Review: Misfits 2.7 (Christmas Special)

"Jesus" uses a bought power to walk on water.

"I'm Jesus Christ, and I've been reborn."
"Nice he came back for Christmas..." 

After a few duds, Misfits returns to form with an episode that shakes up the formula considerably while also standing on its own merits, here specifically making an excellent parody of the Church. Unlike previous episodes with a satirical spin, the japery ran with the actual plot and (unlike the attack on video games in 2.4) actually relevant.
     Indeed, this week's tight plot tied together many different strands to great effect, most of them dependant upon the other. It helped that the main plot managed to touch all of the group at once, as well as adding specifics for each character. A main issue with Wednesday's episode was this sheer lack of plot.

Potestas est Pecunia

     We join the group three months later - their community service over, leaving them having to work basic jobs just to get by. A super with the power to carry other powers appears and starts exchanging them for money, a sort of "dealer". The whole gang (minus Simon) all go and sell their abilities, while Simon is persuaded by Alisha. Meanwhile, a disgruntled priest makes a pact with the dealer - give him powers to make people revere him, and pay him back with the money extracted from his followers. One follower, a converted mugger, tries to rob the gang at the Pub (where Alisha and Curtis work) and kills Nikki. They try to get their powers back but don't have the money.

"I'm going to kill Jesus"

     We must presume that the plot developments in 2.6 happened despite the time reverse, as Simon is trying to become Superhoodie and is in a relationship with Alisha. When "Jesus" uses her own power against her, Simon finds out and makes possibly the best quote Misfits has ever given us. (See Image). Other relationship developments include Nathan and Marnie, a pregnant girl who he falls in love with. He becomes attatched to her and the baby and it becomes a really heartwarming moment at the end where the baby is born and they all sing "Little Donkey". Jesus was killed in spectacular fashion (by his own petard) and the gang were able to use the money he collected by buy back some powers (although we don't know what powers they got back.)
     I'm glad that Misfits had an extra episode this year, a sort of redemption after the dud of 2.6. It was, excuse the term, a real present to have a fun formula mixup with strong writing and a brilliant turn back to the Arc that made 2.3-6 so interesting. The barefaced parody of the Church (e.g. "Jesus" forgiving the mugger of his sins with a few rushed words) really sharpens the series' comedy to a euphoric extent. Wonderful.

Thanks.

Review: Misfits 2.6

"I call it... Lactoknesis"

"That's the Mozzerella, tightening itself around your brain stem." Lactokinesis Boy

Dear oh dear. Having trailed off course last week, Misfits comes crashing into its finale with the same gay abandon it did last year - an episode that had little to no bearing on the series' actual arc. Instead, we got an hour of the usual Misfits' plot - Misfits are haunted by a superpowered killer, only to be saved by a rewind from Curtis. It really does surprise me that in a drama as fresh as Misfits, and as brief, that Overman even dares to reuse that form of plot. The all-important arc, the one we'd been working up to for some time now, was left as a footnote.
     A cantine worker (Brian) is affected by the storm, given the power to manipulate dairy products. He is swept up by Lauren Bailey, a PR manager working with Supers to basically further her career (and, they hope, theirs.) Probation worker Shaun sells out the Misfits to the press and leaves, the country, catapulting them into the limelight. They end up staying at the Grand Hotel, where Nathan engages in hedonistic and frankly irritating displays, trying to get a healer to cure him of an STI and blowing his brains out on television. Meanwhile, Brian feels neglected and so uses his power to murder people (through choking and other means).

Nathan wakes up after his first night of fame.

     I would be talking about how the episode advanced some parts of the Superhoodie plot ot their logical conclusions, but then one remembers that this episode used a reset device, wiping all that away in an instant. It's a real shame that the show bookended Series Two with the same plot told twice.
      The episode had all of the Overman staples - strong characterisation, realistic dialogue etc. but this time it felt more splintered and forced. Nathan was especially grotesque, his actions crossing the line so many times I was downright embarrassed, something the Misfits, while offensive, usually avoids.
     Luckily, Misfits has a chance to redeem itself between series. This Sunday, we witness the Christmas special, which is apparently going to bridge together Series 2 and 3. I'm looking forward to it.

