Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

##### 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..."

Possible Spoiler - In what is probably the world's longest movie title, The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It, someone is killing all the world famous figures and detectives. They call in Arthur Sherlock Holmes (Cleese) to get to the bottom of it. There are some great, funny scenes, like near the beginning, with those recognize-able folks around the conference table: Denholm Elliot (the butler from Trading Places) and Josephine Tewson (Elizabeth, the neighbor from Keeping up Appearances) who gets into arguments with the computer. Even the big reveal at the end is QUITE similar to Neil Simon's Murder By Death, which had just come out the year before. About halfway through, it gets quite silly, in a Stooges kind of way, but its all fun, and wraps up nicely at the end. There is another hilarious scene, where there are about 30 bullets in a six shooter pistol. It's much like a Python skit, but at under an hour, it's just mostly good fun that is over before it gets dragged out too long. Not bad if you keep those expectations low. Holly Palance (daughter of Jack Palance) plays the air hostess; looks like she did mostly TV stuff. Cleese's wife Connie Booth looking pretty hot in a tight black leather outfit. This film is part of the John Cleese DVD collection from White Star Kultur Productions.

Considering that this pointless little comedy was sandwiched between the two terrific Fawlty Towers seasons, and written around the same time as the best Python movie, "Life of Brian", it is amazing to me how Cleese could possibly have co-written such a lame script. Perhaps it was McGrath's fault to an extent? The two had already collaborated once on a monstrously unfunny flop called "The Magic Christian".TSCOTEOCAWKI starts off fairly well with the murder of Kissinger, and then a decently written, pythonesque skit in the White House. From there it goes gradually downhill. The movie gets worse and worse by the minute, culminating in a finale that was simply too embarrassing to watch. I'm embarrassed just thinking about it now! It's the kind of material that 16 year-old comedy hopefuls would write for a high-school play. Moronic and unfunny to a fault.When I first saw Kissinger/Gropinger, I thought it was Peter Sellers with make-up. However, Sellers would have done his homework and spoken the way Kissinger really speaks. This other actor did a poor imitation, voice-wise...

No laughs whatsoever. Yes, I watched this entire train wreck but only so that I wouldn't later wonder if Cleese had come to his senses in the latter part. (No, he had not.) This may be historically interesting to you youngsters out there, to see that British "humor" included black "jokes" like these, thirty years ago. What amazes me even more though, is to read the other reviewers' comments, which acknowledge this isn't very good, yet then turn around and give it high votes. If the vast majority of the comedies that you have seen are even much worse than this one, then I certainly pity your torturous existences. The humor level of this show appears aimed at little kids, yet the subject matter does not. So who is this for? People who enjoy repeated & drawn-out double-takes, pratfalls, drug jokes (interesting only as a short trip back to '77), and other "low" humor. The Three Stooges are still funny, and were to me as a kid, too. THEY exerted some effort in making jokes work. This however is sloughed off schlock. I fear that it IS the end of civilization, if this stuff really is accepted as worthwhile. Next you'll be telling me that tabloid TV is popular. :(