Funny? Absolutely. Good? Very hard to say

Rating: 5/10 (5 December 2008)

It is incredible hard to say if this film works or not. It is absolutely hilarious for the first 1/3 of the running time but then it kind of peters out at the end. That it was made on a shoe-string budget is clearly evident but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be bad. Many of the million-dollar blockbusters made today are not worth 1/10 of their budget.
As has been mentioned many, many times, the Pythons are extremely clever and creative writers and that was their forte in their TV show which we all know was a sketch show. When putting sketches on a feature and at the same time have a plot-driven story, one of the elements get compromised. As mentioned, the first 1/3 of the film does work because the Pythons successfully interweave the two elements. Then somehow the comedy goes flat. There are still a few funny bits but not that many.
As mentioned on one of the commentaries on the DVD release, we learn that there was some conflict on the location shoot, especially between the actors and Terry Gilliam. Terry Jones took over some of the directorial duties, and sorry to say this, because Gilliam is a brilliant director, Jones has much more flair for comedy. Maybe that was why the film is so bi-polar.
The Pythons play almost all the roles, but special mention must be made to Michael Palin and John Cleese who have the most outrageous characters (the knight, the taunter (Cleese) and the repressed peasant (Palin) - notice Palin in the dirt) Graham Chapman plays it straight and you have to admire that too. You could buy him as a legitimate character in one of these films set in medieval times. He was reportedly plagued by problems with alcohol at the time, but it doesn't show on screen.
Why do I think this is a bad film? I don't. It has no point and that was the idea but as entertainment it is very uneven.