A Liar's Autobiography: The Untrue Story of Monty Python's Graham Chapman (2012)

That was an excellent one.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

This is a very naughty movie. Many times I said to myself, "Did I just see what I thought I just saw? No, it couldn't be." It celebrates anuses, penises, anal sex, 69, promiscuity, alcoholism and death. The animation is very cleverly done to give you the subjective impression of seeing the world from inside Graham Chapman's head. Everything just sort of flows, the way ideas flow.There is one big catchy musical number with words that summarises the cheeky raunchiness:Sit on my face and tell me that you love meI'll sit on your face and tell you I love you tooI love to hear you oralizeWhen I'm between your thighsYou blow me awaySit on my face and let my lips embrace youI'll sit on your face and then I'll love you trulyLife can be fine if we both sixty nineIf we sit on our faces in all sorts of placesAnd play till we're blown away

Was this film put together by several committees? What a disappointing 'tribute' to a great talent! The animation styles were all over the place. Nothing cohesive. It was as if multiple committees of individuals, who never met, had decided to produce different parts of the film without consulting each other. It looks like multiple animation 'artists' were trying to show off their styles of animation without respect to the purpose of the film. What a visual mess! Such a disappointing 'tribute'(?!) to one of the greatest talents in British comedy. It is a disappointing example of 'style over content' A thoroughly disappointing film :-(

Well I have to say that I was rather disappointed with this film. It comes across as disjointed and of varying levels of quality. It certainly never reaches anything like the standards of entertainment of the old Monty Python stuff. Mind you I suppose it is clear that it doesn't set out to or pretend to do that. It is, after all, a film based on Graham Chapman's autobiography. I did read this book many years ago – in part because I and some friends met the man himself back in 1974, and we spent a rather drunken evening together in the bar at the Kingshouse in Glencoe. This episode even gets a mention in the book (page 218), although not in the film; so I have some first hand knowledge of what he was like. Essentially I reckon the book is an honest and accurate insight into Chapman's life (despite the title), and the film comes across as a project based on the book. The film does some things reasonably well, but mostly it looks like the producers simply farmed out sections of the book to several different groups of students (or maybe recent graduates) of media studies or animation, and then stuck them together using odd snippets of Chapman's own reading of the book.I watched the film on DVD and found the "additional material" to be considerably more watchable than the film itself, particularly some old 8mm film and the "behind the scenes" stuff on the way the animation scenes were produced!

I'm a big Monty Python fan but I haven't yet read A Liar's Autobiography (Volume VI). I was very disappointed with the film as it lacks any of the Monty Python charm. It feels more like a Spike Milligan book, but lacking that crucial, undefinable charm which draws you into a madman's world. It only made me wistful to watch some actual Monty Python. However there is somewhat of a spooky feel in that the film is narrated by Graham Chapman himself, who became an ex parrot in 1989. The film is mostly animated using multiple styles of animation. Fans of Terry Gilliam animation will be disappointed to see a lack of this style though. There are a number of very crude jokes and references in this film, again lacking the charm to make them truly funny.The film is somewhat reminiscent of the film Yellow Submarine (1968) and perhaps a sober state of mind is not recommended when watching this film. I highly recommend the Spike Milligan novels as well as any of the Monty Python films or shows.