Monty Python and the Holy Grail - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Monty Python and the Holy Grail Reviews

Page 1 of 1772
July 19, 2017
A Comedy classic. This movie was hilarious! I think they didn't like cats back then lol.
July 14, 2017
It won't fit everyone's sense of humor but I found it hilarious. The groups I hung out with in school (Gaming, computers, and some choir) all loved this movie and its many quotable sections throughout.
July 11, 2017
Funny and charming, Monty Python give us their most hilarious and well acted film thats not only delightfully hearted, but also one of the (If not the) best comedic films in cinema history.
July 10, 2017
Loved this movie, except the end. It was like they ran out of money or something.
July 10, 2017
The infinitely quotable legendary comedy somehow manages to transpose the madcap, rebellious sense of the sketch show into a story which wonderfully sends up the fantasy quest genre and is only enhanced by the changes forced by its lack of budget. The thousandth time you see it is as brilliant and hilarious as the first, and it must be seen at least once in life.
½ June 28, 2017
By far one of the best comedies I have seen.
½ June 18, 2017
"Monty Python" makes it clear that the highlight will always be the joke, the laughter, and never the vanity of who is or is not able to make a laugh, and by such dedication and generosity we already have a good reason to follow this story.

The philosopher Henri Bergson devoted much of his studies on comedy, as we can see in his book (RISO - TEST ON THE MEANING OF THE COMIC). In this work, which breaks down the foundation of laughter, Bergson points to an idea in which the English comedy group "Monty Python" uses it almost as a thesis, in the case: Laughter is the mechanics applied to the living being.

In "Monty Python & the Holy Grail" (1975), we have all the distribution of a mechanics applied subtly, without didatisms or presented in a mandatory way in order to provoke the amusement of the public, although it is a comedy, it is not performed Openly as conventionally other films of the genre are proposed, something that can be verified in the film "The Meaning of Life", later work of that same group, that uses of "sketches", something simplistic and shallow in the construction of comicidad, mainly if we consider The complexity of the comic effect employed in a feature film with focal and linear history.

The comedy whose main satire focus is on the legend of King Arthur, is a work written and performed by the group Monty Python and which was directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones. The satire employed expands its limits by showing a king on a sacred mission, and who, because he is a believer of his condition, provokes laughter by having this severity interrupted by riding on an imaginary animal which exists only through the beating of a coconut, A sound effect entrusted to his helper Patsy (Terry Gilliam), the sonority is enough for King Arthur of the Bretons (Graham Chapman) to believe to possess a horse that accompanies him through the English lands. This effect not only of the sound, but of a king almost in the mold of the Danish tale "The new clothes of the king", where a noble parades naked, but believing to dress a beautiful clothes, therefore, his tailor told him, in King Arthur's crazy, imaginative stance added to the sound of the coconuts will be calculations resulting from a recurring mechanical summation in the film, something Bergson identifies as the mechanics of repetition for laughter.

"Repeat, a combination of circumstances repeated exactly on several occasions, in stark contrast to the changing course of life - the more comic the repetition (or coincidence) the more complex the repeated scene is and the more natural it is represented (two Conditions - complexity and naturalness that seem to be excluded, and which the ability of the theatrical author should reconcile) ". Bergson, 1900.

The highlight of this characteristic repetition in "Monty Python & the Holy Grail" is the sophistication in which it is built, and in the moments when it is inserted, therefore, it is something that runs the risk of being tiring or beaten but that in the movie exercises A charm to the point of wanting more. The same effect occurs in all circumstances in which King Arthur and his companions attempt to invade castles, but never succeed. Since the attempts, these different, always fail, even when they prove to be an excellent idea, as in the attempt to mold the Trojan horse, which in the film is replaced by a large wooden rabbit handed over to the French.

An interesting division made to know each of the Knights of the Round Table in detail is a break with the Brecht theatrical model, a break with the fictional narrative, presenting a historian (current to the period in which the work was performed), and Of a television program, explains or tries to explain what happened to the knights, but a tragicomic outcome is given to the teacher, this unused break for free, gains permanent prominence as we feed back the plot of the film, evoking moments of Laughs through the repetition of interruptions of medieval history by a modern police investigation.

