I watched SWIMFAN (2002) on 2.23.12. It was my second viewing of the film, and first since its release.

I was under the impression that Freddie Prinze Jr. was in this. Instead, I think that he must have turned it down and so they got someone who looks just like him, but with a little more bulk. In fairness, Jesse Bradford acquits himself well enough as the leading male in this. I wouldn’t run out to see stuff he’s done, but he is not a reason to not see anything either.

Oh, I guess you want to know what this is about. It’s basically just FATAL ATTRACTION in high school with a lot of blue tinted scenes because the leading dude is a swimmer. Erika Christensen had made a name for herself in TRAFFIC and turned it into this starring role as the femme fatale. She is not bad in this, though the suffering girlfriend played by Shiri Appleby is surprisingly better.

The swimmer has sex with the new girl in the high school pool, which he regrets because he has an awesome and beautiful girlfriend who makes sexual propositions towards him regularly. The new girl turns all psycho when he tries to cut it off (the relationship, not, you know, it).

For the first hour or so, this is played out as a little drama, and it’s not too bad. None of the actors are Olivier, but they are not embarrassing either. But once the new girl starts killing people it gets real silly real fast. This is the sort of movie where 20 somethings are playing high school kids. I’m used to that, I’m fine with that. But then that same kid can then put on a lab coat and pretend to be a doctor and walk by security during a time when security should be heightened (except, of course, for the floor surrounding the threatened girl). Credibility lost.

The biggest problem with this movie is how horribly dated it is. It’s a decade old, but I think it must have been made before that. The lead has a beeper, and there is not a cell phone to be seen elsewhere. This is from an era in Hollywood where people in the real world, especially young people, were starting to get cell phones. The movie machine hadn’t figured out how to deal with plot turns wherein a person could just make a simple call to the police to get out of trouble. Instead of trying to figure these things out, many movies decided to pretend that the technology doesn’t exist. Outdated now, but I bet this movie felt outdated on its release date.

I can’t work up any real loathing for this movie (note: it does not get dumped into this site’s ‘johnlink poops on’ section). It’s not that bad. But other than the surprisingly satisfactory acting by the three leads (again, satisfactory, not great), there is not much good to say either. I am of the opinion that every movie is someone’s favorite. I didn’t like 300, but I can see where people do. I don’t have a movie crush on Narnia, but I know why others do. But I can’t imagine SWIMFAN is anybody’s favorite flick. I’m not sure why it got made. It’s the Miller High Life of early 21st century teen thrillers.

SCORES

FILM: 4; MOVIE: 6; ACTING: 6; WRITING: 3

4+6+6+3+0=19

FINAL SCORE: 4.75

I watched 127 HOURS (2010) on 2.22.12. It was my first viewing of the film.

I want to preface this by saying that I really do like Danny Boyle as a director. I am a big fan of his 28 DAYS LATER, SUNSHINE, and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. I think his work is nuanced and nicely stylized. However, he can’t get out of his own way in 127 HOURS. Some of his choices do work, (and that doesn’t even consider how beautifully shot the exteriors are). There is a subtle moment early on when Franco’s Aron Ralston is putting his pack together before going away for a weekend. He reaches into a cabinet and just misses a Swiss army knife. Something which would have been invaluable to have later. At another moment a non-diagetic sound effect is used to express extreme pain in a way which puts the audience in the mind of Ralston. A rain storm is used to great effectiveness, both in its on-screen execution and the desperation it places in the audience.

But for the most part, this is way over-directed. What I want to see is the survival story of Ralston who gets trapped alone in a cavern with his arm pinned by a rock. I want to see him go through the unthinkable to make it home. Instead, we have Boyle constantly reminding us that we are watching a movie. I’m not so annoyed by the hallucinations at the end, as I understand that is part of what happens to someone who is isolated and deprived of food and water. However, the constant triple-screen images and the style of the edits repeatedly pulls us from the story and reminds us that it is all just fiction.

