IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,9/10
1875
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuAn animated, factually incorrect biography of Graham Arthur Chapman, one of the founding members of the comedy group Monty Python.An animated, factually incorrect biography of Graham Arthur Chapman, one of the founding members of the comedy group Monty Python.An animated, factually incorrect biography of Graham Arthur Chapman, one of the founding members of the comedy group Monty Python.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Graham Chapman
- Graham Chapman
- (Synchronisation)
- …
John Cleese
- John Cleese
- (Synchronisation)
- …
Terry Jones
- Terry Jones
- (Synchronisation)
- …
Michael Palin
- Michael Palin
- (Synchronisation)
- …
Terry Gilliam
- Interview Don #2
- (Synchronisation)
- …
Carol Cleveland
- Masseuse
- (Synchronisation)
- …
Philip Bulcock
- David Sherlock
- (Synchronisation)
Stephen Fry
- Oscar Wilde
- (Synchronisation)
Lloyd Kaufman
- Uncle Lloyd
- (Synchronisation)
Tom Hollander
- Recording Engineer
- (Synchronisation)
Margarita Doyle
- Vomiting Sylvia Krystel
- (Synchronisation)
Cameron Diaz
- Seigmund Freud
- (Synchronisation)
Ronnie Corbett
- Thompson
- (Archivfilmmaterial)
- (Nicht genannt)
David Frost
- Self
- (Archivfilmmaterial)
- (Nicht genannt)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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.
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.
A Liars Autobiography is a celebration of the life of the elusive and eccentric Graham Chapman. The film is narrated by Chapman himself (he had recorded audio tapes of his memoirs) and the animation alone is a visual feast. It varies in style which suggests that aside from the obvious comedy, the film is much more perceptive and sophisticated than on first glance.
Chapman led a surreal life and was known by the people that knew him as anything but one dimensional. The film depicts just that as well as the reality that perhaps Chapman himself didn't really know who he was. The sequence I most enjoyed was the one depicting Chapman's alcohol withdrawal symptoms, handled with sensitivity and complemented by the eerie & Burton-Esq animation of insects crawling around Chapman whilst he lies in bed, this is a sequence that adds yet another layer to Chapman's identity.
You don't need to be a Monty Python fan to appreciate this film; its sheer brilliance lies in the animation and it's psychedelic depiction of one of the most iconic Pythons. A pleasurable watch, highly recommend.
Chapman led a surreal life and was known by the people that knew him as anything but one dimensional. The film depicts just that as well as the reality that perhaps Chapman himself didn't really know who he was. The sequence I most enjoyed was the one depicting Chapman's alcohol withdrawal symptoms, handled with sensitivity and complemented by the eerie & Burton-Esq animation of insects crawling around Chapman whilst he lies in bed, this is a sequence that adds yet another layer to Chapman's identity.
You don't need to be a Monty Python fan to appreciate this film; its sheer brilliance lies in the animation and it's psychedelic depiction of one of the most iconic Pythons. A pleasurable watch, highly recommend.
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 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!
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 :-(
I'm a big fan of the Pythons but before watching this pretty much all I knew about Graham Chapman's life was that he was an alcoholic and gay. Sadly, after watching the film, that still seems to be pretty much all there was to him.
A series of animation teams take us through Chapman's life from birth to death and with varying degrees of success, all with Chapman's narration. The visuals are mostly good and help to keep interest but anyone looking for insight will be disappointed. A self-indulgent sequence about Chapman's drinking withdrawal covers well-trodden ground and the repeated jokes about penises and ejaculation soon wear thin. OK, he was gay - we get it! The directors make the mistake of trying to be Pythonesque but nearly all the gags fall flat, while the storytelling gets lost and the timeline muddled. Chapman was a great performer and writer, but you wouldn't know it from this, which moves his art largely to 3rd place behind alcohol and being gay. A writing trip with Cleese seems happy to say Cleese did all the hard work on their projects while the sort of roles that gave Chapman the Hollywood lifestyle are brushed over.
Perhaps a better approach would have been to include archive footage and new materials, to explain things and provide context and perspective. Ultimately, this is just an unsatisfying film from some well-meaning Python fanboys.
A series of animation teams take us through Chapman's life from birth to death and with varying degrees of success, all with Chapman's narration. The visuals are mostly good and help to keep interest but anyone looking for insight will be disappointed. A self-indulgent sequence about Chapman's drinking withdrawal covers well-trodden ground and the repeated jokes about penises and ejaculation soon wear thin. OK, he was gay - we get it! The directors make the mistake of trying to be Pythonesque but nearly all the gags fall flat, while the storytelling gets lost and the timeline muddled. Chapman was a great performer and writer, but you wouldn't know it from this, which moves his art largely to 3rd place behind alcohol and being gay. A writing trip with Cleese seems happy to say Cleese did all the hard work on their projects while the sort of roles that gave Chapman the Hollywood lifestyle are brushed over.
Perhaps a better approach would have been to include archive footage and new materials, to explain things and provide context and perspective. Ultimately, this is just an unsatisfying film from some well-meaning Python fanboys.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe audio under the opening credits is from a sketch Chapman regularly used to perform, where he asked a live audience at the start of the show to give him "thirty seconds of abuse", as this saved time later on. For this movie, specially recorded abuse was added from John Cleese, Sir Michael Palin, Terry Jones (shouting Medieval curse words), Terry Gilliam, Carol Cleveland, and David Sherlock, Chapman's former partner. One of the investors in this movie can also be heard shouting "I want my f**king money back!"
- PatzerSigmund Freud's name is misspelled as "Seigmund Freud" in the opening title sequence and closing credits.
- VerbindungenFeatured in De wereld draait door: Folge #8.126 (2013)
- Soundtracks633 Squadron
Written by Ron Goodwin
(P) EMI Partnership Ltd
Performed by Central Band of the Royal Air Force (as The Central Band of the RAF) with Principle Director of Music Wing Commander H. B. Hingley MBE
Produced by Roberto Danova
Supplied by kind permission of PLAZA Records Ltd
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Graham Chapman: Dead in 3-D
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 5.102 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 5.102 $
- 4. Nov. 2012
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 63.469 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 25 Minuten
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen