The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It (1977 TV Movie) User Reviews

A strange case, indeed

[craigjclark · 7/10 · 11 August 2003]

Not the most successful television project John Cleese ever did, "Strange Case" has the feel of a first draft that was rushed into production before any revisions could be made. There are some silly ideas throughout and even a few clever ones, but the story as a whole unfortunately doesn't add up to much.

Arthur Lowe is a hoot, though, as Dr. Watson, bionic bits and all. "Good Lord."

One hour skit from John Cleese minus M. Python

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 28 February 2011]

Possible Spoiler - In what is probably the world's longest movie title, The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It, someone is killing all the world famous figures and detectives. They call in Arthur Sherlock Holmes (Cleese) to get to the bottom of it. There are some great, funny scenes, like near the beginning, with those recognize-able folks around the conference table: Denholm Elliot (the butler from Trading Places) and Josephine Tewson (Elizabeth, the neighbor from Keeping up Appearances) who gets into arguments with the computer. Even the big reveal at the end is QUITE similar to Neil Simon's Murder By Death, which had just come out the year before. About halfway through, it gets quite silly, in a Stooges kind of way, but its all fun, and wraps up nicely at the end. There is another hilarious scene, where there are about 30 bullets in a six shooter pistol. It's much like a Python skit, but at under an hour, it's just mostly good fun that is over before it gets dragged out too long. Not bad if you keep those expectations low. Holly Palance (daughter of Jack Palance) plays the air hostess; looks like she did mostly TV stuff. Cleese's wife Connie Booth looking pretty hot in a tight black leather outfit. This film is part of the John Cleese DVD collection from White Star Kultur Productions.

My two penn'orth

[imdbuserg · 7/10 · 31 August 2017]

##### no plot spoilers #####

Just browsing, as you do, through IMDb and encountered 'The Strange Case....' entry.

I remembered this fondly. It means even more to me now because of the resemblance the Arthur Lowe bore to my late father.

That aside, I recall that it was made a long time ago. Forty years to be precise (at the time of writing....2017). So long ago, in fact, that it was when 'the comic messiah' himself (John Cleese) was actually funny. Well, on good days. Let's be honest 'python' produced so much that SOME of it had to be funny. I'd say, on balance, that this was on one of J.C.'s funnier moments. Possibly because Holmes as portrayed here is a bit conceited, arrogant and superior, At least where his lap dog chum Watson is concerned. Maybe it wasn't too much of a stretch for J.C.

That said, the Holmes character is meant to be like that in this film (yes I said film. Not movie). Just as Watson is meant to be butt of this. e.g. "Good lord Holmes, how did you know?" (J.C.) "Because you're so sodding dim".

Connie Booth, was (as memory serves) easy on the eye, well cast and on top form and played the Hudson role, and the reveal role well. In fact I was always wondering why, when given her appearance, writing talent, and acting talent, that she wasn't a much bigger star? Perhaps it didn't sit well wither husband if she began to attract some of the limelight?

The score. To be honest I don't remember too much of the score. I don't recall it being intrusive, or out of place so my presumption is it must've been fine. Editing. As I remember it the story line hung together well enough and nothing was given away too soon. Enough of the technical mumbo-jumbo. I never really understood 'cinematography, lighting, et al. It all sounds good but it doesn't really mean anything. (go on name that quote).