Which is too bad, because Franco’s performance in this is tour-de-force. I could absolutely watch him try and survive for an hour and a half, even with some flashbacks to his memories. But instead Boyle wants to keep reminding us  of his presence.

The script is a little odd too. Once Franco escapes, his journey should really be extremely tough from there. Instead, it is all wrapped up very quickly. I don’t think that the middle act was too long at all, but the resolution was way too rushed.

I enjoyed this film, I really did. But it could have been so much better. While this is better than a lot of other shit thrown at the wall, I ultimately leave this film thinking of it as lost potential.

SCORES

FILM:4; MOVIE: 7; ACTING: 9; WRITING: 5

4+7+9+5+0=25

FINAL SCORE: 6.25

I watched HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007) on 2.20.12. It was my second viewing of the film.

Part of the reason I wanted to revisit this entire series was because I had a hard time picking a favorite. I am going to hold judgment until I get a chance to catch up on the last three again, but as of right now I can easily say that ORDER OF THE PHOENIX is the best of the first five.

David Yates takes over the series as director in this one, and he is the guy who will run the show the rest of the way. Picking a single director to finish up the last three books is very smart, just as letting Chris Columbus do the first two to get some momentum going was very smart.

Yates makes an impact from the very first scene. These kids are clearly young adults now, and the world is growing ever darker and more dangerous. Harry has entered a stage of adolescent rebellion, which is not helped by the fact that he is both a celebrity and a lightning rod within the wizarding community. Some believe that he fought off the Dark Lord upon the evil one’s return, while others consider him a liar and potentially responsible for Cedric’s death.

This is the best in the series, to me, because Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) is the best villain yet. As the new de facto headmaster at Hogwarts, she is not the most violent, though she is certainly cruel. She is not the most intimidating physically. Instead, she has the backing of the ministry of magic, and she has full reign to do what she will to the kids. The cat-and-mouse game played by Staunton and the students is so much fun to watch, and it really allows Harry to come across as a strong (if not the most willing) leader. Several montage scenes make this film just drive forward. The first is the sign posting montage, as Dolores works to correct perceived lax rules at the school. Next is the montage of Harry training fellow students in the secret room as Dolores and her cronies try to find the location of it.

But the heart of this movie is very real. Harry falls for a girl and then feels betrayed. Harry fights off immature impulses to take out his frustrations on his friends, who continue to stand by him. Through this entire series, the movies get the friendships right. Hermione, Ron, and Harry (and the other kids as well) get in petty spats, treat each other like garbage at times, and ultimately all come back around together. Reminds me of high school.

The defeat of Umbridge is rewarding enough to make this a great movie, and it is then followed by the best action scene in the series thus far.  Harry and his friends go to retrieve his prophecy, and that climactic battle between two teams of good and evil is complex, detailed, and scary.

I really like the change in relationship between Harry and Dumbledore as well. Dumbledore is trying to protect Harry by keeping his distance, but Harry can’t process that and is feeling more isolated, which fuels his frustrations further. While I don’t think the writing always processed exactly how angry Harry supposedly says he was, there is enough there to make it work (and if you do it too much, then you become the third Spider Man movie: an overly emo mess).

There is also a change in the visual. The depth of field in this one grows so much, which is especially observable in the ministry of magic scenes. Just beautifully lit and rendered. I’ve been rewatching all of these on Blu Ray, and this is easily the best looking one so far. I’m sure the budgets continued to increase and special effects improved, so I don’t lay that at the feet of previous directors, but rather give Yates credit for wrangling it all together to put forward his vision.

I’ve got three to go. I know I liked seven better than eight, so there is still a chance five doesn’t turn out to be my favorite as I compare them all more closely than I had before. But it is going to be hard to beat! 

SCORES

FILM: 7; MOVIE: 10; ACTING: 8; WRITING: 7; BONUS: 1

The bonus is for the cinematography. Simply beautiful. I love the shot as they fly over the water through England. Best visual in the series thus far.

