Und ewig schleichen die Erben

I was too young to see this 1993 British comedy (rated PG-13) when it was released, but saw it a couple times in 2005. Before seeing it, I knew it featured Eric Idle and John Cleese, both of Monty Python fame, as well as Canadian actor Rick Moranis, whom I knew best for his role as Bob McKenzie, one of the two stereotypical Canadian brothers, Bob & Doug McKenzie. Knowing about those three cast members, I was hoping for a funny movie. Around the beginning, I was getting disappointed, but eventually found that it got better. My second viewing wasn't much different from my first, but my third viewing, over three years later, was disappointing.

In the 1960's, the son of the 14th Duke of Bournemouth is born, and is his rightful heir. The boy's hippie parents accidentally lose him, and find a baby boy which is assumed to be him. However, it turns out that they had the wrong boy! Their son is adopted and raised as Tommy Patel by an Indian family in England, and has no clue that he is actually the rightful heir to the title of the Duke of Bournemouth until after he grows up! That title goes to an American named Henry Bullock, and it is after Tommy meets him that he gradually finds evidence indicating that he is not the rightful heir! Tommy talks to a lawyer named Raoul P. Shadgrind about this, and learns from him that it will be hard to claim the position while the current Duke is still alive, but it will be easier if Henry dies! With that in mind, determined to get back what he lost as a baby, Tommy begins to carry out assassination attempts on the false heir!

Even back when I was reasonably impressed with this movie, I realized that there were casting problems, with Barbara Hershey as Duchess Lucinda, the real mother of Tommy, played by Eric Idle. The problem with this is that Hershey is about five years younger than Idle, and I would say she looks even younger than that! Plus Idle plays a character who was born during the hippie era, even though Idle himself was born over twenty years before that era began! However, those major casting problems certainly don't completely ruin the film. The main problem with "Splitting Heirs" is that it simply isn't very funny. There were definitely times when I laughed during my third viewing, with the outcome of some of the assassination attempts, and I guess some occasional really funny lines, but there was not quite enough humour to satisfy. Duchess Lucinda can be a tad irritating, with her sex-obsessed ways, and it seems Hershey tries to be funny in this role, but doesn't succeed. There are some fairly lame gags involving her character. I think I realized this during my second viewing, but it seemed worse with my third. I guess that's because I didn't find enough to make up for it this time.

No, this movie isn't very long, but during my most recent viewing, it seemed like it was! I remembered not being so impressed around the beginning of the film before, so it didn't surprise me that I wasn't laughing much during the early part of the film this time, but unlike before, I didn't find that it ever really improved much as it went along! For the most part, the dullness continued. Whenever a really good gag came along, it didn't last long, and then the dullness would soon come back. Maybe "Splitting Heirs" is good for one or two viewings, but wears thin after that, or maybe I've changed a bit in three years. Well, whatever the reason is for my recent disappointment with this film, I'm clearly not alone, though I still don't hate it like some people do. For Monty Python fans, Eric Idle COULD make you laugh in this film, and so could John Cleese in his smaller part. As for Rick Moranis, of "SCTV" fame, I don't think his character in this film has ever really stood out to me. So, for Python fans, this movie, written by and starring Eric Idle, could be worth a try, but could also seriously disappoint you. In any case, your expectations definitely shouldn't be TOO high.

Well, this movie wasn't the worst I've ever seen...but it was far from the best. It was mildly amusing at times, and although the talent they collected for this film was great, the writing fell flat. Keep an eye out for some great Python-esque jokes, and Barbara Hershey is surprisingly convincing as a sex-crazed duchess, but the one real thing to keep an eye out for is the Hindu Dream Sequence. If you've ever seen the old Indian (Bollywood) version of the Mahabharata, be prepared to laugh your head off. The depiction brought back everything I thought as a kid when I first saw that movie. There were a few other jokes in there that only the British or South Asians would get, but if you're not in either of those categories (or not sufficiently familiar with either) these jokes will be lost on you. Rent this only if you're an insomniac or a die-hard fan of cheesy humour.

I saw this film a few nights ago as a late night Channel 4 film. Eric Idle and John Cleese are in classic Monty Python form, with a few in-jokes thrown in too. Rick Moranis is an interesting addition, not brilliantly funny, but he adds the American humour element. I was absolutely sure the film was a late 70's film, from the title sequence, visuals, jokes, the fact that it said "and introducing John Cleese" in the opening credits, and Eric Idle looks very young. I was very surprised to find it was from 1993!

Great comedy, I'd love to see more like this.

I had never heard of this film, but saw it on offer and snapped it up because of the cast - 2 Pythons and Catherine Zeta Jones! Moreover, Barbara Hershey attacks her role with relish, Sadie Frost shines in a love-hate relationship with Idle and Rick Moranis manages not to be irritating, and there are cameos from some classic TV stars: Stratford Johns (Z-Cars and Inspector Barlow), Eric Sykes (Carry-On and his own comedy show) and Brenda Bruce (theatrical works). And yet, somehow, it doesn't quite come together to provide the level of entertainment I expected. Nevertheless, it is worth a watch on a rainy afternoon when one is in the mood for silliness.

Okay, it may not have been the greatest flick, but it certainly wasn't the worst. In fact, I'm glad that I checked the IMDB comments first because it gave me the proper perspective. I love British humor and I've been a Python fan since it first hit the US. The negative comments prepared me for the worst, and the good ones gave me a reason to watch.

That said, I enjoyed the flick, in spite of its idiocy. Sometimes you just have to sit back and drop your logic in order to enjoy plain, simple entertainment. I'd take this movie over any sitcom on TV. The movie was silly and lighthearted, (in spite of a few murders). By the end of the movie, I actually found myself liking Rick Moranis, who often gets on my nerves. Eric Idle and John Cleese were their typically silly selves. Catherine Zeta-Jones was beautiful and fun, though she seemed the tiniest bit pudgier than she is now. I was really impressed by Barbara Hershey, who took on her comedic role with gusto.

If you like your movies logical, you'll hate this one. It's full of holes, loose strings and stupid logic--but that's just not the point. If this were a totally reasonable world, there'd be no Monty Python.

I watched it a second time with my husband, who laughed all the way through, and so did I. I think this one is like any Python stuff. You laugh harder the more you watch it, in spite of the absurdity. (I know it's foolish of me, but I laugh every time I hear Cleese repeat the phrase, "She turned me into a newt.")