Thanks.

Review: Oliver! 2010

"The best production I've seen in 30 years" Mr. Ward

It was Lionel Bart, in the 1960s, who decided to translate one of Charles Dickens' most scathingly satirical books into a stage musical (and then a major film). It softened the lengthy and often conveluted plot from the book and gave it an overall more optimistic spin, while retaining enough of the orignal satire to encourage a morbid feel. Oliver is a story of corruption and innocence, taking centre-stage in the depths of the London Underworld. Perfect, then, for a school production.
     This year saw a large number of Year 10s come to the front, most of whom especially were excellent character actors - injecting some much-needed realism into preceedings. The Sixth Form filled in the other gaps, as last year, but this year they were generally stronger. The chorus this year were still as distracted and juvenile as one can expect when attempting serious drama, but there were some strong players that really knocked it up a notch and the energy on the stage was simply amazing. This was no doubt helped by the two Sixth Form choreorgraphers, Laurens Power and Haigh.
     The director this year was Mrs. MacFarlane, assisted by Miss. Urwin, and they took a different approach then previous years due to the less aesthetic nature of the production - Grease got it's points across (the few it actually had) using song and dance, while Oliver! is a bit more cerebral.
     As expected in a school production, the cast brought their own eccentricities to the fore to make their characters more interesting. The almost obligatory "Panto Dame" was Old Sally, played by a disgruntled (but clearly very brave) Year 10. Irregularities in the scripts provided also gave birth to entirely new characters with their own histories and characteristics (e.g. Reg the Undertaker, who was invented when a cast member was needed to bring on a coffin).
     Much credit must also be given to the other aspects of the show. The backdrop this year took on a more consistent style in the form of a London street, in contrast to the gaudy tableaus of previous years. Costumes were a great challenge, but Miss Ainscow managed to bring along an outstanding array of outfits for all of the characters - the most notable being Nancy's stunning red dress, Fagin's hat and wig, and Sikes' imposing green coat. Finally, the music was spot on and well-worked by Mr. Jones and his Year 11 assistant Stephen Scott.
     Now all is said and done, I'd like to thank everyone involved in the production and especially everyone who paid to come and see it. As a cast member, I had a lot of fun and I sincerely hope the audience did too.

Thanks.

P.S. My reviews of Misfits 2.6 and Life On Mars 1.7/1.8 will be up later today, Sunday at the latest. Also, this week will have no Super Sunday, like last week.

Review: GHTTB: LoM 1.5 and 1.6

Another two episodes this week, with a similar set of themes.

Life on Mars, Series One, Episode Five
"This is how it starts!!" Sam Tyler


If I'm honest, I found it difficult to connect with the issues in this episode, which were surrounding the sport of Football, something particularly prevalent around the Manchester area due to its two world-famous teams. From a less biased standpoint, the episode's main problem is its longwindedness and how it tries (and fails) to spread what should be a simple plot into an hour. It has some good moments that really stand out, but ultimately it's a very forgettable experience.
     A Manchester United supporter has been murdered and it looks like the death will ignite violence between fans of United and City. In an effort to discover who would kill such a well-loved family man, Gene, Sam and Annie go undercover at the victim's local pub, before Sam strings together some clues and finds the two men responsible - United fans spoiling for a fight with the opposition.
     This episode also dove into Sam's history and in particular his father issues - his father was a travelling salesman who used to take him to the matches, but abandoned him and his mother in 1973. This really works in parallel with how Sam tries to help the son of the victim come to terms with his father's death and not be influenced by the football hooliganism surrounding him.
     1.5 has some interesting themes but at the end of the day it's too convaluted to stay memorable for long.

