Ani-MAY-tion: Planes (2013)

It isn’t always as straightforward as this, but the life of a cinephile is a life of finding films through various connections (directors, stars, writers, cinematographers, composers, themes, etc.). That is all part of the fun, and many connections lead you towards developing a taste for a full and varied smorgasbord of filmic delights. Which is why I ended up watching Planes, and will soon be watching the sequel next week. Planes is a spin-off from Cars, set in the same onscreen universe . . . but with the characters this time around all being, yes, planes.

Dane Cook plays a small cropdusting plane named Dusty Crophopper. He dreams of one day being a celebrated racing plane, but he may not have the ability to really compete with the champions. He also has a fear of heights, which is a bit of a problem for someone wanting to race through the skies. Finding someone willing to mentor him makes his dream edge closer to reality though, and it isn’t long until Dusty is causing quite the stir in the racing world. He’s still viewed as a novelty, but someone has to be last. And it’s the taking part that counts.

Writer Jeffrey M. Howard has a difficult job here. It’s an obvious template being used, and keeping things nice and simple can help keep younger viewers engaged, but it doesn’t ever feel as if it has been given enough care and polish. Things feel a bit rushed in the opening act, none of the characters feel developed enough, and there’s also the problem of Cook not really being a great fit for the lead role (although I have enjoyed him enough in live-action films over the years).

Director Klay Hall ensures that the basics are all delivered competently enough (there’s nothing to complain about when it comes to the visuals, but also nothing to really praise) and at least serves up something that aims to be just the right mix of fun and drama for the target demographic. A couple of the set-pieces work quite well, and older viewers will enjoy a couple of cameo voice roles for people who famously portrayed pilots of the kind of planes they portray here, but it generally lacks some extra ingredient to make it all feel worthwhile. Maybe that is down to the casting.

I have already criticized Cook, who doesn’t work in the lead role, and there aren’t too many cast members I want to rush to praise. Stacy Keach is pretty good as the gruff mentor, Brad Garrett is fun (although I thought he was Elliott Gould until I checked the credits), and Carlos Alazraqui provides a number of laughs. John Cleese works because he is recognizably John Cleese, but none of the female cast members get to make an impact, which is a real shame when you have Teri Hatcher, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Priyanka Chopra in your cast. As for Roger Craig Smith in the role of Ripslinger, the champ who you just know will play dirty to win, he’s sadly nondescript and non-menacing.

It looks fine and didn’t cause me to feel as if my time was wasted, but I won’t ever consider giving this a rewatch. And I am now more apprehensive about the sequel than I was last week.

5/10

It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)

I feel it is relevant to, once again, state my view on remakes. No film is untouchable. And a bad remake doesn’t actually do anything to supplant a great original in your mind. It doesn’t. But most movie fans agree that some decisions don’t make much sense, like deciding to try remaking a classic when there are so many lesser films that might benefit from others retelling the story. And The Day The Earth Stood Still is a classic. It is, alongside Forbidden Planet, one of my favourite sci-fi movies of all time. This remake . . . certainly isn’t.

An alien ship lands, presenting a figure who is welcomed to Earth by being fired upon by the military. Of course. While recuperating, the figure turns into someone who looks much more human than alien (Keanu Reeves), and he starts putting things in motion for the destruction of humanity. Because humans are the cause of so many problems on this planet. The military continues to try and stop him, while a few scientists try helping, and try to convince the visitor that there is still hope for humanity.

Directed by Scott Derrickson, who has at least half a dozen titles in his filmography I would rush to recommend ahead of this, The Day The Earth Stood Still is yet another example of a remake that feels as if it has been done all because we can now make more epic images of destruction thanks to the power of CGI. The film plods along, criminally dull in places, but manages to reserve space for scenes it assumes will impress viewers with the sheer size of the spectacle. That assumption is incorrect.

