Born in a stable, the infant Brian is mistaken for someone else until the wise men twig that they are in the wrong stable. Brian's life continues to be unremarkable until he is about 30 when he gets mixed up with the People's Front of Judea in their fight against the Romans (although he is only there to try and get in Judith). Unsurprisingly the actions of the PFJ don't exactly particularly succeed and Brian finds himself on the run from the Romans as a result. However while hiding out in speakers' corner he is first taken for a wise teacher but then for some sort of messiah a mistaken identity that escalates out of control very quickly.
Watching the film now it is not really worth discussing whether this is mocking Jesus or not because the accepted wisdom is now that it is not an attack on Jesus but rather a lampoon on religion itself (although their original idea was to make "Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory"). However if it doesn't seem so controversial nowadays just imagine an Islamic remake and how that would be received. Anyway back to the film in hand rather than the reaction of people who have not seen it complaining about their perception of it. At its heart this is a Monty Python film and the sense of humour is very British and very much them. I say this rather obvious statement because despite the fuss the most memorable thing about the film is how funny it is. It will always be remembered for the controversy but when you watch it it is basically a collection of sketches and comedy characters rolling one after the other with many of them well-known and full of memorable and funny dialogue.
That it isn't just a collection of sketches held together (like some of their other films) is down to how good the story is. Of course they did have a bit of help with this in regards material to adapt but still it does feel much more satisfying to have this solid narrative underneath all the madness. Over time some people have come to seen this film as an entire attack on religion but it isn't because the laughs were the focus. However scattered across the whole film are scenes that do effectively lampoon the concept of religious beliefs and religious establishments. Most of these are very clever and, in particular, one scene sums up the history of religious splits and factions (the shoe and the gourd) and is impressive in its superficial simplicity.
It goes without saying that the cast are all on fine form. Although he wanted to play Brian, Cleese is much, much more effective in the many small roles he has and is best when he has petty authority figures to deliver. Of course similar things could said of all of the cast as Idle, Jones, Palin and Gilliam are all very good in their characters and are mostly all playing to their strengths. In the "title" role Chapman actually has the least rewarding role as he has to play it (comparatively) straight in order to keep the narrative together. He does it very well but the rest of the Pythons are much better simply because they have sketches to delivery rather than a narrative to drive.
Overall then this is a classic comedy that is rightly held up as the best of the Python films. Scene by scene it is a great collection of absurd sketches but the narrative is pretty much strong enough to prevent it just being this. Although the laughs are the all, the film has plenty of clever lampoons on the development of religions and religious organisations. It is a shame that it is so well known for the controversy because this has so much more that makes it memorable.
Watching the film now it is not really worth discussing whether this is mocking Jesus or not because the accepted wisdom is now that it is not an attack on Jesus but rather a lampoon on religion itself (although their original idea was to make "Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory"). However if it doesn't seem so controversial nowadays just imagine an Islamic remake and how that would be received. Anyway back to the film in hand rather than the reaction of people who have not seen it complaining about their perception of it. At its heart this is a Monty Python film and the sense of humour is very British and very much them. I say this rather obvious statement because despite the fuss the most memorable thing about the film is how funny it is. It will always be remembered for the controversy but when you watch it it is basically a collection of sketches and comedy characters rolling one after the other with many of them well-known and full of memorable and funny dialogue.
That it isn't just a collection of sketches held together (like some of their other films) is down to how good the story is. Of course they did have a bit of help with this in regards material to adapt but still it does feel much more satisfying to have this solid narrative underneath all the madness. Over time some people have come to seen this film as an entire attack on religion but it isn't because the laughs were the focus. However scattered across the whole film are scenes that do effectively lampoon the concept of religious beliefs and religious establishments. Most of these are very clever and, in particular, one scene sums up the history of religious splits and factions (the shoe and the gourd) and is impressive in its superficial simplicity.
It goes without saying that the cast are all on fine form. Although he wanted to play Brian, Cleese is much, much more effective in the many small roles he has and is best when he has petty authority figures to deliver. Of course similar things could said of all of the cast as Idle, Jones, Palin and Gilliam are all very good in their characters and are mostly all playing to their strengths. In the "title" role Chapman actually has the least rewarding role as he has to play it (comparatively) straight in order to keep the narrative together. He does it very well but the rest of the Pythons are much better simply because they have sketches to delivery rather than a narrative to drive.
Overall then this is a classic comedy that is rightly held up as the best of the Python films. Scene by scene it is a great collection of absurd sketches but the narrative is pretty much strong enough to prevent it just being this. Although the laughs are the all, the film has plenty of clever lampoons on the development of religions and religious organisations. It is a shame that it is so well known for the controversy because this has so much more that makes it memorable.