Life on Mars, Series One, Episode Six 
"Nobody dies today."

A much more tense scenario, our obligatory Hostage Situation episode really pulled out all the stops in terms of emotional drama, with the hostage cut-off point corresponding to Sam's loss of Life Support. It had a bit of unneccesary baggage around the edges, but 1.6 kept its main focus well and didn't stray too far, while advancing the characters of Sam and Gene.
     Sam hears in his dreams that the doctors have found no signs of Brain Activity and so are planning to shut off his Life Support at 2:00. Back in 1973, and a hostage situation has arisn at the offices of a local newspaper where the hostage taker promises that "someone dies at 2." Sam is of course intrigued, and using 2006 police procedure manages to accidentally get him and Gene captured within the offices. The Hostage Taker is Reg, The Janitor, an unappreciated ex-soldier who feels like a coward after not killing anyone in Korea. Luckily, the Armed Ops save them at 2.00, as in the real world Sam's mother notices him smiling and stops the pull.
     Much more developed and driven than previous episodes, this episode really knows what it's doing with the material. There isn't any hesitation or filler - everything counts, and there are strong bonds between what's happening in the dream and what's happening in the real world.

Thanks.

P.S. For some reason I don't seem to be enjoying these reviews as much as I should, and thus my lack of posting. Also, this week's Super Sunday has had to be cancelled after unforseen circumstances made it impossible for me to write it. 

A Few Words: "1962 - 1966" and "1967-1970"

The rock band. The ultimate in the history of British music, of all music. The Beatles are, quite simply, the best band in the world. Their success was first captured in 1973, when their self-run business Apple Corps released the two albums covering the entire 50 song singles chronology from 1962 - 1970, in which they rose to stardom and eventually split up. Why then, am I even mentioning these two albums here in 2010?
     Well, this year Apple Corps finally gave in to consumer pressure and released their songs on the completely unrelated Apple iTunes. In anticipation of this, the two albums were rereleased. And I bought them. These two albums showed me that The Beatles weren't just an old relic, weren't just a museum piece. They showed me the great talent and care put into their music, how the music took influences from the surrounding world but kept a firm grasp on its own intentions
     Wednesday was the 30th Anniversary of the death of one of the band's main figures, John Lennon, who was shot and killed in 1980 by a mad Christian, possibly angered by his blasphemous attitude. Monday two weeks ago was the 9th Anniversary of the death of George Harrison, another member with less publicity. RIP John. RIP George. Long Live The Beatles.

Thanks.

Review: Misfits 2.5

This episode's promotional image.

Nathan dies. Again.

Ok. I'll admit that most writers have thier off days, and this is Howard Overman's. A Misfits equivalent to "Goblin's Gold," perhaps. The truth is, this lumbering hour of character drama only really worked on a higher level, and lost it in the detail. It was slow, redundant and left a lot to be desired regarding not only its content but its placement in the series. Regardless of that, the story was character-driven if not anything else, an area in which Overman always exells.
      The main plot this week surrounded Jessica, a charity worker who Nathan suspects brutally killed him after he watched her getting changed. She gets friendly with Simon an they start a relationship, to Nathan and Alisha's anguish, for various reasons. This plot provides a lot of well-deserved tension throughout the story, but it quickly becomes predictable when one considers the cameo made by her protective father, who turns out to be a storm-psycho bent on killing any man who gets close. It turns out she's acting suspicious because she's a virgin and felt embarrissed. Then, as mentioned in Episode 3, Simon does the deed before being quite anti-climactically saved by a barrel-wielding Alisha.

I have nothing to say.