7+10+8+7+1=33

FINAL SCORE: 8.25

I watched EVIL DEAD II (1987) on 2.19.12. It was my second viewing of the film.

This is remake, not a sequel. There. Argument done.

Look, the first several minutes of EVIL DEAD II change the story of the first entry. In the first film a group of five friends come to the cabin and are attacked by spirits. In the second film, it is just Ash and his girlfriend. Supposedly, they could not obtain the rights to do a true recap, so they filmed a new opening. Which would be fine except they changed:

1) The reason for the being at the cabin. In the first film they are renting it, in the second film they aren’t supposed to be there.

2) The number of people victimized. In the second movie, Ash only looses his girlfriend, not an entire group of friends.

3) The bridge. In the first film they can’t cross because it broke when they drove across, in the second film the evil has destroyed it.

4) If there was supposedly something in the basement the entire time, why did it never come out in all the time they spent down there in the first one?

5) Ash. This is the biggest one. In the first movie he is reserved, sometimes wimpy, and idle. In the second movie he is making moves on his girlfriend that she is not totally comfortable with, he is more masculine and aggressive, noone calls him ‘Ashley’, and he doesn’t show hesitation in times of peril.

Sorry, different universe. Not a sequel. Not. A. Sequel. Glad that is settled.

On to the film itself…

I enjoy this well enough, but don’t put it in the same category as ARMY OF DARKNESS. The second one recognized some of the flaws of the first one, namely the fact that the first one only got laughs as a byproduct of the horror, not because the movie was trying to be funny. The second one embraces the campy aspect much more aggressively, and is better for it.

Ash is a much better hero this time around. You feel like he can be the protector. This does make him less vulnerable as a character, so the film makes up for that by really beating the shit out of him. Bruce Campbell really gets knocked around in this thing, and oftentimes by he himself. There is no sense of invincibility because Raimi made some smart choices, namely having the spector of becoming a monster always hanging over him, and having him so physically abused.

Yes, the effects are cheesy and the gore silly. But the movie embraces those devices much more happily in this second installment. The supporting acting is actually a step below where it was in the first one, but Bruce Campbell more than makes up for it by finding a compelling persona for the audience to truly root for.

I’m not sure I like this movie better than the first one, but it is a better film, even if it doesn’t always look like a better film. The choices were just smarter and more impressive in the second film. And the restraint with the tree attacking a woman, but not raping her, shows real directoral maturity here (kidding, kidding).

But, I walked away thinking two things. 1) Definitely, unequivicably, not a sequel. 2) ARMY OF DARKNESS is certainly the most enjoyable part of this series.

SCORES

FILM: 5; MOVIE: 7; ACTING: 5; WRITING: 6

5+7+5+6+0=23

FINAL SCORE: 5.75

I watched SUPERHEROES (2011) on 2.17.12. It was my first viewing of the film.

As you can imagine, this is not a movie packed with costume-clad vigilantes beating up would-be rapists and clashing with some costumed nemesis. Granted, we do get to see costume-clad vigilantes, but there are no grand moments of action or violence. Major moments include a guy telling a drug dealer (easily twice his size) to leave the park (which he ultimately does) and a team of four heroes keeping a drunk driver from driving home.

The personalities of these people are varied. Some of these guys are little more than street performers, wandering the street in costume for attention. Others are determined to make things better. The New York Initiative, the foursome who stopped the drunkard, go as far as to send out bait to try and get someone to attack them. Of course, this never works. But they are looking for the action.

Most of this film seems to work as an attempt to make some of these people look pathetic, which is sort of counter productive to its ultimate thesis. There is a hierarchy here wherein the film wants to differentiate between the legitimate and the ridiculous. But everyone involved is degrees of both.

The final scene of the film shows San Diego during Comic-Con as thousands of people make their way to profess their love for geeky shit (that isn’t a criticism, I’d love to go to Comic-Con). Meanwhile, this team of ‘heroes’ is a mile away passing out cold water and survival supplies to the homeless. This is definitely a nice note to end on, but seems to also question why these people need to dress up in order to do this.