What you really need to know is that it's a reasonable story. It's well told. It's well acted. It's funny. It's of it's time. It's worth watching.... several times. AND.... contrary to several other reviewers here on IMDb, (all but one being from "united States", the other one being from Serbia), it is not at all like Murder By Death. How that is arrived at is a mystery worthy of it's own film. I wouldn't be so crass as to suggest that two different reviewers, using the same vocabulary and making the same mistake, could possibly be in cahoots. The mistake one makes is to mention Murder By Death and state that the characters in Murder By Death are ".. MBD's detectives come from literature's mystery genre and this film's detectives come from American television of that era.". Okay, do I really need to state the blindingly obvious?. Another "United States" reviewer seems to be under the impression that a star should be in every scene from the opening frame to the last frame. Lest I be accused of being a "United States" hater there were several reviews from "United States" where the reviewer actually understood the film, it's comedy AND, perhaps most importantly, the era it was made. The world has moved a long way in 40 years. We cannot apply modern day sensibilities to a 40 year (or older) film. Also, bear in mind, that despite what the world might think, Britain was still on it's uppers in 1977. We paid a price... And Kept on paying. Long after others were rebuilt. No-one rebuilt anything for us. in fact we were paying our 'war loan' ti the U.S.A. until near the end of the millennium. Look it up. you couldn't make this stuff up. So we didn't have a Movie Industry like the Uncle Sam. What I'm trying to say is that it was made with a budget that seems impossible now. I think some of the reviewers from "United States" get that. I'm sure Ms. Booth understood the British psych well. Yes 40 years there were things on British 'telly, that today, you would be shot for, for just suggesting them. Maybe "strange Case..." will only appeal to those entering the dotage. perhaps. but it doesn't mean it doesn't have an appeal. Finally. the thing to remember above all else in the is this. If you like puns, pin back you lugholes because there are a handful of absolute beauties in here. So fun? yes there's fun. Beauty. yes the odd moment. Puns? Oh yes. Humour? (No! It is spelt correctly. this along with so many other things are highlighted, by a world which increasingly believes that the only correct English is that promulgated by - in the western world- an overwhelming United States-centric view. to-wit. The word is NORMALITY! not NORMALCY!. but media-trendy American wannabes, and internet usage would almost deny the existence of the word). Yes plenty of humour. Knowing disapproval? yes. Arthur Lowe? Yes, bless him.

Don't be too hard on this. film. It's not meant to be serious. and it was made, possibly by people your age, long before you were even born. Think about that..."

England's version of Police Squad

[caspian1978 · 25 January 2004]

For 1975, this was it! A typical John Cleese spoof that is meant for laughs. Connie Booth is added to the cast alongside her then husband Cleese. A surprise addition of the cast is late actor Arthur Lowe who has more laughs than Cleese. A strong supporting actor from other films such as IF... and The Ruling Class, Lowe is perfect as the stupid but love able side kick. For just a 55 minute feature, The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know it is a quick, yet fun ride that pokes fun at just about everything "detective like" in English and American media. Holmes, Bond, Columbo, etc.

Connie Booth in sexy leather black suit and with a gun.

[zapi_0 · 3/10 · 25 February 2011]

John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes, actually his grandson, but all the same. The descendant of Professor Moriarty is threating to destroy civilization as we know it. And that's it I guess. John Cleese even irritated me, I was like "Hey pal, why you doing that, to me and to yourself, stop it!" Arthur Lowe as extremely unintelligent Dr. Watson is great. Considering it has not plot, the film should be funny. And it's not, and how it's not! Unbelievably unfunny, it gives the new meaning to unfunny. There's the unfunny so bad it's funny again, there's unfunny so bad that I feel embarrassment, there's unfunny that's irritating. This is weird, no emotion was awaken in me whatsoever. It's so unfunny I think it might be funny in the same unspecified way. There are a couple of racist jokes that are interesting to hear. Maybe a joke or two were regularly funny. The rest is weird. Poirot, James Bond i Columbo have some small screen time also, played by random actor of course. Only things that partially make this movie worthwhile are Arthur Lowe as Dr. Watson and Connie Booth in sexy leather black suit and with a gun.

Quirky laughs in a cheap film

[Josef Tura-2 · 8/10 · 16 September 1999]

You can do a lot with a little cash. Blair Witch proved that. This film supports it. It is no more than a sitcom in length and complexity. However, because it has John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes it manages to be hilarious even on a budget that couldn't afford a shoestring. The highlight of this film is Arthur Lowe as the sincere, bumbling Watson, his dimness and slowness foils Cleese's quick-tempered wit. If you ever run across the film watch it for a quirky laugh or two.

incredibly unfunny

[zimbo_the_donkey_boy · 2/10 · 10 February 2005]

No laughs whatsoever. Yes, I watched this entire train wreck but only so that I wouldn't later wonder if Cleese had come to his senses in the latter part. (No, he had not.)

This may be historically interesting to you youngsters out there, to see that British "humor" included black "jokes" like these, thirty years ago.

What amazes me even more though, is to read the other reviewers' comments, which acknowledge this isn't very good, yet then turn around and give it high votes. If the vast majority of the comedies that you have seen are even much worse than this one, then I certainly pity your torturous existences.