     Elsewhere, and the main subplot showed Kelly start a chance relationship with strange, near-autistic Bruno (mostly sexual, of course.) He has singular thoughts and is running from the police after a fight. He attends the fancy-dress party (where the main plot fizzles out as well) and in the episode's climax climbs up a building with Kelly and is shot. It turns out that Bruno was a gorilla in Bristol Zoo who got made into a human by the storm.
     Excuse me for a second, but WHAT?! The idea itself is not only inane, it's also something that Misfits has covered before, most notably in the second episode of the first series. Person becomes young/human, has a relationship with one of the misfits and is then revealed in their true form before dieing. The worst thing, however, was the shitty, shoddy animatronics that were less convincing than a face drawn on a piece of wood. Amusingly, many episodes from the first series were referenced here, in Misfits' first instance of minor fanwank.

The fulfillment of 2.2's flashforward.

     However, there was some good among this mess. The acting, as usual, was superb; Jessica's nervous mannerisms felt natural and helped to stir some plot confusion, and Bruno had... erm... the mannerisms of a Gorilla? Moving on, the direction was excellent as always and so were the exquisite character moments, of which everyone in the group were afforded (apart from Curtis, who as usual was off shagging someone.) This was especially noticeable at the beginning between Alisha and Simon. You know, before the fucking GORILLA. Yes, I'm still hung up on that.
     To sum up, 2.5 really lacked any of the drive pushing previous episodes, and sauntered through its (mostly) predictable plot carrying the burden of unresolved tension. The subplot was frankly ridiculous and while I'm all for developing Kelly as a character, this did absolute fuck all and made as much sense. The episode had all the hallmarks of Misfits - strong characterisation, great direction and a firm sense of gritty urban humour, but it had none of the usual pace and tight plotting that make Misfits so watchable.

Thanks.

Opinion: BBC Sound of 2011

I've realised over time that the BBC Sound of... competitions actually do have some thought behind them, and they've guided many of my purchases. If it weren't for this competition, I wouldn't have bothered to listen to Florence + The Machine, Little Boots, Plan B, Ellie Goulding, Marina and the Diamonds or Hurts. So, for the first time, I'm actually paying attention. These are my three personal favourites from this year's Top 15.
(Link: here.)

1.) Clare Maguire ("Ain't Nobody")



Maguire's been working on debut album Light After Dark for two years, and while it hasn't yet been released, its lead single "Ain't Nobody" is already getting critics excited. Mixing powerful, baritone vocals with near-perfect use of synth, the track may seem a little repetitive in places but ultimately provides a unique and moving experience. I'll definitely be buying this album.

2.) Warpaint ("Undertow")



With an already firm reputation for weirdy post-Punk, Warpaint stand to further cement it this year. They've been working since 2004 and already have an EP and LP release. I like "Undertow" for its eerie, dreamlike flow with firm 80s undertones. Moving but slightly conspicious, there's a confidence overlying everything that reassures and the excellent vocal and guitar work seals the deal.

3.) The Naked and Famous ("Punching in a Dream")



In a similar vein to the above, The Naked and Famous give us an energetic synth flow with high-pitched ramblings. It's a little brash; a little gaudy, but at the same time it's powerful and modern with a lot of spunk to back it up. The Kiwi quintet have certainly left we with a good impression.

So there we have it; those are my picks. What do you think about this year's contest, and which do you think will be successful artists in 2011?

Thanks,

Review: Bright Lights, sort of Revisited

 Note: For more information, see here.
(Bright) Lights, Ellie Goulding (2010)