This movie was destined to not be as cool as it could be because the reality could never live up to our expectation. Regardless, I still give it credit for showing me a part of society I never knew existed.

SCORES

FILM: 3; MOVIE: 6; EFFECT: 5; WRITING: 6

My documentary rankings eliminate the acting element, and replace it with the effectiveness with which the film conveys its thesis.

3+6+5+6+0=20

FINAL SCORE: 5

I watched THE EVIL DEAD (1981*) on 2.13.12. It was my FIRST viewing of the film.

*I’m putting 1981 here despite the fact that the film was made in 1979 before a couple of years of editing and then, according to the DVD box, released in 1982. IMDB lists this as a 1981 movie, though it lists its opening US weekend as 1983. I’m confused. And it doesn’t particularly matter. So I’m sticking with IMDB on this because I feel like they are smarter than I.

—

This movie has balls. I’m not sure I reflect balls particularly well in my ranking system. I suppose it effects both the film and movie score to some degree. Having balls heightens the enjoyment of this film, and it speaks to the ambition of the director, though I’m not sure it makes it a better film.

I knew I hadn’t seen this when I watched a meek Bruce Campbell with a high voice talking in a manner that would lead you to believe that he might be the first victim. Plus, I learned that Ash is short for Ashley. Really? I never made that connection. Ironically, it works because he doesn’t really become ‘Ash’ (as we have grown to love him) until right around the time he has to decapitate the possessed body of his girlfriend with a shovel.

This was the second movie in two days in which someone gets raped. Both rapes happen by someone I never expected to see raping a woman. In Hitchcock’s MARNIE that would be Sean Connery. In THE EVIL DEAD, that would be a tree. I guess I should have put a spoiler on that if you haven’t seen this film. Whoops. I guess you can’t really spoil a woman getting raped by a tree. You just sort of need to see it (or not, I’m not suggesting that all people need to see a woman being raped by a tree). Supposedly Sam Raimi was accused of being a misogynist because of this scene, and he regrets leaving it in the film. My take is that it is so absurd as to not be scary. However, I use the same argument about HUMAN CENITPIDE that others would use against tree rape. So I can’t blame anyone who wants to make that point.

This film isn’t played directly for laughs as the series progressively did. They take this pretty seriously as an ‘evil in the woods’ story. It’s not totally effective, but it’s very watchable. There are, however, several infuriating moments where someone is being attacked in a four room cabin and noone seems able to come to their aid. It isn’t out of fear, it would seem, but rather the editing would merely suggest that it takes someone two to three minutes to cross a room and get there.

But this was a horror movie made by friends which launched careers. it launched careers because it attacked the viewer, not holding anything back in its level of gore and intensity. Sure it devolves into silliness, which the possessed people don’t help by acting goofy, but there are several genuinely tense and frightening moments.

The filmmaking is sometimes maddening because of their budget. At times the shot selection, the art direction, and the cinematography all work very well. At other times we get grainy and out-of-focus footage or sloppy editing. But it is very possible to see the budding genius of Sam Raimi at work here.

The acting is passable, if not great. I don’t have major complaints about any of the principles, which is rare for horror films of this era. Bruce Campbell is just a normal guy in this, which is odd to see.

Look, this is a fun movie which has reached cult status for a reason. I wouldn’t call it great, though there are moments of greatness to be found. I’m glad I finally saw this, even if I was under the impression that I already had.

SCORES

FILM: 4; MOVIE: 7; ACTING: 5; WRITING: 4; BONUS: 1

I have to give a bonus point to the gore effects. Even if they were sometimes goofy or unrealistic, the commitment to making things physically brutal does make for a better experience. I am no torture porn fan by any stretch, so the lack of realism was probably right where I wanted it to be. Certainly not the most technically brilliant effects, but they landed on me the right way.

