Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life Reviews

Page 1 of 300
½ November 26, 2017
Hilarious. loved it.
November 23, 2017
So underrated, sure Holy Grail and Life of Brian may be better but this one sure isn't bad, actually is pretty damn good. The bits come rapid fire and so do the laughs.
October 3, 2017
I do have to say that out of all the Monty Python movies, this one has the cleverest and smartest way of filming scenes. Very clever movie and as always, very funny and very cynical. It would have been nice if there were less musicals in the film as it felt like some went on and on.

Anyways, the movie was great. Another Gilliam classic.
½ August 16, 2017
Stupid and scary ~?~~~? what!!!!!!!!!
August 16, 2017
Some interesting and memorable skits, but you can tell when comics are running out of gas when they keep hitting you with vulgarity.
½ July 6, 2017
More like the series than a great movie, but then again, the series was great.
The songs alone are worth it.
June 17, 2017
Perhaps the answer of some sense, is the way of the (eternal) search.

Directed in 1983, by Terry Jones co-creator and member of the comedy company Monty Python, the English group employs to the film a division in "sketches" somewhat common the television humorous series, and that during the film is explained through the acid humor , Its division is due to the inability of the public to follow a long and continuous history without commercial breaks or that does not introduce throughout history violence, sex explicit or anything else stupid to the point of being censored and provoke controversy enough to take people Of the screen of a tv and to arouse the interest of going to see a movie in the cinema.

This sour, debauched, witty and playful tone will be present in all divisions and sub-divisions of "The Meaning of Life," yet the script will be careful enough to create connections between stories which is done very simply and Effective, and with great humor.

The film is divided into about eight chapters: The Miracle of Birth; Growth and Learning; Fighting each other; Middle-age; Liver organ transplants; The Autumn Years; The meaning of life; Death - and when these frames connect the effect is even more fun.

At the same time, the use of "sketches" allows a dynamic and propensity to encourage the audience to stick with moments and images that interest them the most, the opposite is also true if we have a brilliant opening with metaphors and that today (2017) envisions traces of foresight of our future, where the world abolishes the labor system through labor (like the old slaves of the building that sails in the economic sea), to live a financial economy and actions. If this opening frame is mastered and will be device for linking to another chapter, stories like the English army, are ineffective for any analysis of the film. They do not corroborate in any way, and the impression that it causes, is to be an instrument of relief for a previous joke more complex, intellectualized and consequently respire for those who do not understand or for those who are still reflecting. This gap between intellectual laughter and easy laughter will be presented at other times with the same effect.

A memorable moment appears in the chapter, the autumn years, specifically in the "sketche": "The Autumn Years," in which a monstrously fat Mr. Creosote eats wildly and when he receives a small piece of chocolate, he explodes. Something that for us Brazilians is very familiar when we remember Mrs. Redonda, emblematic character created by Dias Gomes for the telenovela "Saramandaia", whose end of the character is the same as that of Mr. Creosote.

There are many good moments in the 1983 film, my favorite is that of a group of pompous dinner guests who are interrupted by the visit of the "Death" (Grim Reaper), in short, everyone who is there will die and when asked why Of so many deaths at a dinner, behold the answer is due to a simple salmon mousse, and the climax comes from the comment of a lady (Michael Palin), who with his unpretentiousness says: "I did not even eat the mousse." This speech is supposed to have been improvised, and because it is so well used it provokes laughter, carries a subtlety that assists in the inquiry not only of the motive of death, but also in the sense of life, where there is no apparent meaning, everything is mere Conditions that are mostly caused by the desire of man.

In the quest to answer the philosophical title which is also the main argument of "The Meaning of Life," we realize that in the end the answer is less interesting compared to the pleasurable process in attempting to answer it. Perhaps the answer of some sense, is the way of the (eternal) search.
May 31, 2017
My least favourite of the Python films, though this is perhaps their most audacious one of the lot. Clearly they're in fine form with their anti-establishment, punchy brand of humour. Think the series of sketches are smart, well-executed and on point, but lacking (for me) in overall creative cleverness. I did though love the use of talking fish in the aquarium. That is creatively clever.
April 15, 2017
either bad or hilarious
March 25, 2017
Wow! I just watched it today and being a Christian, it was a bit too secular for me...still, great movie
February 21, 2017
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983) C-107m. ??? D: Terry Jones. Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin. Idiot British troupe looks at all stages of life; offensive to some, hilarious to others. Memorable sequence near the end with uniquely large restaurant customer is the highlight. Sometimes just referred to as THE MEANING OF LIFE.
February 12, 2017
A combination of clever non-sense. The movie version of Flying Circus.
December 18, 2016
One of the most underrated movies ever made and A very close second in Monty python's best work.
October 30, 2016
Monty Python's final film is also it's most crude and revolting. This is certainly not for everyone. However, it is well written, hilarious at times, with many classic scenes. The Mr. Creosote character is especially memorable (and utterly disgusting)!

For the uninitiated, start with Holy Grail, followed by Life Of Brian and then this film.
October 10, 2016
The final Monty Python film plays a bit more like an extended, darker episode of the show than their other movies. This one is pretty divisive in my experience, but I personally think it's some of their best stuff. Yes, some of the sketches are very not funny (I'm looking at you, Mr. Creosote), and sometimes they do go for shock a bit too much, but the good stuff in this is some of their most inventive, and memorable material. It won't be for everyone, but if you love Flying Circus like I do, it's worth a watch.
½ August 8, 2016
a lot of outrageous Monty Python humor hear. I just prefer the style of the other two films where it's all one story for the most part.
½ June 21, 2016
Not as good as its two more famous predecessors, but funny, intelligent and as absurd as always
½ February 12, 2016
For to night is the MEANING OF LIFEEEEE
February 10, 2016
A must-see for sketch comedy aficionados. This film has no narrative arc, and that was never the point. It's a collection of vaguely connected vignettes, so just enjoy it as that.
Super Reviewer
January 20, 2016
This was the last movie to feature all the original Python's together before the death of Graham Chapman, it was also the groups last movie altogether, there were no more after this unfortunately. Clearly the decision was also made to go back to their roots with this movie. The more coherent story angle that was used in their previous two films was jettisoned and their good old fashioned collection of surreal sketches was used as the main basis. The main big difference this time was the added bonus that the movie was in fact more of a musical number, albeit a more twisted dark musical of course ([i]South Park[/i] eat your heart out).