With the break that allows us to know better figures such as the intelligent Sir Bedevere (Terry Jones), the brave Sir Lancelot (John Cleese), the chaste Sir Galahad (Michael Palin), and Sir Robin (Eric Idle), the public is graced with performances Clean. We have in each actor a precise "time" for laughter and a game of stairs between the "Python" group making it clear that the highlight will always be the joke, never the vanity of who is or is not able to make a laugh, and for such a delivery And generosity we already have a good reason to watch them.

Direction and photography make primary recording slips, in some scenes, for example, there is lens blur, and the use of open planes can not always communicate the size of what one wants to reveal, perhaps this occurs for a budget limit , Since many of the plains scenes are flattened in medium planes that do not account for registering castles and settlements (something that needs investments for construction), already in the dark scenes or of mists, the use of close's, big close's and open plans , Rather than assisting in any dialogue, only complicates and diminishes the intended comic effect.

It is worth mentioning that the moments of insertion of the animations are all very well inserted, besides the impeccable art that collaborates and helps in the construction of a comic proposal, and even being drawings inserted in a human history, are used naturally. As Bergson explains, this occurs when a certain comic effect derives from a certain cause, the more natural we are to judge, the greater the comic effect will seem to us: we already laugh at the deviation which appears to us as a simple fact. More risible will be the deviation that we see arise and increase before us, whose origin we know and whose history we can reconstitute. The cause of the insertion of these drawings into the film are always the results of a world and a divine order, which leave the terrestrial plane and present themselves as the world of the human extra-plane, and are recorded just like the illustrations of the catholic church in the middle ages , However, without the seriousness of the trait of the church, but always of the comic trait.

Finally, I emphasize that by appropriating a medieval history, the British group arguably knew how to deal with social significance, creating a timeless work. The plot is strengthened by the idea of ??a group laugh, for we would not enjoy the comic if we felt isolated - laughter seems to need echo, complicity with other jokers, real or imaginary, something the Pythons know well.
½ June 15, 2017
While I do think it's overrated, it's still a comedy classic, although the humor may not appeal to everyone, in fact, it's probably the most absurd comedy I've ever seen. I think this movie is considered a classic because of it' status of being a different, absurd and so low budget, it almost doesn't feel like an actual professional film. But overall, some scenes are very funny and the low budget and ridiculous tone of the film gives it it's own style. Recommended for some silly laughs.
May 24, 2017
The Holy Grail is one of those films that shows that you don't need to be smart to be considered a masterpiece, because, if you really think about it, people tend to remember stupid things more and constantly look back at it and laugh at how stupid it was. Also, I feel that Monty python is one of the only comedic groups that can do stupid/silly right and hardly ever get dull, maybe repetitive but not dull. Another reason for why this is a masterpiece is because it's the only thing like it. No where else will you find anything like this, or at least anything that works like this seeing as how others have attempted it before. But, in the end, there is no beating the masters of stupidity, silliness and madness.
½ May 24, 2017
Stupid, and overrated! The worst of the Monty Python films.
May 23, 2017
A great film with even better timing. Failed jokes in this movie is harder to find then bigfoot. Master piece that hasn't lost its charm over the decades.
May 13, 2017
Perfect. Still laugh out loud funny every moment, 42 years later.
May 7, 2017
One of the funniest - if not the funniest - comedy movie of all time.
½ April 15, 2017
I don't get it that much maybe since I'm too young to understand this type of comedy but I like the style and randomness. It's entertaining enough to have in my collection.
April 15, 2017
Best comedy of all time
½ April 14, 2017
Absurd humor that is complete randomness and not really funny. HG is a giant snooze fest with very few funny scenes.
March 6, 2017
Greatest movie ever no joke
February 23, 2017
I have watched this movie multiple times. I would defiantly agree with all of these other reviews. Even with it being made in 1975, its comedy lives on forever. I would consider this to be one of the best comedies made at this time. Sometimes the jokes may seem somewhat childish and pointless, the more you think about them the more you realize how ridiculously funny they actually are. I would recommend this to younger people, as older people may not enjoy the jokes presented in this movie. I would also not recommend this movie for extremely young viewers (12+ probably). The middle aged viewers would enjoy this movie for the jokes and witty charm. While I would not recommend this for older viewers, this movie has been out for such a long time that they may have already seen it or at least heard of it and as such they may enjoy the reminder of these older times.
February 4, 2017
Unique, funny, what's not to like about this movie?
February 2, 2017
I have an enormous amount of respect for John Cleese, but this is just as bad as I remembered it.
Page 1 of 1772