Reeves, as beloved as he is today (and maybe always has been), is horribly uncharismatic in the main role. It’s almost as if he was cast because he wanted to join any movie that would at some point attach wires to his head. Jennifer Connelly, playing the female lead, and main scientist helping Keanu, is okay, but the script mistreats her character, more so when she is whisked away from the main plot to become stuck in scenes that really should have been for the supporting cast only. Kathy Bates is good as a tough bureaucrat, Jon Hamm is just fine as another scientist trying to help, Kyle Chandler is a standard military officer underestimating things, Jaden Smith is a grumpy child, and John Cleese does well with his few minutes onscreen, putting forward the case for humanity.

It’s all leading to the CGI though, whether it is the new version of GORT, the spheres that have landed on our planet, or the wave of destruction that is triggered when the time is right. It doesn’t hold up too badly, but it’s just so overdone, in terms of there being too much of it in the big FX moments, and tiresome.

I don’t envy writer David Scarpa. Being asked to remake such a classic sci-fi film was surely a poisoned chalice, especially when this was only his second movie (after the solid, but low-key, The Last Castle). Maybe another writer could have done something better, but it was always going to be a big ask. 

The best thing I can say about this is that it seemed to be an atypical blip for the main players involved. Scarpa hasn’t done much, but his other scripts are much better than this. Derrickson has gone from strength to strength. And the cast have generally managed to keep the good far outweighing the bad. So let’s go back to forgetting that this exists and we can all rewatch the brilliant original film instead.

“Klaatu barada nikto!”

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

A tale of an intelligent and powerful man unable to heed the warnings of people who want him to reconsider just how far he wants to push things in the pursuit of his main obsession, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an interesting and entertaining movie, not least because of how the main storyline seems to run so nicely illustrate the unchecked ego (at that time) of director-star Kenneth Branagh. In fact, considering the lessons he may have learned along the way, I'd love to see what Branagh would do with this material today. Would he keep it much the same, albeit elevated with some superb CGI, or would we end up with a very different beast? I suspect the latter, but I'm not displeased to realise that Branagh could easily make all the same mistakes. Or even some all new ones.

I don't even need to summarise the story here, do I? No. Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein. Helena Bonham Carter is his beloved, Elizabeth. Robert De Niro is the Creature. And you have supporting turns from Tom Hulce, Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, Richard Briers, John Cleese, Robert Hardy, and many others. Victor Frankenstein wants to conquer death, he wants to create new life, and the end result of his experimentation leads to a great deal of unpleasantness. That's all you need to be reminded of.

With Branagh having made such a big deal at the time of telling everyone that this was going to be a more faithful telling of the Frankenstein story, a film that would get closer to the source than any others that had come before it, it's easy to forget that the script is by Steph Lady (his first and only one, to date) and Frank Darabont. Structuring the whole thing to frame the main, more familiar tale, with bookends that have Victor Frankenstein explaining his woes to an Arctic explorer (Walton, played by Quinn), Lady and Darabont try their best to freshen up the well-worn formula. They're sadly fighting an uphill battle. Having the Creature be intelligent and able to speak, for example, may show us something closer to how things were in Shelley's novel, but it doesn't feel right here. There are over eighty years of Frankenstein on film to be pushing back on, and that's a hell of a lot of cinematic weight. Fortunately, Branagh is ready to take his shirt off and flex some muscles as he attempts to hold his movie as high as he can.

Jokes about his willingness to get shirtless as often as Matthew McConaughey aside, Branagh simply never feels as suited to the lead role as he should be. He's too interested in showing off the production design and making some nice speeches whenever possible, making it harder for viewers to see the gleam in his eyes and the overwhelming obsession that pushes every sane thought out of his mind. It would be silly to call Branagh a bad actor, in my opinion, but he should have, as director, given the lead role to someone else. There's a similar sense while watching De Niro, although he's hampered by the fact that he's depicting the Creature in a way so alien to film viewers. De Niro does quite well in the role, but it doesn't help that he always feels like what he IS - a version of Robert De Niro overlaid with a variety of prosthetic make up. Carter does well enough, and really sells her final moments in the film brilliantly, and Hulce is an enjoyable presence as a friend, ally, and someone hoping to save Frankenstein from himself once the full madness and terror is revealed. Quinn certainly has presence in his relatively minor role, Briers is sweet and likeable as a blind man, and everyone else does well with what they're given, including Celia Imrie, Trevyn McDowell, and a disappointingly underused Cherie Lunghi (as well as those already named above).