4+7+5+4+1=21

FINAL SCORE: 5.25

I watched CITY SLICKERS (1991) on 2.12.12. It was roughly my fortieth viewing of the film.

Like LION KING, I can more easily point out what is wrong with this movie, because it is a short list.

1) The stampede sucks (the cow stampede, not the opening Running of the Bulls, which is hilarious). Poorly and unrealistically edited. I wouldn’t be surprised if Director Ron Underwood looks back at that moment as the one he really should have fixed.

2) The motivations of the cowboys, the closest thing we have to villains in this movie, are muddy at best. I don’t buy that they suddenly are so unprofessional if they would have worked so long for such nice people.

3) Daniel Stern’s wife. Don’t buy it. Not a good actress. Weak sauce.

That’s it. That’s my list. Sure, the rest of this isn’t amazing, earth-shattering film making but I give it credit for having way more heart and soul than most comedies of its time (the same can be said about WHEN HARRY MET SALLY), and I appreciate that every major character in this really is a fully fleshed-out person.

Jack Palance is a revelation in this. He won a best supporting actor Oscar, in a comedy-western, with very little screen time. He really does all his best work in two scenes with Billy Crystal. Fortunately, this led to one of the best Oscar acceptance speeches of all time.

Watching this for the first time in awhile led to a couple of new things for me. First, I didn’t know Jeffrey Tambor or Jake Gyllenhaal at the time, and both appear. Tambor as Crystal’s boss and Gyllenhaal as Crystal’s nine-year-old son. Secondly, it occured to me on this viewing that Curly may have known all along that he was dying, and picked Mitch as the guy he was going to pass his legacy on to. All the stuff about the secret of life, love, what is and is not important… I think he wanted to find someone to share his knowledge with, and Mitch proved worthy enough.

The writing in this movie really is superb. The characters are mostly all well fleshed out, and the story flows very smoothly. This is a two hour movie which feels one hour long. The one liners in this are amazing. I didn’t realize how many have stuck in my lexicon two decades later. There are more laugh-out-loud moments in this than in most comedies, plus it has a hell of a big heart. About to turn 30, the message about trying to hang on too long to your youth certainly resonates more than it ever did as a kid. And it is not told heavy-handedly. It’s just well done.

I’m not sure where this movie sits in the public conscious. For me, it is the best comedy-western ever made (edging out BLAZING SADDLES) and one of the top films of the 90s. I’ve been of the opinion lately that CITY SLICKERS must have been a guilty pleasure for me. But watching it again, for the first time in a decade, it really is an excellent movie.

SCORES

FILM: 7; MOVIE: 10; ACTING: 6; WRITING: 9

7+10+6+9+0=32

FINAL SCORE: 8

I watched MARNIE (1964) on 2.12.12. It was my first viewing of the film.

What an odd, odd, odd film this is! While Hitchcock was certainly never afraid to delve into the psychological aspects of criminality, I’m not aware of a film in which he so directly addresses it. Connery is the mouth-piece of science as a banker who moonlights as a zoologist interested in animal behavior. When he comes across an obviously disturbed woman he identifies as a pathological liar and a thief (Hedren, naturally), he begins to circle her like a hunter. He traps her in her game, catches her in her lies, forces her to marry him, rapes her on their ‘Honeymoon’ (yep, you read that right), barely saves her after she tries to commit suicide (she makes a joke out of it when she fails) and ultimately, in the third act, saves her humanity. What?! Really, that previous sentence is absolutely what happens in this movie.

I’m not sure what I think of that. On the one hand, the animality inherent in humanity is on display here (that is evident when Hedren says about a horse in a seductive voice, ‘if he is going to bite anyone I hope he bites me’). Connery represents that animality as much as he tries to stay above it, to only comment on it. In many films, he would be the villain. In this film, for some reason, it makes him the hero. Man, if I were a feminist I would fucking hate this movie.

