The Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch

So here it is 2 years after Cant Buy Me Lunch has been finished and STILL no distribution? I'm growing a little concerned with our society in general when Charlies Angels 2 is welcomed with open arms and a gem like Rutles 2:Cant Buy me lunch doesnt see the light of day. This is a fantastic sequel to the classic original. All the key elements are here the interviews with all the celebrity guests (especially Gary Shandling) are hilarious! I saw this in a theater full of people and everyone seemed to genuinely enjoy it. The bits with Jimmy Fallon are a little weak but Shandling and Steve Martin are extremely funny. We need to get Idle in some more films! are you listening Harvey Weinstein?

With due respect to Mr Idle and Mr Innes, and hoping to avoid being the center of the fiery ire of the legion of Rutles fans worldwide, The Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch is the Magical Mystery Tour of the pre-fab fours' illustrious career. The charm of the original film was Neil's semi-original music: Not quite plagiarism, not quite satire, but a delicious hybrid of Lennon-McCartney-Innes that had me both yearning for the real "boys" to "Get Back" (All You Need Is Cash was first shown in 1978, and it was still a dream, a wish and a possibility in those days) and in enjoying several of the songs (forgive me) just as much as some of the original Beatles stuff.

What made AYNIC so charming and worthy of multiple listens and rewatches was the original music, and the plot that so closely follows the career and lives of our real heroes. It's weakness was Eric as Dirk/Paul, IMO and the weak interview scenes of the imaginary people affected by our heroes lives. (I'm not talking about Simon and Jagger, but the New Orleans scenes.) The other three were real musicians and the music we're hearing is really theirs; Eric didn't even come close to looking like a musician (and he admits it himself.) What you have in Can't Buy Me Lunch is the opposite of AYNIC: Not enough original music, not enough about the career and lives of our pre-fab (or fab) heroes, and too much Eric Idle. Too much focuses on the life of the "guy who interviewed the pre-fab four" and it's just not funny or interesting enough to carry the load.

If you run across the DVD go ahead and buy it and give it a watch, it's okay. But just like MMT fell way short of short of Help or Hard Day's Night, I think you'll find "Lunch" a bit of a disappointment. You might enjoy it better if you have a cup of tea before watching though! (Both are available on DVD.)

This sequel doesn't hold a candle to the original, in fact, at times the attempts at comedy are painful.

At times, the low-budget of the film, becomes more than just a joke, it is actually annoying. The film features washed out lighting, terrible audio and rough impromptu comedy that never delivers much punch. I think at times Idle doesn't even have a crew he just stands in front of a cheap video camera, recording himself. It's funny, but not funny enough, for the entire film to be carried that way.

It's so bad in spots, that you sometimes think someone could make a parody of how cheap, and fast Eric Idle can punch out product. A parody of the parody perhaps, that's about the only way this film could ever save itself. Monty Python has become so cliché and so formulaic now that it begs for parody the way Star Trek, super heroes and other stale icons of pop culture cry out for it.

That's what this sequel is I'm afraid, old, stale pop-culture that just rubber stamps old tricks and dishes it out in liberal, repetitive doses.

It's too bad. The original is brilliant. It is a quick, sharp, witty send-up of an era and an industry that needed a solid comedic thrashing. It spanked the rampant consumer hysteria and the fan boy worship of pop idols, but did it with a lot of love and affection for the music itself.

George Harrison once referred to the original Rutles film this way: "It was actually the best, funniest and most scathing. But at the same time, it was done with the most love." There's not a lot of love in the sequel, just some cheap, quick cameos, some running gags that never pay off and some really poor sound and video to look at.

While my admiration for Idle and Python remains, these guys have become stale. If this film taught me anything, it is that someone needs to make a "Rutles-like" documentary of Monty Python, to remind us all what made them great in the first place.

If you could cut out Idle's ridiculous interviewer (not funny ridiculous, as in Monty Python, ridiculous ridiculous, as in your tiresome uncle who trots out the same tired schtick every Thanksgiving), this might have some merit, as recycled as it is. I don't know exactly where Idle got the notion that these endless digressions and middle school wordplays are funny. Again and again he'd go back to never funny in the first place routine that would go something like "Right here in 1962...well, er., not exactly here, technically over there about 10 feet...err, actually more like 9.5 feet...or to be more accurate 9 feet five and three quarter inches, or "dyuymov", as the Russians say for inches...but the Russians really have nothing to do with the Rutles, even though they start with the same first letter "R"...although it's only "R" in the English translation of the word we use for "Russian...etc., etc. ad nauseum."

DOES ANYONE, ANYWHERE THINK THAT'S FUNNY? Mr. Idle, you are not a stand alone funny person. You won the lottery by meeting the rest of the Python troupe. You are capable of inspired work WITH OTHERS. But not alone.

He desperately needed some checks and balances here, perhaps the hand of Mr. Innes (who actually has the gift of subtle humor) might have helped, but by most accounts he ran the entire group of former collaborators off. His loss--and ours.

Remember when "Beatles 1" came out and suddenly there was this big Beatles media blitz and all these news channels were doing all the rehashed stories on The Beatles and interviewing various people (some who weren't even musicians) about the degree of influence The Beatles had on their careers? Well, THAT is EXACTLY what Eric Idle was doing with "The Rutles 2: All You Need Is Lunch;" he's sending up the fact that all these years later, people are still doing stories about The Beatles, though they're just going over the same ground about their history and recycling the same old comments about them. So that's what "Rutles 2" satirizes. Therefore, it ISN'T EVEN TRYING to be as good as the original (awfully tough act to follow, anyway). With that said, "Rutles 2" is what it is. There are some good items in it (David Bowie gives some surprisingly memorable moments, and there's some great unused footage from the original movie), but this is something you can only watch every once in a while. Otherwise, my relatively high mark is mostly for Eric's satire/self-awareness about the whole thing.