have cut, for they detract rather than add to the fun. These sequences include Sir Galahad’s (Palin) encounter with Zoot (Carol Cleveland), her twin sister Dingo and eight other women who are the inhabitants of Castle Anthrax. The women live in isolation and hardly ever encounter men, much less handsome knights.

Galahad thinks the Holy Grail is on the property but is misled by Zoot, who's responsible for a giant navigational signal in the shape of the Grail. The women insist on being spanked by King Arthur (Chapman) as a penalty for Zoot’s actions. During this scene, Zoot asks the audience if it should have been cut from the film? Indeed it should have, as your faithful scribe fell asleep waiting for this particular matter to conclude.

The part of the movie where King Arthur is confronted by The Knights Who Say Ni seemed ridiculous to me.  These knights, who have high-pitched voices that are extremely grating, will not let him enter the woods without making a sacrifice. They keep repeating the word Ni and infuriate our hero by placing their hands over their ears. They object to a word he continually utters that they are not supposed to hear. Neither King Arthur nor the audience are given any clue what that  word is. In order to enter and pass through the woods, the King must return and present the knights with a shrub. He does so, and then is told he must fetch another and cut a tree down with a herring in order to pass. This is where the writers appear to lose track of the storyline, for King Arthur does not return with the second shrub, nor is it explained why he doesn't. He simply continues on his quest without so much as a further nod to the Knights Who Say Ni. They are forgotten.

One of the most humorous scenes in the movie involves King Arthur being challenged by the Black Knight (John Cleese), who moves for no man and refuses to let the king pass. The Black Knight prides himself on never having lost a duel, but he is no match for King Arthur. The king slices off the Black Knight's arms, but he continues to taunt his enemy and to fight, oblivious of his severe injuries. 

Also, most viewers will probably howl with laughter at a sequence of events beginning when Sir Lancelot (also Cleese) receives a note attached to an arrow. The note’s author is imprisoned in a castle and is, within the next twenty minutes, to be married. SPOILER ALERT. When Lancelot arrives at Swamp Castle, he kills the bride’s father and eight other members of the wedding party before being shocked to learn it was the unmanly groom who wrote the letter.

Also hilarious are scenes showing those defending the French castle throwing cows at King Arthur and his men. As if that were not challenge enough, the knights must combat a man-eating rabbit.

I admire Eric Idle for his very funny performance as Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot. Sir Robin is flanked by minstrels who believe he will be brave in the face of death. Much to his chagrin, they turn to mocking him when he flees at the first sign of trouble. SPOILER ALERT. When winter arrives, he gets his revenge upon the fickle minstrels as they are served up for dinner, which he and his fellow knights heartily consume.

Despite its problems, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is worth viewing because of performances by a  stellar ensemble cast and for its creative co-direction by Gilliam and Jones.

(Released by Sony Pictures and rated "PG" by MPAA.)


                                                                                                                                                                               
 
© 2024 - ReelTalk Movie Reviews
Website designed by Dot Pitch Studios, LLC