Quality emanates from every frame, from the practical production design to the CGI work, from the wonderful matte paintings to the sharp and impressive music from Patrick Doyle. It is, for the time, a remarkable achievement, in film-making terms. Where it falls down, sadly, is in the casting of the most important roles. Perhaps Frankenstein and his Creature need to be played by people who can fully immerse themselves in the roles. This is a very handsome adaptation of a classic tale, but it's not one that really shows Frankenstein and his Creature. It shows Branagh and De Niro in the middle of a wonderful playground. Which is all well and good . . . as long as you like Branagh and De Niro. And I do.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.

It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA

Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Time: Rat Race (2001)

With Jerry Zucker in the director's chair and a whole load of talented comedic performers in front of the camera, Rat Race certainly sets itself up as a film that wants to be in the top tier of modern comedies. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it fails by such a large margin, is as surprising as it is disappointing.

The main premise is very simple, and very similar to another whacky comedy from decades ago, one that made use of an all-star cast. A group of people are selected to participate in a race to a locker some distance away. The first person to get there will get to keep the contents of the locker. $2M. It's that simple. Yes, this is basically a reworking of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

There are moments that work in Rat Race, and some of those moments provide some hearty laughs. Jon Lovitz and Kathy Najimy bundling their two kids into a car that once belonged to Adolf Hitler pans out pretty much as you think it would, and is a real highlight, and there's a fun cameo from Kathy Bates, playing a woman obsessively trying to get people to buy one of her squirrels. A bus full of Lucille Ball fans also provides some fun. But there are so many other moments that either don't work as well as they should or just don't work entirely. The characters played by Seth Green and Vince Vieluf don't work, and neither do those played by Whoopi Goldberg and Lanei Chapman. Breckin Meyer and Amy Smart are helped by the script, although hindered by the fact that they're, well, Breckin Meyer and Amy Smart (to be fair, Meyer isn't as bad as Smart . . . but few actors are). Cuba Gooding Jr. is just fine, as is Rowan Atkinson, and John Cleese is helped along by super-white, larger, teeth to define his character.

Perhaps hampered by the script from Andy Breckman, Zucker feels like he could have been replaced by anyone in the director's chair. There's no sign of someone monitoring quality control, there's no sign of anyone taking on the responsibility to make the best of every comedy moment. All you get is a star vehicle without any big enough stars, but it's also very much a time capsule from 2001. From the cast to the plotting, despite it hewing so close to that 1963 movie mentioned above, and to the inclusion of Smash Mouth in the finale (not just a song, they get to make a cameo appearance and interact with all of the main players).

While it's not a film I'd recommend to anyone in the mood for a modern comedy, it IS a film I'd recommend to anyone looking for some easy entertainment that keeps throwing enough at the wall that one or two bits should stick. You can find a multitude of better comedies out there, but this is for people who want some recognisable faces and a general sense of familiarity (Atkinson, for example, is doing little more than a Mr. Bean act with an accent on top of his usual schtick). Passable enough. Just not often very good.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

April Fools: A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

A Fish Called Wanda is a great comedy. A modern classic, in my opinion, thanks to the mix of dialogue, cast, characters and situations. Unfortunately, it also seemed to start the advertising trend that plagues British hits to this day. Every comedy that came along after it would find someone able to say that it was "the best British comedy since A Fish Called Wanda". Until Richard Curtis came along, at least, and then Four Weddings & A Funeral took over, soon superceded by The Full Monty and, well, every other big British success at the box office since then. But let's get back to Wanda.

It's the story of a daring robbery, and a little double-cross by some members of the team. The lovely Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) is the woman with the grand plan, and she will use all of her feminine wiles to get what she wants. Her partner is Otto (Kevin Kline), a man pretending to be her brother. Otto is a great man with a weapon, but he's not as smart as he thinks he is. Just don't call him stupid. Wanda and Otto are working together to find out where the diamonds from their big robbery have been hidden. George (Tom Georgeson), the man who planned and led the robbery, has been arrested and, funnily enough, doesn't trust anyone. He has moved the loot, and only Ken (Michael Palin) has the key to use whenever the location is revealed. Meanwhile, Archie Leach (John Cleese) is the man defending George in court. He's the one George may tell about the whereabouts of the diamonds if he needs to make a deal, so he's the one that Wanda needs to get close to. Very close.

