SnoopyStyle The long line of Dukes of Bournemouth have all been idiots. The last one married American Lucinda (Duchess Lucinda). The hapless pair and their friends left their baby Thomas Henry Butterfly Rainbow Peace in a restaurant back in the 60s. Tommy Patel (Eric Idle) grew up in an East Indian family and works for the Bournemouths as a commodity trader. He is assigned to host outrageous Henry Bullock (Rick Moranis). Henry gets Tommy fired. When the Duke dies, Henry turns out to be the new Duke and hires back Tommy. Lucinda recognizes a similarity between Tommy and her late husband. As evidences mount, he investigates the truth behind the Duke's missing baby. He goes to lawyer Shadgrind (John Cleese) who suggests killing Henry is the only way to go. Tommy starts to having a conflicted relationship with Henry especially as he sleeps with Kitty (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and then she reveals that she's marrying Henry.I don't understand Shadgrind's hints about the Duke. There should be an easy paternity test. That would be the first thing that comes to my mind. I don't understand the central concede of killing the Duke. It's a screwball black comedy without any laughs. It's a comedy of confusion. Both Rick Moranis and Eric Idle are nice comedians. I just didn't laugh once.

jadzia92 Splitting Heirs starred and written by Eric Idle and also featuring fellow Python John Cleese, it tells of a baby who was destined to become duke who got left behind in a restaurant due to the forgetfulness of his parents. Due to convenience, the parents chose another baby to be their son and he grows up to become Rick Moranis. Meanwhile the baby that his parents did not find grows up as Tommy Patel played by Eric Idle. It seemed somewhat too convenient for this movie that Tommy becomes friends with Henry played by Moranis without knowing about his real history beforehand. However once he knew that the dukedom was supposed to be his and everything with it, Tommy goes about getting it back by killing Henry. However things don't quite according to his plans which includes the attack of his conscience. It not a bad comedy film from Idle but the one thing that I did not like it about it is Catherine Zeta-Jones' character Kitty as she was rather too two-faced for my liking.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews 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

Sebastian Carr I can't imagine what the fans of this film have managed to find to entertain them. No plot, poor acting and a transatlantic ambition which was ill-conceived, combine to make this one of the worst films I have ever seen. At a guess, I would say that those involved were looking to exploit the US popularity of the Monty Python team, yet even a mediocre film like "A Fish Called Wanda" made some effort to write a script that, whilst fairly offensive to Brits looking to see a film about themselves, didn't treat the country as a theme park. This film doesn't make you wonder how so many talented people became involved in such an awful project. It makes you wonder whether those people are very talented after all.