A curiously empty article about a film, which like Holy Grail has barely dated in the intervening decades. Personally, I feel Life of Brian has aged infin

A curiously empty article about a film, which like Holy Grail has barely dated in the intervening decades. Personally, I feel Life of Brian has aged infinitely better than Holy Grail, primarily because (my fellow) nerds haven't strip-mined it for "quotes." When I first saw Holy Grail, I thought it was the funniest thing ever. Now the mere mention of "it's only a flesh wound" and other such lines makes me want to hurl myself out of a window. I've probably heard that line recited 1,000 times! Hardly. Palin and Cleese seemed to perfectly understand the ridiculous childishness of the comically pompous bishop and Muggeridge who both repeatedly avoided engaging and simply derided the film as "tenth rate" etc. Palin and Cleese were being disingenuous. In a literal sense, Brian is of course not Jesus. However, the film clearly lampoons the arbitrary nature of religion and who gets to be called a messiah and things like that. In that sense it very clearly is a parody of Jesus' life and of religion in general. (As an atheist and huge fan of the movie, I certainly don't mind. But Life of Brian most certainly does make light of Christianity, among many other things)