Directed by Charles Crichton, with a script written by Cleese, this is a film that stands up alongside his earlier classics such as The Lavender Hill Mob. In fact, it's hard to think of a more fitting final film for the man, so perfectly does it mix the old with the new by juxtaposing the repressed Brits alongside the more outlandish Americans. There aren't too many flourishes, but the material doesn't need it.

The cast are all clearly having a lot of fun (with Kline even snagging a surprising Oscar for his supporting role - the Academy often overlooks/dismisses such comedic material, in my experience) and the clash between Curtis and Kline whenever they're onscreen alongside Palin or Cleese is always as entertaining as it is exaggerated. Georgeson has less to do, but is just fine, while Maria Aitken is excellent in a rather thankless role, playing the rich, self-absorbed, wife of Leach. She's a reminder of what happens to people who allow their dreams and energies to die for the sake of a good place in society and a nice house.

Full of so many great lines and moments, from the many stupid sentences spoken by Otto, to the attempts made by stuttering Ken to kill a key witness (Patricia Hayes), to the famous sight of John Cleese stripping off while speaking in a foreign language, to the even more famous sight of Palin with chips up his nose, this is a film that still proves as rewatchable and laugh-inducing today as it did when first released.

9/10

http://www.amazon.com/Fish-Called-Wanda-Two-Disc-Collectors/dp/B000IONJJ2/ref=sr_1_4?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1397829319&sr=1-4&keywords=a+fish+called+wanda

The Pink Panther 2 (2009)

Following on from the 2006 movie, obviously enough, Steve Martin returns to the character of the bumbling Inspector Clouseau in this amusing sequel that I think is just as good as the previous movie. Be warned, however, that I seem to be the only person who thinks this way. Most other people would like to take both films and burn them on a small pyre before returning to their happy place with some help from the classic films starring Peter Sellers.

This time around, a number of audacious thefts have been committed by The Tornado, a legend in the criminal world. Nobody knows who The Tornado is, but a dream team is assembled to put a stop to the crimewave. That dream team consists of Vicenzo (Andy Garcia), Pepperidge (Alfred Molina), Kenji (Yuki Matsuzaki) and Sonia (Aishwara Rai Bachchan). And Clouseau. When he's not busy driving Dreyfuss (played by John Cleese this time) up the wall, upsetting the lovely Nicole (Emily Mortimer) and sparring with his assistant, Ponton (Jean Reno), he's either showing how much of a calamity he is or, strangely enough, how sharp his mind can be.

A few people jumped ship in between the previous film and this one, which isn't ever a reassuring sign, but if you enjoyed the first film then I can't imagine you hating this one. Oh, you're unlikely to enjoy it as much as I did (so I have discovered), but there's plenty of fun to be had. The script, by Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber and Steve Martin, has plenty of decent lines peppered throughout and the direction by Harald Zwart is competent enough for something this lightweight.

The cast all look suitably worn down by Martin's chaotic character, with Andy Garcia especially good fun in his role and Aishwara Rai Bachchan having fun as the distractingly beautiful member of the team who is also an expert on The Tornado. John Cleese is okay as Dreyfuss, though he never seems quite as exasperated as Kevin Kline did in the previous movie (who never seemed quite as exasperated as Herbert Lom, the actor most associated with the role). Martin, Reno and Mortimer are all very good, and the supporting cast includes Jeremy Irons, onscreen for just a few minutes, and Lily Tomlin, playing someone who tries to help Clouseau adjust his attitude to women and people from other nations.

There's no denying that this is Steve Martin wayyyyyyyyy past his prime, coasting along and working with material that's often beneath him, but I still find it enjoyable and entertaining. Part of that will undoubtedly be down to just how highly I think of Martin. But part of it might be, just MIGHT be, down to the fact that the film isn't actually as bad as most people make out.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Pink-Panther-Double-Pack/dp/B008N6EUNG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1376507915&sr=8-4&keywords=the+pink+panther+2

Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life (1983)

I have a bizarre viewing relationship with this, the last, Monty Python movie. I first saw it many years ago and quite enjoyed it. I was young, there were many jokes that I didn't get, but it had enough amusing moments to keep me entertained. Just. Then I saw it as an adult and enjoyed it a lot more. I'm sure that I even thought those who criticised it were being unduly harsh. On a recent rewatch, with me still being an adult (I haven't suddenly developed some kind of Benjamin Button syndrome, despite my moments of immaturity), I have found that I fall in line with the majority. The Meaning Of Life has moments of greatness, but it's far from a great film.

Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones, this film suffers from excess in a way that neither of the previous Monty Python features could have tolerated. In fact, one segment entitled "The Crimson Permanent Assurance" almost unbalances the entire thing. The fact that it was directed by Gilliam, who can't seem to align the practical aspects of controlling costs and maximising efficiency alongside the need to express his artistic vision, should come as no surprise to those who have continued to watch the ups and downs of his career.

Putting that segment aside, despite the fact that it comes along at the start of the movie and then interrupts proceedings later on, what else is on offer here? It's very hit and miss. Written and acted, as usual, by the whole troupe - Gilliam, Jones, Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle and Michael Palin - with supporting turns from Carol Cleveland, Patricia Quinn and a few others, the sketches touch on various aspects of life and humanity. Birth is covered, with the superb song "Every Sperm Is Sacred" being a highlight, war is looked at a couple of times, the significance of our lives (or lack of it) is brilliantly summed up in "The Galaxy Song" (^^^see above^^^), there's the unforgettable sight of a certain Mr. Creosote and, of course, Death makes an appearance towards the end of the movie.

Fans of the Pythons will still find enough to enjoy here. Gilliam gets to throw in some crazy imagery, everyone has at least one scene-stealing moment and the surreal "find the fish" sequence has grown from something that I simply endured to an inspired moment of brilliance that I could probably watch repeatedly without never becoming bored. There are many great lines, but they often happen to be caught amongst many distinctly average, or even unfunny, moments.

I can't say this is a BAD film, and I'd hope that any Monty Python fan would agree, but it's a big step down from the previous movie outings. The BIG laughs are few and far between, though it's important to remember that they are still there, but a lesser Monty Python film is still full of more wit and ideas than a hundred other movies released in the same year.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monty-Pythons-Meaning-Special-Edition/dp/B0001WAGHO/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1373148756&sr=8-4&keywords=monty+python%27s+the+meaning+of+life

And Now For Something Completely Different (1971)

The first movie outing for the Pythons, this is little more than a loosely connected series of sketches taken from the first series and the, yet to be aired at the time, second series. The fact that most of the sketches are typically brilliant is what makes this film so enjoyable, even if it's a lesser outing when compared to the features that the gang would release.

All of the guys are here - Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin - and all have their usual heavy workload, sharing in the scripting duties before taking on multiple character roles to act out everything onscreen. They are joined by Carol Cleveland, Connie Booth and one or two others, but they remain front and centre, with Gilliam providing numerous bits of animated madness, as ever.

Director Ian MacNaughton doesn't really do much to move the material firmly away from TV territory. In fact, the familiarity of it all adds to the enjoyment. Any fan hearing of "the dead parrot sketch" or "the lumberjack song" will be ready to laugh and fire quotes at anyone else willing to listen. These are much-loved comedy sketches for good reason, because they're fantastic.

One of my favourite sketches sees a milkman lured into a household by a voluptuous housewife before things get absurd. It takes the easygoing attitudes of the time - typified by the "Carry On..." films and, later, the "Confessions Of..." movies - and then twists them to great comic effect. The perfect blend of clever and stupid, much like the absurd brilliance of "Hell's Grannies" and, of course, the grand finale showcasing "The Upper Class Twit Of The Year."

The Monty Python movies were never really designed to win over new fans. The group already had a sizable, loyal fanbase and rewarded them with a number of fun features. It's this first outing, however, that makes no concessions whatsoever to people new to the humour on display. Which is fine by me, especially when the result is as funny as this.