Which isn’t to say that it is ‘bad’. I mean the acting is quite good, save for a moment or two of Hedren’s screaming moments (I’ve always thought that one of Hitchcock’s weaknesses was directing women in times of panic for their character). The film has ideas, has a point of view. That instantly places it above 50 percent of 21st century films. I just don’t particularly dig the point of view.

It’s really the rape which doesn’t work for me. I can forgive characters who make major mistakes. I can forgive terrible people in the movies whom I would probably hold a grudge against my entire life if they did the same thing in the real world. It’s part of the escapism. However, this movie never justifies the rape other than to assume that it was the man’s right to have sex on their honeymoon, and the woman was menatally disturbed anyway. I really mean that. The film never tries to justify it beyond that.

Also, when the genesis 0f Hedren’s mania is revealed, it is surprisingly tame compared to the rest of the events of this movie. I wonder what this film would be like if remade. I’m sure Sean Connery wouldn’t rape someone and go on being the hero.

Cinematically this is one of Hitchcock’s finest hours. Thematically, it is one of his worst. That is what makes this film so hard to rank. Since cinematics and theme are the two aspects which determine my ‘film’ score, how do I rectify those two things?

I guess I could have bigger problems in life like, you know, getting raped.

SCORES

FILM: 5; MOVIE: 6; ACTING: 8; WRITING: 4

5+6+8+4+0=23

FINAL SCORE: 5.75

I watched THE CAINE MUTINY (1954) on 2.6.12. It was my first viewing of the film.

At multiple points during the last act of this film, my jaw went slack and I whispered ‘wow’ to myself, alone, watching this unfold. Nothing crazy happens. No major twist, no deus ex machina, no sudden burst of the unexpected. Instead the film’s last act is just filled with amazing writing, top level acting, and undeniable power.

The first two acts of this film happen aboard the Caine, a minesweeper in WWII which has come under the leadership of a new Captain, Captain Queeg (Bogart). This new leader is a stickler for details, often obsessing over minutiae. His officers, who were previously undisciplined slackers, resent some of this, but also truly start to believe that the man might be insane. Without spoiling anything, the last act twist puts everyone in a court room where a major court martial is under way.

Not to short change A FEW GOOD MEN, because I love that film, but after seeing CAINE MUTINY it is easy to see the influence Queeg has over Nicholson’s Coloniel Jessop. The origin of that character can easily be found in Bogart’s Queeg. But it wouldn’t have happened if the writing wasn’t spot on and the performance wasn’t spot on. I’ve constantly, throughout Bogart reviews, mentioned the persona he created in film noir which he was always a little hesitant to shy away from. Well, holy shit, does he shy away from it here. In CAINE, Bogart is borderline manical, but not in a murderous way. Rather he is someone who is desperate to maintain order, to prove himself, to constantly be right. His last speech might be the finest acting performance of his career (again, I still need to see AFRICAN QUEEN, which he won the Oscar for).

But a major strength of this movie can be found in the depth of character throughout. Van Johnson’s XO, maryk, is a good navy man who is loyal and will always do the right thing regardless of consequence. Jose Ferrer plays a lawyer who doesn’t want to take the case he takes on, and despises someone different thanyou may think. Fred MacMurray is Lt. Keefer, third in command. He hates the navy, just wants to right his novel while on the boat, and does everything he can to stay out of both theliteral and figurative crosshairs. And finally, Robert Francis provides the audience perspective as fresh-faced Ens. Willie Keith, the most junior officer on board the ship. All of these men are fully fleshed out. There is no cheating in the writing, no cheap moves. The consistancy in character here is the type of stuff young film writers should be studying.

