Duca si nasce!

Gosh, I seem to be one of the few people who enjoyed this movie. It certainly wasn't up to the standards of Eric Idle's and John Cleese's other movies, but it still far surpassed many other comedies available (IMHO anyways).

Some parts of this movie had me in stitches. John Cleese right at the end standing on the car for instance.

I'd say this movie isn't the best in the world, but It's still good. 7 out of 10.

This film cracks me up, especially John Cleese's character, the sight of Cleese rolling down a hill atop of an upside down Renault which moves thanks to the bikes holding up the entire car, will stay with me forever. I'm giggling to myslef as I write this review. Admittedly it's not for everyone. For example, a lot of Americans prefer bold, in-your-face comedy to Brit wit.

Also, this is probably Eric Idles second best film outside of Monty Python (1st being Nuns On The Run).

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.

I'm probably in the minority here... but I always preferred Eric Idle of the members of the Monty Python gang. The more talented writer, both in sketch material and song lyrics(to any other Python fan who appreciates those; Yes, Idle wrote and performed the main theme), the better facial expressions and acting. Naturally, when I found out that he had written and starred in a film of his own(though John Cleese does also have a role), I had to watch it. I don't believe I ever did get to watch this more than a few times, some years back, and then I didn't really go back to it until today. As much as I like Idle, I have to admit that this isn't up to the standards of most of the Pythons' movies or Flying Circus episodes. The basic idea is fun enough; I won't reveal it here, though, since it is an important plot point(and I urge anyone reading this to not read any of the cast credits on the main page... and if you've already done so, try your best to forget what you read). The plot certainly isn't brilliant, but it's quite funny, and makes for some highly comical situations. The pacing is actually fairly solid. I can't think of any point in the film where I was genuinely bored... in spite of knowing everything that would happen. The acting is all very good. The characters are quite well-written, though I guess few of them are particularly likable. The humor is quite black, and some will definitely be offended. I'm not fond of admitting it, but Cleese actually has some of the funniest moments of the entire film. He's not very prominently featured, but he is hilarious when he is on-screen. Moranis is about as tolerable as usual... I don't feel much neither for nor against him, but if you don't care for him, you won't like him in this, either. Idle gets to both under- and overplay, and his presence was definitely the selling point of the movie for me. All in all, some very funny moments, but only just enough to make it worth watching. I recommend it to huge fans of the Monty Python crew, in particular those fond of Idle and Cleese. 6/10

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.