The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It

It's a strong start as a stand-in for the late, awful Henry Kissinger is treated appropriately. As the next scene greets us with a silly characterization and cheeky wordplay things continue to look up, though it seems to me that the bit is too drawn out. Some splendid silliness and wit in the third scene to greet us butts up in part against tiresome stereotypes and casual racism. With the fourth scene things start to gel and improve as the plot picks up and our contemporary Holmes is introduced, providing an anchor for the proceedings, while various ridiculous odds and ends continue to provide delightful embellished flavor. As the tale develops of a new game afoot between Holmes and Moriarty, with implications for the world at large, we're given a steady stream of gags, situational humor, exaggerated characters and acting, parody and absurdism in all aspects of the writing, and some good old physical comedy on top. And generally speaking, there's cleverness aplenty in a farce that would quite be fit for contemporary troupes like Monty Python (regardless of whether or not John Cleese was involved as both co-writer and star).

Mind you, the case for 'The strange case of the end of civilization as we know it' would be stronger if it didn't take a little over one-third of the abbreviated length of only fifty-five minutes to earn its first hearty laugh. With that said, happily the humor actually does become more robust and worthwhile from that point onward, if still less than completely. All the while the very least that can be said is that the cast is terrific as they fully embrace the ludicrousness, and the high energy that every actor brings to each moment in turn is without question one of the top highlights and most consistent qualities of the picture. Likewise, this is splendidly well made in most every capacity, including swell stunts and effects, fine direction and editing, and excellent production design, art direction, costume design, and hair and makeup. And maybe most important of all - while the result is regrettably uneven, at its best the comedy writing is altogether brilliant. Between Cleese, director Joseph McGrath, and co-writer Jack Hobbs, there are some bits here that are just as terrifically funny as anything else the contributors have given us, and the strength of the back end handily compensates for that early stretch when the flick was struggling to find its feet.

All told I do really like this, and I'm glad to offer it as a recommendation for anyone who appreciates British comedies. I just rather wish that the same vitality, zest, and ingenuity that characterizes the back two-thirds, and the last approximate third especially, had been applied more regularly. If the first twenty minutes were as sharp as the remainder, I'd have no detractions to make at all. Be that as it may, 'The strange case of the end of civilization as we know it' is still a blast overall, if an imperfect one, and far more than not it certainly provides the mirthful diversion we hope for. Unless you're a huge fan of someone involved I don't think there's any need to go out of your way for it, but at less than an hour this is well worth checking out if you do have the opportunity; just give it a chance to warm up first.

Considering that this pointless little comedy was sandwiched between the two terrific Fawlty Towers seasons, and written around the same time as the best Python movie, "Life of Brian", it is amazing to me how Cleese could possibly have co-written such a lame script. Perhaps it was McGrath's fault to an extent? The two had already collaborated once on a monstrously unfunny flop called "The Magic Christian".

TSCOTEOCAWKI starts off fairly well with the murder of Kissinger, and then a decently written, pythonesque skit in the White House. From there it goes gradually downhill. The movie gets worse and worse by the minute, culminating in a finale that was simply too embarrassing to watch. I'm embarrassed just thinking about it now! It's the kind of material that 16 year-old comedy hopefuls would write for a high-school play. Moronic and unfunny to a fault.

When I first saw Kissinger/Gropinger, I thought it was Peter Sellers with make-up. However, Sellers would have done his homework and spoken the way Kissinger really speaks. This other actor did a poor imitation, voice-wise...

You can do a lot with a little cash. Blair Witch proved that. This film supports it. It is no more than a sitcom in length and complexity. However, because it has John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes it manages to be hilarious even on a budget that couldn't afford a shoestring. The highlight of this film is Arthur Lowe as the sincere, bumbling Watson, his dimness and slowness foils Cleese's quick-tempered wit. If you ever run across the film watch it for a quirky laugh or two.

I was heavily in a Monty Python kick and that led to my seeing, How to Irritate People. Romance With A Double Bass and this. Loved the first, hated the second and liked this.

This has Ron Moody, Stratford Johns, Arthur Lowe, Joss Ackland, Val Pringle, Denholm Elliot, Burt Kwouk and Nick Tate to go along with John Cleese and Connie Booth. This hour long comedy served as an introduction to shows like Dad's Army, Z Cars and Softly Softly which are almost entirely unknown in my country.

Val Pringle had a key role in the first story from Sapphire and Steel as Lead. Nick Tate a regular on Space 1999, Ron Moody, Joss Ackland, Burt Kwouk and Denholm Elliot from their film careers.

Arthur Lowe is the real star in this particular show. I've heard it said that Lowe was so great at doing comedy because he found absolutely nothing funny. He is beyond silly as Watson but he plays it so natural that you kind of believe it really is possible someone could be that entirely lost and dim.

There is of course Python style humor which sums up the ending well. Its worth viewing. It led to me seeing other shows I mentioned because I specifically remembered they were in this.

The strange case has been made through studies that kids will laugh when presented with something out of place, like a funny face, if the face is made by someone with whom they are acquainted, but they will repel if it's presented by a stranger. This conveys that our reactions to inconsistencies, oddities, unanticipated discrepancies with normalcy and established ranks will differ in terms of particular circumstances. If the incongruity happens in a context where it's threatening, it'll dispose us toward a threatened reaction. This is maybe the seed of the horror genre. On the other hand, if the context is one that is distinguished as non-threatening, where the possibility of hurt and fear has been withheld, the scenarios are opportune for humor.

We follow the attempts of Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and various governments to stop all civilization from being destroyed, but everyone is too terminally stupid or apathetic to be successful at it. We need not worry about the targets of all the brutality and cruelty in blacker realms of comedy, including slapstick, because they're not completely human.

It's an accelerated, often hilarious jaunt that heckles at just about everything mystery, espionage or potboiler in English and American media. Holmes, Bond, Columbo, etc., little more than a vaudeville act in breadth and elaboration. The peak of this film is Arthur Lowe as the guileless, blundering Watson, his stupidity and listlessness always counterblowing Cleese's temperamental ingenuity.