The humor level of this show appears aimed at little kids, yet the subject matter does not. So who is this for? People who enjoy repeated & drawn-out double-takes, pratfalls, drug jokes (interesting only as a short trip back to '77), and other "low" humor. The Three Stooges are still funny, and were to me as a kid, too. THEY exerted some effort in making jokes work. This however is sloughed off schlock. I fear that it IS the end of civilization, if this stuff really is accepted as worthwhile. Next you'll be telling me that tabloid TV is popular. :(

Diverse Views Disguise Classic British Comedy

[jdbuzz · 10/10 · 9 December 2009]

It has been so many years since I saw this but I do feel compelled to defend this gem against those who lambast it.

It is interesting and unusual to observe the diversity of opinion here. That is what humour does I suppose. It is subjective. It either charges through your funny bone at 60,000 volts or it leaves you cold and wondering why you gave it the time.

This show has some of Britain's best comic actors put together in a story that is silly and irreverent and the outcome is hilarious. The dialogue and visual comedy is beautifully delivered and the two leads (Cleese and Lowe) are superb together. This was made for them.

I can't really say anymore other than to implore you to find this and watch it. You won't be disappointed and in a world devoid of genteel humour, this is a classic inane and harmless piece of comedic brilliance.

Badly scripted

[jeremy3 · 4/10 · 11 July 2007]

I was expecting a very funny movie. Instead, I got a movie with a few funny jokes, and many that just didn't work. I didn't like the idea of bringing in Sherlock Holmes' and Moriarty's descendants. It was confusing. It would have been more funny if they just had someone new, instead of Moriarty resurrected. Some of the things were funny. Burt Kwouk was very funny, as always. McCloud on the horse was funny. The McGarrett from Hawaii 5-0 was not even McGarrett-like. Connie Booth obviously is very good with accents. She is from Indiana, but played English and a New Yorker pretty well. Unfortunately, she was not presented much into the script. I was expecting a more funny film. Instead, I got a rather confusing movie with a poor script. Rather ironic, since both Booth and Cleese were together on this one. Maybe they were about to break up in 77.

Half-baked comedy

[vandino1 · 10 March 2006]

Less than an hour in length (and suffering for it, story-wise) this mostly uncooked satire makes little sense and generates little laughter. In fact, it is only the expert comic flair of Arthur Lowe and John Cleese that salvages anything from this witless stew. Ron Moody, unrecognizable, plays a Henry Kissinger-like U.S. Secretary of State who loses his diary and ends up toasting the Jews in an Arab country, sealing his fate. This leads to a distended and fumbling comic scene of the U.S. President (played by Ackland) trying to sort things out. But his obliviousness is only slightly funny, yet we get more of the same from many other characters that leads you to cry out "enough already." Thankfully the most painfully oblivious of all, Dr. Watson, is played by Arthur Lowe who has such a natural delivery (no sitcom ham) that it works. At one point Cleese separates Lowe from an impostor by recognizing that he is "almost magically half-witted." And Cleese himself almost rescues the film with his comic touches, making gold out of dross at times. There's little else to recommend. Booth is her usual pretty but dull self, and the big scene wherein Holmes invites all the famous detectives to gather in order to trap Moriarty is a horrible hodgepodge of impressionist cameos too painful to watch. And it ends weirdly, with Holmes and Watson shot down and Moriarty triumphant. It plays as if there is much more to come, but the film just ends.

Simply Bad, Watson

[justinboggan · 4/10 · 4 January 2017]

You open with an airplane that has an actor pulling off a poor Jerry Lewis impersonation, doing the forgetful Jewish stereotype, that's so boring and annoying you wonder if you should even continue watching it. Underneath you have the terrible underscoring with the music just going DUN DUN ... DUN DUN ... DUN DUN over and over and over again (and this is coming from me -- a film and TV score lover).

You stick with it and instead of being rewarded, you are tortured by a poorly written, poorly delivered, and badly executed scene of a mis-cast United States President talking to advisers. That's six minutes of your life. During the next minute what happened in the opening is finally addressed and the plot is starting to advance. It's painful, it's mental torture, it goes on for almost eight full minutes. But, you stick with it because John Cleese is in it and other reviewers praise it. And he must be in it, because he was seen riding a bicycle during the opening credits music.

FINALLY, thirteen freaking minutes into the fifty-five minutes long special, Cleese actually joins the film already in progress. Oh yes, there's nothing better than seeing one of three people the film is about, not actually do anything but ride a bicycle in the opening credits, until thirteen minutes later. By the way, he doesn't even speak until about fifteen minutes in. After all, the last thing we want to hear is the main star of the film speak words.

Twenty-one minutes in it tells us we've reached the conclusion of Part I, and by that point almost nothing has been accomplished.

Another eleven minutes later and Part II has ended and we know almost nothing more than we learned in the first part.

And when Part III ends, you find out there was no actual serious plot, that the whole thing was filler jokes and skits leading to no resolution of everything we were told and ending in rear-end squeaker.

There is so much un-earned and undeserved padding in this special that you could probably trim it down to ten minutes, and even then it would still be awful and not funny.

There are so many bad jokes and poorly executed ones. Not a single laugh in this whole hour of misfires. The premise was't bad, the idea of Cleese as Sherlock Holmes's grandson (following in Holmes footsteps) hunting his old nemesis in modern times has potential, some of the casting was good, and there were little skits that had the potential to be funny if they had been done right, but overall I found myself struggling to watch it, skimming small parts, and wishing a giant foot would slam down and tell us it was now time for something completely different.

The score is unremarkable and at times boring when even there. I wonder why there was even a score, as it was heard so little and did nothing to enhance the struggling mess.

And there are bad edits, film and sound wise.

This is terrible and deservedly forgotten.

A little-known classic

[leemrmg · 9/10 · 22 November 2005]

If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.

Arthur Lowe is a real treat!

I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.

Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.

I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!!

Cleese and Lowe can't save this utterly wretched comedy

[cherold · 4/10 · 15 August 2016]

This isn't just bad for a TV comedy, this is bad for a comedy film made by high school students.

The very first scene, in which a Kissinger-esque character mugs and does a funny voice, instantly establishes that this will be broad, amateurish comedy. The next scene with a confused U.S. president confirms it.

Things pick up when Sherlock and Watson arrive. John Cleese is quite amusing, and Arthur Lowe is marvelously funny. But the script is awful, and the acting is remarkably bad (outside of Cleese and Lowe, the only competent performance is by Connie Booth).

Basically, you've got some laughs whenever Cleese and Lowe are around, and everything else is embarrassingly bad. I'm just shocked that this was made and actually broadcast to the world. It should have been burned, and the ashes buried.

An minor comedy gem, screamingly funny at some points

[lemon_magic · 8/10 · 11 December 2005]

I'm not a John Cleese completist (although I thought "Fawlty Towers was brilliant), but I am a fan, and when I saw this sitting, neglected, on a shelf at my local Blockbuster, I decided to give it a try. What I got was a wonderful surprise, and one of the funniest 50 minute viewing experiences I've ever had. The writing is typical English "goon show" schtick. In fact, as an audio skit, this wouldn't be out of place on a "Firesign Theater" album. But the execution and timing is spot on and this elevates "Strange Case" into the kind of jaw-dropping performance that can create lifelong British comedy fanatics.

The Brits have a gift for combining broadly satirical lampoons with closely observed "tics" of character and timing, and the creators use both to good effect here. Cleese's portrayal of "Holmes" seems to owe much to the Arkin's and Seller's "Inspector Clouseau"; however Cleese has such a knack for physical comedy that he more than holds his own. But the unexpected treat here is Arthur Lowe, who plays "Watson" as an genial but invincibly uncomprehending imbecile with such superb timing and delivery that he becomes the best aspect of the film. I'd never heard of Lowe before this (his background seems to be vaudeville and musical theater), but he justifies his entire career with this performance as far as I'm concerned.

Some people might not care for "Strange Case...", especially if British whimsy isn't their "cuppa tea". But I am extremely glad I got to see this before it vanished from sight.

A tad uneven, but wonderfully funny at its best

[I_Ailurophile · 8/10 · 6 December 2023]

It's a strong start as a stand-in for the late, awful Henry Kissinger is treated appropriately. As the next scene greets us with a silly characterization and cheeky wordplay things continue to look up, though it seems to me that the bit is too drawn out. Some splendid silliness and wit in the third scene to greet us butts up in part against tiresome stereotypes and casual racism. With the fourth scene things start to gel and improve as the plot picks up and our contemporary Holmes is introduced, providing an anchor for the proceedings, while various ridiculous odds and ends continue to provide delightful embellished flavor. As the tale develops of a new game afoot between Holmes and Moriarty, with implications for the world at large, we're given a steady stream of gags, situational humor, exaggerated characters and acting, parody and absurdism in all aspects of the writing, and some good old physical comedy on top. And generally speaking, there's cleverness aplenty in a farce that would quite be fit for contemporary troupes like Monty Python (regardless of whether or not John Cleese was involved as both co-writer and star).