I don't know whether to be disappointed or enthused. Ms. Goulding joins a long line of artists who, for whatever reason, decide that instead of releasing their new material on a new album, simply tack it onto a rerelease. Admittedly this was probably Polyor's decision and not hers, but it does make buying such an album a little less cost-effective than one really wants. (I'm using Spotify to review it, for anyone wondering.)
     Now that little tirade is out of the way, we have to look at the seven new tracks that constitute this rerelease, with the added burdon of context. I'm glad that Goulding has taken her six months to really fine-tune her style to create catchy, interesting pop melodies that still hold as much brilliant vocal work as I've come to expect from her. The only problem I have is that she seems to be now aiming towards a more mass-market audience, perhaps in reaction to her poor chart performance. Not that this is a necessarily a bad thing, of course, but at least two of these seven tracks just collapsed into high-tempo club music that really stuck out in Goulding's otherwise recreative ouvre.
     Now, the original Lights had a few varying styles, but the sudden quality/genre shift provided by the new material marks a clear distinction between that and Bright Lights. Of note is her cover of "Your Song", which I quickly covered a while ago, which is the only ballad on the album that isn't sprayed with techno bullshit, and stands out as superior because of it. Now, for the first time, she's also produced a song that I just can't listen to, "Animal", which is the aforementioned high-tempo fuckfest.
     Overall, the new tracks on Bright Lights are of generally higher quality than the ones on the core of her fledgling first album, but none of them really justify buying the first ten singles again. Goulding is starting to show her new experience with music, but is drifting into the world of cheaply produced trash-pop that I just can't abide. It's really up to you whether you want to buy this rerelease; if you're not too sure, I'd leave it. You're not missing much and if it's just Your Song you want, there are many other sources.

Thanks.

P.S. A Happy Birthday to Asher Ahmed, who is 15 tommorrow! If anyone else has any more birthday requests, feel free to mention them on the Audenshaw Reviews Facebook Page.

1st Anniversary and 200th Post!

The immortal Audenshaw Reviews Logo.

Well, I made it here. The one year mark. One year since I made my first review, of the Gorton centenary celebrations, and posted it to Facebook. 200 posts on this blog, since February 4*.
     I must thank my parents for taking me to the Gorton 100 celebrations, an event so badly handled that it inspired me to write a satirical, scathing review and post it on the most vocal forum ever. That review led to my critical review of the School Play, which then led to my next reviews in the new year, Royal Marine Band and Halle for Youth. Constant heckling by my peers led to me to, using my little-used Blogspot account, create a website. That website is called Audenshaw Reviews.
    I didn't review much until 17th May, which is when I reviewed Calvin Harris' Ready for the Weekend, which erupted a daily stream of reviews. Once I'd worked through my music collection, my focus widened to books and, very importantly, television (I recently had my 100th Television Review.)
     This continued until a certain smeggin' idea of mine, to review every episode of Red Dwarf. This leaked over into the Summer Holidays; a holiday that changed my stlye of reviewing due to a change in my style of computing. Instead of having my laptop on the move, it was immobilised in my room. I began to review out of boredom; Classic Doctor Who and Survivors especially so. When I returned to School in September, I had no timetable, and very little to review.
     The extra pressures of GCSE work meant that the only reviews became constricted to Merlin and Blackadder. Soon Blackadder ran out, and I was stuck. It was at this point I invented Super Sundays, which has seen me venture into film, and I'm now able to review the weekly episodes of Misfits. Also on offer is the Gene Hunt Time Travel Bonanza, which by my reckoning should be completed in August 2011. In the New Year, I'll also resume the aborted reviews of Lost's Fourth Season, as well as getting round to reviewing the heaps and heaps of Classic Doctor Who.
    I want to thank the following people: The organisers of Gorton 100, for putting on such a bad event; Calvin Harris, for making such a bad album; the makers of everything I've ever reviewed here; my sister, for encouraging me to carry on; and finally I thank all of the readers of this blog (however many there may be).
    To finish, I want to know what you want on the blog in the New Year, and I'll be able to consider them. Comment on this article, and give me your ideas!

For the 201st time**, Thanks.

*I began the blog on 4/2/10, but I'm really honouring the first review rather than the creation of the site.
** This might explain.

