I’ve seen half of the Holy Grail, all of Life of Brian, and a handful of Flying Circus episodes. I agree with the OP, and probably go further than that. It just isn’t funny.
Re: Sexism in the Pythons.
IIRC, the Pythons simply preferred to have all the female roles done by guys in drag, as per British stage traditions or somesuch. The only reason they had Carol Cleveland appear was for those times when they “needed some real tits,” as one Python said. 
Hardly. For starters, it is silly to blame a comedy troupe made of men for none of them being women. It reminds me of the skit of The State where Kerry Kenny (IIRC) does a monologue about her role as the sole female member of the team. Additionally, Carol Cleveland was in so many skits that she could almost be considered a member of the troupe, and her roles were far from just being a hotty—and when she was, it was for a point. Also, IIRC, the men-in-drag characters they did were not directed at women, they were playing a particular type of woman that they thought were funny. Finally, there were quite a few sketches with women playing men.
To say that they were racist, classist, or anti-gay doesn’t bear scrutiny when one actually watches the show. They played on the edge of good taste, to be sure, and that is easy to misinterpret.
And how are you doin’, eleanor?
What do you mean by “poke fun,” exactly? Maybe we have a difference in idioms, here, because to my American ear, it sounds like you just said “I prefer funny stuff that isn’t funny.”
Wanna come over and watch some MPFC with me?
Or we could watch some Marx Brothers or how about Bill Murray?
“Are You Being Served?” plays here on cable…AbFab?
We could consider the foreplay as…
Re: the sexism in MP–there really wasn’t any. Look to Benny Hill or even Laugh-In for that. I saw a Python interviewed a while back (don’t remember which one) and he said that they played the women because all of them were familiar with that type of woman (the “daily” aka “the char”) and also because they thought it would be funnier for them to do it. They took a page out of Milton Berle’s book, and they were right to do so.
I’m having trouble reconciling these two statements.
I dont’ see why.
I ignore the more obvious (ie bathrooom) humor and enjoy the whole send up of Bond, James Bond nonsense–the whole Bond series takes itself too seriously, so it’s fun to see it mocked, IMO.
MPFC also had some bathroom humor–I remember a bit about a high society party and the sounds eminating from the loo…but it is not one I recall with any fondness.
Jeesh–is everyone so pure in taste and interest?
(and I guess you are the walrus… 
).
I was just amused that you mentioned a distaste for bathroom humor immediately before mentioning movies that are chock full of it. I liked the first Austin Powers movie, but the sequel seemed like all it had going for it was bathroom humor.
I didn’t see the third, so it might have been better.
And, eleanorigby, I didn’t even notice the common theme in our names until you mentioned it :smack:
Ummmmm…that would be a no.
Like most posters, I agree that MP was very hit and miss, especially when I see things now compared to my earlier (high school/early college) years when I thought MP was the funniest thing ever.
But it’s hard not to admit that even if they borrowed stuff and had mentors that they electrified and changed the way most comedy is done. And that even 30 years on they are far sharper and far funnier than 90% of what is shown on TV.
I remember a couple years ago an ad that got virally passed along the internet - I forget the product and company name, but it was something like John West and the product was salmon, and it showed a bear fighting a fisherman over a salmon all kung-fu style. And it was quite amusing. But it was a total ripoff of the aforementioned Scott of the Antartic sketch (one of my favorites).
And Austin Powers? The best James Bond ripoff was Pantomine Horse. So ridiculously silly…I mean, pantomine horses chasing each other on two-person bicycles?
Both of these done by the Pythons, decades earlier.
I’ve told you once.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby I saw a Python interviewed a while back (don’t remember which one) and he said that they played the women because all of them were familiar with that type of woman (the “daily” aka “the char”) and also because they thought it would be funnier for them to do it. They took a page out of Milton Berle’s book, and they were right to do so.[/QUOTE]
Yep, it will always be funny to have a man dressed as a woman looking like just that. Although Dave Foley’s French-Canadian whore is almost too good-looking. (I remember a send-up of that on Newsradio once.) Hell, the Pythons didn’t even bother to shave their faces some of the times they were dressed as women.
