Maidgethma Wonderfully offbeat film!

Interesteg What makes it different from others?

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

imdbuserg ##### no plot spoilers ##### Just browsing, as you do, through IMDb and encountered 'The Strange Case....' entry. I remembered this fondly. It means even more to me now because of the resemblance the Arthur Lowe bore to my late father. That aside, I recall that it was made a long time ago. Forty years to be precise (at the time of writing....2017). So long ago, in fact, that it was when 'the comic messiah' himself (John Cleese) was actually funny. Well, on good days. Let's be honest 'python' produced so much that SOME of it had to be funny. I'd say, on balance, that this was on one of J.C.'s funnier moments. Possibly because Holmes as portrayed here is a bit conceited, arrogant and superior, At least where his lap dog chum Watson is concerned. Maybe it wasn't too much of a stretch for J.C. That said, the Holmes character is meant to be like that in this film (yes I said film. Not movie). Just as Watson is meant to be butt of this. e.g. "Good lord Holmes, how did you know?" (J.C.) "Because you're so sodding dim". Connie Booth, was (as memory serves) easy on the eye, well cast and on top form and played the Hudson role, and the reveal role well. In fact I was always wondering why, when given her appearance, writing talent, and acting talent, that she wasn't a much bigger star? Perhaps it didn't sit well wither husband if she began to attract some of the limelight? The score. To be honest I don't remember too much of the score. I don't recall it being intrusive, or out of place so my presumption is it must've been fine. Editing. As I remember it the story line hung together well enough and nothing was given away too soon. Enough of the technical mumbo-jumbo. I never really understood 'cinematography, lighting, et al. It all sounds good but it doesn't really mean anything. (go on name that quote). What you really need to know is that it's a reasonable story. It's well told. It's well acted. It's funny. It's of it's time. It's worth watching.... several times. AND.... contrary to several other reviewers here on IMDb, (all but one being from "united States", the other one being from Serbia), it is not at all like Murder By Death. How that is arrived at is a mystery worthy of it's own film. I wouldn't be so crass as to suggest that two different reviewers, using the same vocabulary and making the same mistake, could possibly be in cahoots. The mistake one makes is to mention Murder By Death and state that the characters in Murder By Death are ".. MBD's detectives come from literature's mystery genre and this film's detectives come from American television of that era.". Okay, do I really need to state the blindingly obvious?. Another "United States" reviewer seems to be under the impression that a star should be in every scene from the opening frame to the last frame. Lest I be accused of being a "United States" hater there were several reviews from "United States" where the reviewer actually understood the film, it's comedy AND, perhaps most importantly, the era it was made. The world has moved a long way in 40 years. We cannot apply modern day sensibilities to a 40 year (or older) film. Also, bear in mind, that despite what the world might think, Britain was still on it's uppers in 1977. We paid a price... And Kept on paying. Long after others were rebuilt. No-one rebuilt anything for us. in fact we were paying our 'war loan' ti the U.S.A. until near the end of the millennium. Look it up. you couldn't make this stuff up. So we didn't have a Movie Industry like the Uncle Sam. What I'm trying to say is that it was made with a budget that seems impossible now. I think some of the reviewers from "United States" get that. I'm sure Ms. Booth understood the British psych well. Yes 40 years there were things on British 'telly, that today, you would be shot for, for just suggesting them. Maybe "strange Case..." will only appeal to those entering the dotage. perhaps. but it doesn't mean it doesn't have an appeal. Finally. the thing to remember above all else in the is this. If you like puns, pin back you lugholes because there are a handful of absolute beauties in here. So fun? yes there's fun. Beauty. yes the odd moment. Puns? Oh yes. Humour? (No! It is spelt correctly. this along with so many other things are highlighted, by a world which increasingly believes that the only correct English is that promulgated by - in the western world- an overwhelming United States-centric view. to-wit. The word is NORMALITY! not NORMALCY!. but media-trendy American wannabes, and internet usage would almost deny the existence of the word). Yes plenty of humour. Knowing disapproval? yes. Arthur Lowe? Yes, bless him. Don't be too hard on this. film. It's not meant to be serious. and it was made, possibly by people your age, long before you were even born. Think about that..."