Mind you, the case for 'The strange case of the end of civilization as we know it' would be stronger if it didn't take a little over one-third of the abbreviated length of only fifty-five minutes to earn its first hearty laugh. With that said, happily the humor actually does become more robust and worthwhile from that point onward, if still less than completely. All the while the very least that can be said is that the cast is terrific as they fully embrace the ludicrousness, and the high energy that every actor brings to each moment in turn is without question one of the top highlights and most consistent qualities of the picture. Likewise, this is splendidly well made in most every capacity, including swell stunts and effects, fine direction and editing, and excellent production design, art direction, costume design, and hair and makeup. And maybe most important of all - while the result is regrettably uneven, at its best the comedy writing is altogether brilliant. Between Cleese, director Joseph McGrath, and co-writer Jack Hobbs, there are some bits here that are just as terrifically funny as anything else the contributors have given us, and the strength of the back end handily compensates for that early stretch when the flick was struggling to find its feet.

All told I do really like this, and I'm glad to offer it as a recommendation for anyone who appreciates British comedies. I just rather wish that the same vitality, zest, and ingenuity that characterizes the back two-thirds, and the last approximate third especially, had been applied more regularly. If the first twenty minutes were as sharp as the remainder, I'd have no detractions to make at all. Be that as it may, 'The strange case of the end of civilization as we know it' is still a blast overall, if an imperfect one, and far more than not it certainly provides the mirthful diversion we hope for. Unless you're a huge fan of someone involved I don't think there's any need to go out of your way for it, but at less than an hour this is well worth checking out if you do have the opportunity; just give it a chance to warm up first.

A Who's Who of British Talent

[vonnoosh · 8/10 · 19 May 2021]

I was heavily in a Monty Python kick and that led to my seeing, How to Irritate People. Romance With A Double Bass and this. Loved the first, hated the second and liked this.

This has Ron Moody, Stratford Johns, Arthur Lowe, Joss Ackland, Val Pringle, Denholm Elliot, Burt Kwouk and Nick Tate to go along with John Cleese and Connie Booth. This hour long comedy served as an introduction to shows like Dad's Army, Z Cars and Softly Softly which are almost entirely unknown in my country.

Val Pringle had a key role in the first story from Sapphire and Steel as Lead. Nick Tate a regular on Space 1999, Ron Moody, Joss Ackland, Burt Kwouk and Denholm Elliot from their film careers.

Arthur Lowe is the real star in this particular show. I've heard it said that Lowe was so great at doing comedy because he found absolutely nothing funny. He is beyond silly as Watson but he plays it so natural that you kind of believe it really is possible someone could be that entirely lost and dim.

There is of course Python style humor which sums up the ending well. Its worth viewing. It led to me seeing other shows I mentioned because I specifically remembered they were in this.

A Park, a Policeman and a Pretty GIrl

[jzappa · 8/10 · 4 September 2010]

The strange case has been made through studies that kids will laugh when presented with something out of place, like a funny face, if the face is made by someone with whom they are acquainted, but they will repel if it's presented by a stranger. This conveys that our reactions to inconsistencies, oddities, unanticipated discrepancies with normalcy and established ranks will differ in terms of particular circumstances. If the incongruity happens in a context where it's threatening, it'll dispose us toward a threatened reaction. This is maybe the seed of the horror genre. On the other hand, if the context is one that is distinguished as non-threatening, where the possibility of hurt and fear has been withheld, the scenarios are opportune for humor.

We follow the attempts of Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and various governments to stop all civilization from being destroyed, but everyone is too terminally stupid or apathetic to be successful at it. We need not worry about the targets of all the brutality and cruelty in blacker realms of comedy, including slapstick, because they're not completely human.

It's an accelerated, often hilarious jaunt that heckles at just about everything mystery, espionage or potboiler in English and American media. Holmes, Bond, Columbo, etc., little more than a vaudeville act in breadth and elaboration. The peak of this film is Arthur Lowe as the guileless, blundering Watson, his stupidity and listlessness always counterblowing Cleese's temperamental ingenuity.

Several decent ideas interspersed with totally inferior material.

[fedor8 · 14 September 2008]

Considering that this pointless little comedy was sandwiched between the two terrific Fawlty Towers seasons, and written around the same time as the best Python movie, "Life of Brian", it is amazing to me how Cleese could possibly have co-written such a lame script. Perhaps it was McGrath's fault to an extent? The two had already collaborated once on a monstrously unfunny flop called "The Magic Christian".

TSCOTEOCAWKI starts off fairly well with the murder of Kissinger, and then a decently written, pythonesque skit in the White House. From there it goes gradually downhill. The movie gets worse and worse by the minute, culminating in a finale that was simply too embarrassing to watch. I'm embarrassed just thinking about it now! It's the kind of material that 16 year-old comedy hopefuls would write for a high-school play. Moronic and unfunny to a fault.

When I first saw Kissinger/Gropinger, I thought it was Peter Sellers with make-up. However, Sellers would have done his homework and spoken the way Kissinger really speaks. This other actor did a poor imitation, voice-wise...

Somewhere between Monty Python and Douglas Fairbanks (sic!)

[johannesaquila · 8/10 · 8 May 2022]

This 1-hour English mystery film spoof has a lot of brilliant moments, but also a lot of average moments. The latter are probably due to the small budget of a production for regional television.

The overall plot is zany but coherent, even though it serves primarily as a means to hold various funny scenes together. I am not sure why some reviewers seem to find it confusing.

The plot starts when someone kills Henry Kissinger, sorry, Gropinger, through the simple expedient of stealing his diary, leading him to address an Arabic crowd with "Shalom! Mazeltov!" The last surviving relative of Sherlock Holmes' classical adversary Professor Moriarty claims responsibility for the crime and announces the intent to end civilization as we know it.

This naturally leads to representatives of the police forces of the 5 continents (Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Australia) to meet in London, decide not to do anything, and mostly get killed off one by one during their meetings. And to the last relative of Sherlock Holmes being called in. Played by John Cleese, today's Mr Holmes has his office in 221B Baker Street. He works together with the senile but bionically enhanced last relative of Dr Watson, played by Arthur Lowe. Their housekeeper Mrs Hudson is played by John Cleese's then wife Connie Booth, also of Monty Python fame.

Due to the incompetence of Holmes and Watson, the perfectly disguised Moriarty manages to kill all the most famous TV detectives as well as James Bond. But who is Moriarty really? And will Holmes and Watson manage to save civilization as we know it (= US hegemony?), after all?

The humour is generally even more over the top than in Monty Python's Flying Circus (1969). It includes some immensely quotable lines. In some ways it reminds me of Douglas Fairbanks' short silent Sherlock Holmes parody The Mystery of the Leaping Fish (1916), which managed to be even more extreme in a similar direction.

If it weren't for various deficiencies due to an evidently hurried production, I would probably rate this film a 9 or 10. As it is, I think it deserves a rating somewhere between 7 and 8 if you like British humour (as I do).

Murder By Death revisited

[Dakota100 · 21 November 2010]

I enjoyed this short film and recommend it to all who enjoy Cleese doing what he does best. Arthur Lowe's portrayal of a bumbling Dr. Watson is great as is Connie Booth's Mrs. Hudson. The plot is similar to that of the higher budget 1976 comedy film Murder By Death in that a gathering of famous detectives is empaneled to solve a crime. It differs in that Cleese and company depend more on sight gags than on a clever script. (At least one gag was lifted nearly intact from the the earlier film.) Another difference is that MBD's detectives come from literature's mystery genre and this film's detectives come from American television of that era.

This film pokes good fun at a variety of world cultures with special emphasis on the USA. (Perhaps I am being overly sensitive.) I recommend that those unfamiliar with either film watch The Strange Case before viewing Murder By Death to avoid being mildly distracted by the similarities as I was.

Goofy Fun

[kaljic · 10/10 · 10 August 2021]

This is an underappreciated gem from the work of John Cleese. For this reason the humor is pythonesque to be sure, but it is, incredible enough to say, stream-of-consciousness python humor. That may not seem possible, but for this short it is. It is a one-hour running collection of jokes, satires, and spoofs, one after the other, with no tell-tale plot. Even though the gags appear to have no rhyme or reason, it works. The glue that holds everything together is that it has something to do with espionage and is a satire of the spy and detective genre. The results are hilarious. I say, hi-lar-i-ous.

For anyone familiar with UK miniseries and televison programs, the names and faces will be familiar. Some of the political humor and references are a bit dated, but it is guaranteed to provoke a chuckle or two.

Recommended!

Monumentally underrated

[jaybrumbaugh · 9/10 · 21 March 2021]

Very funny Particularly if you know even a little about 1970s politics