SuperSunday: Monty Python Films

From left: Top Row: Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam. 
Bottom Row: Terry Jones, John Cleese and Micheal Palin

Introduction
Monty Python. One of the best, if not the best comedy troupe in the world. Four television series, four films, many stages shows and even a few singles have marked them out as witty, satirical and very, very weird. It's this strangeness that tends to ward away most newcomers, as at first it takes a certain frame of mind to comprehend the level of humour on offer here. Nevertheless, the Pythons are a national treasure that really set the bar on the standard of British comedy. This, the first of my Mega Reviews, will cover the four Python films in all their flexibilities. Think of it as four reviews for the price of one.
     I'll also be looking at the group dynamic and how it affected the course of their comedy style. Monty Python were half-oddballs, half-products of their time. The four films are very different in style, and I'll be giving some insight as to why that is...


And Now For Something Completely Different (1972)
In between their penultimate and final series, the Pythons were advised to make a film composed of the best sketches from the show. They did so. And Now For Something Completely Different is the oddball in the Python film series in that it contains a scarce amount of new material.
     In all honesty, this film is more-or-less just a cash-in on the phenomenal success of the series. That isn't to say that the film isn't of very high quality; it just dampens the spirit of the film. Regardless, you can tell that the troupe are giving it their all.
     As mentioned in my first Rhineland post, this was the film that introduced me to Python. What I originally saw didn't impress; in hindsight it seems that most of the funniest sketches were left until the end. Indeed, the missed shots come to a nadir in the centre of the film, with Conrad Poohs and his dancing teeth...
     The film has, however, a wonderful atmosphere that encapsulates not only the general feel that the troupe were going for but also a strange sense of absurdity along with it. This is of course helped in spades by Terry Gilliam's masterful animation.
     At the end of the day, there isn't a lot to say about ANFSCD; simply a summation of the best three series of Monty Python's flying circus. It can be a little uninteresting in places due to its sketch nature, but where it is funny it excels in Python's usual absurdist commentary.

...and the Holy Grail (1975)

Ah, my favourite of the films. Holy Grail takes the pure, unadulterated spirit of the Pythons and channels it seamlessly into a well-researched and hilarious story set around the myths of King Arthur. Directed by the two Terry's, Jones and Gilliam, it often strikes a contract between their two very different styles of direction. 
     Using a (seemingly) rich set of environments, the film shows Arthur's (The great Graham Chapman, who plays it totally straight.) quest to gather his knights (played by the other Pythons), and then, by virtue of God, find The Holy Grail. Eventually, they find the grail in the hands of those filthy heathens, the French.
     The film's intense amount of research and thought only improves the comedic value, as it is able make implicit and explicit statements with every action. The peasants eating mud, for example. A funny gag, or a realistic one? Does their talk of repression refer to the Middle Age despots, or to the problems going on with Communism in the 1970s? There's so much to read into. Too much, one would think. But with all of that, it still remains an excellent piece of work.
     As aforementioned, everyone has a chance to shine. Chapman plays a straight-man Arthur which makes everyone else funnier. Micheal Palin and John Cleese get to play a myriad of characters throughout the film, the former having over 10 to chew on.  The two Terries have fewer roles, because they understandably had their directing duties, but they still make a big impression - Jones with his great Sir Bedevere and Gilliam with his near-random animated shorts.
     Of all of the Monty Python films, this one has had the largest effect on both British and sometimes American culture. Mentioning the troupe in public will often provoke a hail of lines from this film - too many to mention. In filming terms, the film's use of coconuts to jokingly imitate horses has been referenced all over the place, as well as references to Swallows (African or European.) The culture around this film is insane and for very good reason.
     Ultimately, this is Python at its pure, unadulterated best. The film stands as an iconic piece of British culture and set down the basics for almost all modern British comedy. It manages to take the sketch format and run it along a straight enough track to form a basic narrative while still delivering its wonderful randomness. An excellent film. 

