A Liar's Autobiography: The Untrue Story of Monty Python's Graham Chapman

This is a very naughty movie. Many times I said to myself, "Did I just see what I thought I just saw? No, it couldn't be." It celebrates anuses, penises, anal sex, 69, promiscuity, alcoholism and death. The animation is very cleverly done to give you the subjective impression of seeing the world from inside Graham Chapman's head. Everything just sort of flows, the way ideas flow.

There is one big catchy musical number with words that summarises the cheeky raunchiness:

Sit on my face and tell me that you love me

I'll sit on your face and tell you I love you too

I love to hear you oralize

When I'm between your thighs

You blow me away

Sit on my face and let my lips embrace you

I'll sit on your face and then I'll love you truly

Life can be fine if we both sixty nine

If we sit on our faces in all sorts of places

And play till we're blown away

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'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.

Having just read the book days before watching the film i felt it was a fun and entertaining interpretation of Graham Chapman's zany autobiography. The animations were good (even if I liked some more than others) and even gave a better visual context to some of the parts in the book that i got a little lost on. The voice acting was enjoyable but the "Cameron Diaz as Freud" part ran a little long in my opinion. All in all I thought it was a pretty enjoyable and interesting endeavor.

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 :-(