justinboggan You open with an airplane that has an actor pulling off a poor Jerry Lewis impersonation, doing the forgetful Jewish stereotype, that's so boring and annoying you wonder if you should even continue watching it. Underneath you have the terrible underscoring with the music just going DUN DUN ... DUN DUN ... DUN DUN over and over and over again (and this is coming from me -- a film and TV score lover).You stick with it and instead of being rewarded, you are tortured by a poorly written, poorly delivered, and badly executed scene of a mis-cast United States President talking to advisers. That's six minutes of your life. During the next minute what happened in the opening is finally addressed and the plot is starting to advance. It's painful, it's mental torture, it goes on for almost eight full minutes. But, you stick with it because John Cleese is in it and other reviewers praise it. And he must be in it, because he was seen riding a bicycle during the opening credits music.FINALLY, thirteen freaking minutes into the fifty-five minutes long special, Cleese actually joins the film already in progress. Oh yes, there's nothing better than seeing one of three people the film is about, not actually do anything but ride a bicycle in the opening credits, until thirteen minutes later. By the way, he doesn't even speak until about fifteen minutes in. After all, the last thing we want to hear is the main star of the film speak words.Twenty-one minutes in it tells us we've reached the conclusion of Part I, and by that point almost nothing has been accomplished.Another eleven minutes later and Part II has ended and we know almost nothing more than we learned in the first part.And when Part III ends, you find out there was no actual serious plot, that the whole thing was filler jokes and skits leading to no resolution of everything we were told and ending in rear-end squeaker.There is so much un-earned and undeserved padding in this special that you could probably trim it down to ten minutes, and even then it would still be awful and not funny.There are so many bad jokes and poorly executed ones. Not a single laugh in this whole hour of misfires. The premise was't bad, the idea of Cleese as Sherlock Holmes's grandson (following in Holmes footsteps) hunting his old nemesis in modern times has potential, some of the casting was good, and there were little skits that had the potential to be funny if they had been done right, but overall I found myself struggling to watch it, skimming small parts, and wishing a giant foot would slam down and tell us it was now time for something completely different.The score is unremarkable and at times boring when even there. I wonder why there was even a score, as it was heard so little and did nothing to enhance the struggling mess.And there are bad edits, film and sound wise.This is terrible and deservedly forgotten.

Dakota100 I enjoyed this short film and recommend it to all who enjoy Cleese doing what he does best. Arthur Lowe's portrayal of a bumbling Dr. Watson is great as is Connie Booth's Mrs. Hudson. The plot is similar to that of the higher budget 1976 comedy film Murder By Death in that a gathering of famous detectives is empaneled to solve a crime. It differs in that Cleese and company depend more on sight gags than on a clever script. (At least one gag was lifted nearly intact from the the earlier film.) Another difference is that MBD's detectives come from literature's mystery genre and this film's detectives come from American television of that era.This film pokes good fun at a variety of world cultures with special emphasis on the USA. (Perhaps I am being overly sensitive.) I recommend that those unfamiliar with either film watch The Strange Case before viewing Murder By Death to avoid being mildly distracted by the similarities as I was.

caspian1978 For 1975, this was it! A typical John Cleese spoof that is meant for laughs. Connie Booth is added to the cast alongside her then husband Cleese. A surprise addition of the cast is late actor Arthur Lowe who has more laughs than Cleese. A strong supporting actor from other films such as IF... and The Ruling Class, Lowe is perfect as the stupid but love able side kick. For just a 55 minute feature, The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know it is a quick, yet fun ride that pokes fun at just about everything "detective like" in English and American media. Holmes, Bond, Columbo, etc.