 ...'s Life of Brian (1979)
The most controversial Python film (and probably the most controversial comedy) ever made, Life of Brian is surprisingly light and fluffy in comparison to its literally devillish reputation amongst the ignorant. The mere fact that the film was set in Biblical times was enough to cause a storm in a teacup, and many councils around the world banned the film before it was even screened...
     Graham Chapman (again, another brilliantly humourless protagonist) plays Brian Cohen, a boy whose life runs in parallel to that of Jesus Christ and who becomes caught up in the fight against the Roman occupation of Judea. The film, while seeming to satire only religious concepts, was in fact more focussed towards British Left-wing movements in the 1970s. Regardless, it's a film with many, many layers, as well as balancing out a sketch format.
    This time, however, the sketch format is (almost) thrown out of the window, as Brian's story is told more or less in a purely narrative form. This certainly improves both the story and the fluency of the messages they're trying to get across, but it does somewhat constrain the Python's usual creativity to a strict timeline of events.
     Many religious people prop up their criticism of the film on the assertion that Brian is an allegory for Christ, ignoring the fact that Christ appears several times in the film and is perfectly respected. I try not to get religious on this blog, but my anti-religious tendencies were in fact the very reason that led me to watch Life of Brian and properly discover Monty Python.
     Inevitably, the film's slightly anvilicious nature and lack of sketch-format makes laughs a rarer commodity, but where it is funny it strikes into new, much fresher territory that the Pythons tend not to wander into: political satire. And I love political satire. Life of Brian isn't my favourite Monty Python film, but it's certainly a strong one and deserves its place in the public spotlight.

...'s Meaning of Life (1983)

I thought that ANFSCD was the epitome of Pythonesque weirdness, but they really excel themselves in this final, more disjointed effort from the early eighties. By this time the group was becoming tense and their writing a lot more unfocussed. The Python equivalent of Let it Be, Meaning of Life is a last swansong for the group to work their comedy muscles in many ways. As John Cleese once noted, "[The Meaning of Life] contains some of our best and worst material."
      Unlike the previous two films, which were worked on together, each Python worked on their sketches independently - so very rarely did they actually meet, that the development took many wild turns before they settled on the neat framing device the gives us the film's title - sketches examining different areas of "life". The group tension really shows, as the incredibly disjointed sketch structure can be a little jarring. Of particular note in this regard is the expansive short at the beginning of the film (which I could review on its own merits) created as side project by Terry Gilliam. While a fine piece on its own, its unfortunately necessary placement at the film's beginning robs the beginning of the actual film of any gravitas.
     Meaning of Life takes its chances and ups the controversial content to absurd degrees, giving us such gems as "Every Sperm is Sacred", "The Penis Song" and "Wafer Thin Mint" (look it up). This is, however, what Python has always been about - an uncanny ability to shock and teach at the same time. The team manages, through their sketches, to put across their opinions on society, while still being so absurd as to entertain and to offend.
     In hindsight, I'm not too much of a fan of Meaning of Life in comparison to the two previous films because of its last-ditch attempts to retain some fun factor, but really my problem is with its regression from their highly political style into inane sketches. There's a lot to like here, things that will stay with one for a long time after viewing, but there's also a lot to feel a little awkward about.

The last full group photo before the death of Graham Chapman

.

Conclusion  
The Pythons were anything but predictable. Their styles of both writing and comedy changed over the years, as did their attitudes towards each other. Eventually these attitudes broke the group apart, each going on to do their own thing (with the sad, sad exception of Graham Chapman, rest his soul). 
     The noticeable differences of course stem from who was in charge of direction. Holy Grail was directed by the very much differing Terrys Jones and Gilliam, whose styles clashed frequently. Life of Brian and Meaning of Life were solely directed by Jones, and it shows (the directing is generally more straightforward, and there is less animation.)
     Monty Python are a fine institution that while completely absurd and offensive, were also breathtakingly witty and funny. They my have had a lot of extremes when it came to quality, but with their happy-go-lucky approach that was always going to be the case. Three cheers for Cleese, Idle, Jones, Gilliam, Palin and Chapman (r.i.p).


Thanks.