So Roger. what movies do you find funny? 
Neither do some women.
Movies I find funny: Annie Hall, A Fish Called Wanda, The Princess Bride, Airplane!, Some Like It Hot, Bob and Silent Jay Strike Back. I was on a plane watching the last-named, and I watched some scenes three times before I saw the conclusion, as I kept nodding off and waking up at the same point. But it hardly spoiled the fun.
Interestingly, afterwards, when I checked out reviews on the Net, most of them mentioned how you wouldn’t enjoy the film so much if you didn’t get all the intertextual allusions. Bollocks!
This must be one of the great (to borrow a much overused word from the SDMB lexicon) fallacies, perpetuated by silly little people whose main pleasure in life is derived from sitting at a computer screen being condescending.
The sort of nonsense spouted by people who think that if you can’t quote some piece of script word for word then you’re somehow defective. The type of people who think that you’ll understand better the spirit of C.S. Lewis or Tolkein if you go to the Eagle and Child and drink Marston’s, or whatever they drink in Oxford. (I’ve already forgotten - it’s called being human.)
How can you communicate with people who have totally missed the point?
Okay, rant over. Please continue.
I’m a big fan of both Monty Python and Kevin Smith. Puerile really doesn’t bother me. I like what makes me laugh, whether it’s S.J. Perelman or the Three Stooges. That being said, I have trouble understanding how you can fault MP for being puerile and claim to enjoy Jay and Silent Bob.
Are you an iconoclast?
S’okay, roger -we understand.
I like those movies, too. Never heard of the last one, but that’s my ignorance.
Are people who endlessly quote the Princess Bride as iritating to you?
I do not think MPFC means what you think it means…see? I’ve combined the two for you!
walrus --I think I’ve only seen the second AP–the one with Ms Hurley(who at least has some idea of comic timing) in it. I like AP’s son in the film and the total un-hipness of AP…
I just hate it when folk quote these things; especially when they correct someone who really understands humour ( and how it works…yes, like me) when they get a word wrong. It’s obsessive behaviour that is annoying and troublesome when it prevents an interesting discussion breaking out between people who see the bigger picture.
Though parodied in The Office (through the character of Simon the IT Guy), I personally see it as more of an American problem. There is this obsession with pointless details, which has a place in the law, say, but is bizarre when having a cafe-style discussion about this and that.
The two what? I don’t follow.
You’re kidding, right? I’ll have you know that I’ve spent the best part of my life trying to be an iconoclast.
Roger, Roger–what’s your vector, Victor?
You have been wooshed–my very first! (I am so proud)
The whole quote re: “I don’t think XXX means what you think it means…” is from Princess Bride. I inserted MPFC reference as a joke. See, the thread was about MPFC and people who go on and on about it, quoting it etc., and then you name a movie that is quoted at least as often as anything Python ever did, so I put the two together…work with me here!
Now, it is not funny, because I had to 'splain it. Jokes lose alot of their impact (if not all) upon analysis-but you already knew that.
So, if one is to quote from a movie that you care for (or don’t care for), you insist on accuracy in all details? Isn’t that a wee pedantic? Or are you saying that being corrected in your quoting is annoying to you? It’s late here and I’m tired.
I’m proud because I watched the PB twice (wihtin the space of about 2 weeks - second time with my kid) and that line doesn’t ring a bell. That’s how it should be, as I see it. The enchantment, the enjoyment of a film like that lis in its effect, not on poring over each line, memorising it, and then spouting it out at other people. Basically, I’m with you. Render to Caesar and all that. Pedantry in its place is fine - but in discussing stuff with friends it just gets in the way and pisses people off.
I’m against all forms of prefabricated phrases that do your thinking for you. That’s why I hate all the 'isms, especially the Big 3 - sexism, racism and classism (not so big that one, obviously). Spouting these words tends to lead to the abolition of thinking.