This is a film about passing the buck versus manning up. It’s about loyalty to duty versus loyalty to your fellow man. But this doesn’t exist soley in the arena of war. Ferrer gives a speech at the end of this, admonishing the officers for not doing anything, for not standing up sooner. The dialogue can be lifted from the context of this film and instead directed to those who did not stand up to the Communist trials that had just taken place in the US, with Hollywood being a major target. Many in Hollywood decided to back away, fearing that supporting someone who may be perceived as communist would lead they themselves to be accused of commie behavior. On one hand, it was hard to blame them. But many people did try to stand up (famously called the Hollywood Ten, of which CAINE director Edward Dmytyk was a part of). As such, this film’s heroes are knocked down a couple of pegs in the end of this film, as they realize what true heroism would really have been.

Back to the film, even the model shots of the Caine in a typhoon work. I usually roll my eyes and laugh at these moments in older films, but the work done in this film is marvelous. There is realism on this boat, it doesn’t feel like a set. Part of that is thanks to a young Lee Marvin, who was cast in this as a minor role both for his acting ability and for his expertise in military affairs.

I just can’t say enough good about this movie. I have watched a lot of Bogart over the years, and I absolutely have to put this in the CASABLANCA, MALTESE FALCON level, which to me is the upper level of cinema ever. I’ve been giving above-average score, though not spectacular scores, to several movie lately. This one earns the high marks it receives.

SCORES

FILM: 9; MOVIE: 8; ACTING: 9: WRITING: 10; BONUS: -1

Negative bonus point for the music. Something which could have been subversive and plot-heightening was played for flare and bombast. The sounds of this film are those of traditional brassy military stuff. It’s really too bad, because it was a missed opportunity. I really wish that Dmytryk could have borrowed Bernard Hermann from Hitchcok for this movie!

9+8+9+10-1=35

FINAL SCORE: 8.75

I watched MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1974) on 2.5.12. It was, oh, probably my tenth or eleventh viewing of this classic comedy.

Perhaps it was not wise to watch this film hours before a game I had been thinking about non-stop for two weeks. I spent more time checking the clock that I would have liked, so I can’t say that this was my most enjoyable viewing of this film. That said, I think  I can still take an honest look at this and be properly objective in my subjectivity. Or something.

I’ve always thought of this as my favorite Python film, and certainly I am not alone in that thinking. If you were to pick a top 10 favorite moments from the entire Python catalogue, at least three or four of them, and maybe five, would come from this film alone. The witch scene, the killer rabbit, the bridge keeper, the french guards, the Knights Who Say Ni, the swallow guards… I mean this is just a clearing house for hilarious ideas.

I have always wished for a little more cohesiveness in the story, though I also except that the sketch comedy nature of Python doesn’t require logic. I also always have felt cheated by the ending. I understand the thematic point of it all, but just get left wanting more.

The Python guys are just simply on the top of their game for this. I frequently remark, in these pages, about how I don’t downgrade my acting score just because someone is doing comedy. Good comedy is as hard to do as good drama. That said, often times comedies are much more lazy in their approach and commitment to a role (I’m thinking of every 90s Adam Sandler movie). But the Python guys are committed, really committed. They each play at least a half dozen roles. And, while there is recognition regarding who is who, there is not the sense that you are seeing all different versions of the same characters. There is some real, specific character work done here, even if it is in the name of absurdity.

Sure there are a few scenes which are less successful for me such as Galahad’s foray into the women’s castle. I’ve also always found the songs to be almost unable to be understood. Perhaps I need the Blu Ray and some surround sound. But I can understand almost nothing in the Camelot Castle song.

But this film is a miracle in budget use. The coconuts for horses choice is a brilliant stroke. Often they are obviously in a modern place, yet it works because of the introduction of the modern police. The reuse of the same castles to look different works very well, and the costumes are effective if not regal. They made this whole thing on about 240,000 pounds, so they weren’t throwing money around at anything.

This is a case where the whole may not be equal to the sum of its parts. I can call up almost any scene on you tube and laugh out loud. But the connection is minimal, and the end is just not for me. This is an absolute classic in the comedic genre, but it is by no means a perfect film.

SCORES

FILM: 4; MOVIE: 8; ACTING: 9; WRITING: 6

4+8+9+6+0=27

FINAL SCORE: 6.75