Now when I say the movie goes back to their old routine of surreal sketches, they do...but the sketches aren't exactly the same as their old work. Oh no, in this movie the individual sketches are actually much longer and are almost micro movies within the movie, they have their own beginning, middle and end...almost. Of course the quality of these sketches is much greater, they are much more elaborate, more in depth and like I said, actually have mini plots, none of them are just throw away quickies. Being a big-ish movie things have to appear much smoother and slicker than their TV days (or since their first sketch movie 'And Now for Something Completely Different'), and it is. Like their previous two excellent historical comedies proved, the combined skills and talents of the troupe, gelled with a solid budget, and you have gold.

From start to finish the film consists of reasonable sized skits, mostly original, although some ring a few bells, and some with pretty impressive musical song and dance numbers. Surprisingly there is little to no twisted animation from Gilliam, it kinda feels like there was supposed to be but they decided to turn them into live action sequences instead (my thoughts). Some of the smaller sketches certainly seem like they could of been animated, it felt very odd seeing a Python movie that didn't have their unique classic animations, a Python sketch movie that is. Its also quite stunning that the song and dance sequences are so good, you'd never expect it. The first big number we see is set in Yorkshire and has a distinct [i]Oliver Twist[/i] vibe to it in terms of visuals, choreography and the music, not to mention the actual size of the whole thing. That's not even the only dance number, there's another big one towards the finale, and another classic Eric Idle song in the middle too.

The movie is actually chopped up into chapters, chapters based on our progression through life, birth, middle age and death being obvious. Naturally there are some more silly chapters snuck in which are clearly there just for a stupid laugh, live organ transplants? Each of these chapters tends to have one main little sketch/story that runs for its short length, but there are the odd brief quickfire moments in between which are purely independent from the main little story. For example, with birth the main story is about a Yorkshireman (Palin) and his wife (Jones) who can't stop having kids because their faith won't allow him to use a condom. So he decides to sell all his kids (he and his wife have about 50 kids) for scientific experiments. Middle age is mainly based around an innocent yet dumb American couple (Palin and Idle) on vacation, they go to a fancy restaurant and order a conversation (not food) from the waiter (Cleese). Death, as you might have guessed, is all about a group of stuffy British people having a bit of a do (with yet more Americans on holiday I might add), when Death turns up and takes them all to the afterlife. In between these chapters are a few sub-chapters that deal with things like growing up, war etc...

Now these little sketches were always a mixed bag for me, some hit and some miss. The film initially starts off with a mock movie complete with its own credits, 'The Crimson Permanent Insurance'. Now this short introduction is a gem, absolutely brilliant and very dark. Its all about a group of elderly office clerks working for a major accounting firm, they are treated like slaves by the younger fitter suits. When one of them gets fired they revolt, kill all the young suits and then...errmmm...set sail as if the whole building was some kind of old galleon. They all dress like pirates using office equipment, run the building as if it were a ship and 'sail' to big cities and bring down their major finance corporations by attacking their skyscrapers, or 'boarding' them, and killing all the young suits within. It sounds completely insane, and it is, what do you expect from Monty Python. Thing is, its so well filmed, it looks great visually...effects wise, its imaginative and I believe could be an actual full length movie in its own right (think 'Pirates of the Caribbean'...with OAP's, and good). The same can't be said for all of the content of course, some is just weak and not particularly funny (the middle aged American couple) whilst other bits are just disturbing ( organ transplants?). But one such highlight that must be mentioned is of course Mr Creosote, the enormous fat bloke who goes into a restaurant and eats so much that he explodes in a shower of innards and bodily fluids.

Its definitely a more adult movie from the Python troupe this time. Previous movies were always cheeky with the quick blink and you'll miss it bit of nudity perhaps, the odd swear word, the odd hint of gore etc...but mostly things were more suggested or simply sexual innuendos which the kids wouldn't understand. In this film there is quite a bit of blood on show, some profanity and a lot of nudity! Hell I remember watching some scenes with my parents and being really embarrassed, all the sexy girls running with their boobs out, or Cleese teaching his class sex education by actually having sex in front of them! Twas so awkward and naughty for the time. Yet seeing this at a young age (dad is a fan) and I do recall not understanding things, not getting the meanings. Watching now as an adult it is very different and opens up the film so much more, being able to understand all the dirty adult stuff, plus all the nudity is now so tame.

Its not quite as good as I remember it to be frank, plus of course its dated pretty badly now. Its generally like all of the Python work, some of it is brilliantly funny, brilliantly written and brilliantly performed, whilst some of it just misses the target badly and would fall on flat ears. I do enjoy the film, it is engaging and it offers some nuggets of comedy gold without a doubt. I just kinda think at times it doesn't feel like a Python movie, it feels too slick, too flashy, you tend to expect the cheapness of the TV series or the earlier movies that just looked cheap. At times it feels like a compilation of clips from other movies, you half expect to see something from 'Time Bandits' pop up. Its a strong movie, I just feel it could of been better, it isn't a patch on the two movies they made before this, one featured a bloke named Arthur, the other a bloke named Brian.
Page 1 of 300