In summation - it breaks no new ground, but it sure does still tickle the funny bone.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monty-Pythons-Something-Completely-Different/dp/B00009PBSJ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373095874&sr=8-1&keywords=and+now+for+something+completely+different

Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1975)

Monty Python And The Holy Grail is my favourite film from the Pythons. I really love Life Of Brian, but this film just has even more inspired lunacy in the mix. The big laughs here are BIGGER laughs, to me, and it's one of the most quotable movies of all time. Don't believe me? Ask any fan about it and see how long it takes to hear them reel off a full quote.

What's the story? Well, it's supposed to be all about King Arthur (Graham Chapman) assembling the Knights Of The Round Table and going on a quest for the holy grail, but it's really just a series of fantastic sketches that use the time and characters to wring the maximum comedy from every moment of screentime.

It starts off with the opening of Dentist On The Job (a gag that surely confused a number of cinema-goers back in the mid-70s), moves into a number of sequences in which those responsible for the subtitles try to further their own bizarre agenda and then, eventually, gets to the main "storyline".

Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones, and written and acted by the whole gang (Chapman, John Cleese, Gilliam, Eric Idle, Jones and Michael Palin), there are also small, but memorable, roles for Connie Booth - playing a witch, with a witch nose and everything - and Carol Cleveland.

I have tried to refrain from simply listing all of my favourite scenes, but it's hard. The film is like a Greatest Hits Of Comedy album with no weak spots. There are amusing animated skits from Gilliam, some hilarious anachronisms, the Camelot Song (Knights Of The Round Table), the Black Knight, the Knights Who Say 'Ni' and much, much more.

Okay, I caved in and listed a lot of my favourite scenes, but even that doesn't begin to cover it. The only way I could fully express my love for every moment of this movie would be to just copy and paste the entire script here. It's THAT good.

I have to go now. I've been ordered to cut down a tree . . . . . with a herring.

10/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monty-Python-Grail-Blu-ray-Region/dp/B0015GQ3EA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1373011211&sr=8-2&keywords=monty+python+and+the+holy+grail

Monty Python's Life Of Brian (1979)

An irreverent, clever look at religion from the Monty Python team, this comedy classic tells the story of Brian (Graham Chapman), a young man who spends his life, due to numerous coincidences, being mistaken at particularly inconvenient moments for the messiah when he was, in fact, born in the stable next door. He gets himself involved with the People's Front of Judea (not to be confused with the Judean People's Front . . . . . . . . . . splitters!) and is soon wanted by the Romans for a number of crimes. Considering the fact that just uttering the line "that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah" is enough to get a man stoned to death, things don't look too good for Brian.

Directed by Terry Jones, the script features the usual contributions from the whole team (Jones, Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle and Michael Palin) and the gang also take their usual selection of multiple roles. Taking one example, Michael Palin plays an ex-leper cured by Jesus and still trying to make a living from begging, a spectator insulted for his big nose, Pontius Pilate, a member of the People's Front of Judea named Francis and quite a few more memorable characters.

While the comedy is still scattershot in places, this is a more cohesive and focused film than many others from the Python troupe. Fans of Terry Gilliam's artwork may wish there was a bit more of it here, but there's a glorious title sequence and at least one other enjoyable skit later in the film that features some of his art. Everyone involved seems to agree that they were at their peak here, with Chapman in especially fine form, and the tightrope being walked, as they tried to make the best film possible with such controversial central subject matter, may have helped.

Despite what the thin-skinned, quick-to-take-offence, complainers will say, Monty Python's Life Of Brian isn't actually an offensive movie, unless you're offended by being made to laugh so hard. Jesus is mentioned, parallels are made, but the gang never actually mock the life of Christ directly. What they do is much better than that. They make jokes about the time, about the attitudes and about blindly following people who may be equally desperate for signs to show them the way forward. It's about silly names, the importance of correct grammar and the futility of people fighting against each other, despite having the same aim.

And it poses that vital question: "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

9/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monty-Pythons-Life-Brian-Immaculate/dp/B000X4ZGL6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1372929082&sr=8-2&keywords=life+of+brian