Splitting Heirs (1993) User Reviews

Glad that I checked here first

[lllama · 6/10 · 25 May 2001]

Okay, it may not have been the greatest flick, but it certainly wasn't the worst. In fact, I'm glad that I checked the IMDB comments first because it gave me the proper perspective. I love British humor and I've been a Python fan since it first hit the US. The negative comments prepared me for the worst, and the good ones gave me a reason to watch.

That said, I enjoyed the flick, in spite of its idiocy. Sometimes you just have to sit back and drop your logic in order to enjoy plain, simple entertainment. I'd take this movie over any sitcom on TV. The movie was silly and lighthearted, (in spite of a few murders). By the end of the movie, I actually found myself liking Rick Moranis, who often gets on my nerves. Eric Idle and John Cleese were their typically silly selves. Catherine Zeta-Jones was beautiful and fun, though she seemed the tiniest bit pudgier than she is now. I was really impressed by Barbara Hershey, who took on her comedic role with gusto.

If you like your movies logical, you'll hate this one. It's full of holes, loose strings and stupid logic--but that's just not the point. If this were a totally reasonable world, there'd be no Monty Python.

I watched it a second time with my husband, who laughed all the way through, and so did I. I think this one is like any Python stuff. You laugh harder the more you watch it, in spite of the absurdity. (I know it's foolish of me, but I laugh every time I hear Cleese repeat the phrase, "She turned me into a newt.")

Rather amusing little black comedy with some of the Monty Python touch

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 6/10 · 30 July 2006]

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

Not Terribly Hilarious, But Worth a Look

[blinkprincess17 · 19 September 2003]

This movie starring former Pythons Idle and Cleese, as well as Rick Moranis and Catherine Zeta-Jones is an interesting little comedy about a baby English duke (Idle) who disappeared at birth and lost his inheritance to an American (Moranis). He doesn't learn about the mistake until he's 35, living with his adoptive Pakistani family, and working as a stockbroker for a large firm. Zeta-Jones is Moranis' pretty, golddigging fiance and Barbara Hershey plays the hysterical, widowed nymphomaniac "Duchess Mummy". John Cleese is a mad lawyer and it's clearly not his best work, but fans will like to see his face. Idle is not at his greatest either, but the plot is kinda neat and moves fairly quickly. This was before Zeta-Jones became the "Chicago" superstar she is today, but everyone will note her talent and latina-like beauty. I remember Rick Moranis best as the fabulous "Dark Helmet" in "Space Balls", but I enjoyed him as the nerdy, rollerblading, 10-year-old in a man's body in this one. You may be disappointed at seeing the comedy gods Idle and Cleese fall kind of flat, but give it at least a peek, for there are some quality scenes.

A smile here and there

[bluerider521 · 5/10 · 30 September 2013]

This film just doesn't quite make it. It is worth a smile here and there, but there are no laughs. The story isn't compelling. It is just a structure to hang comic bits on. Fine. But the comic bits are old and their timing is a bit off. Eric Idol and John Cleese are what you would expect, but no more than that.

Barbara Hersey is a problem. She plays a nympho middle aged woman and an aristocrat. This combination was supposed to be funny but it wasn't. She overdid the sexy part to the point where it was neither erotic nor funny.

I have a feeling that there is an inside story on why this wasn't better than it is.

Got Lost In The Sixties

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 14 February 2012]

Rick Moranis and Eric Idle star as a couple of men who as kids got lost in the Sixties. Lost in the sense of misplaced and for one of them that means a title.

Coincidences are more readily accepted in comedies like Splitting Heirs and what are the chances that one of them after being lost as a baby by a titled lord and his American wife at a Sixties type love-in would be found and assume his title. Of course there is another claimant who looks like his claim is just as valid and he's actually British. That's what happens with Moranis and Idle and in fact Idle works for the noble family's brokerage business.

In addition Idle has working for him a bottom feeding solicitor in fellow Monty Python alumnus John Cleese who is having a great old time with the part and stealing every scene he's in. Catherine Zeta-Jones is the girl both are pursuing and Barbara Hershey who was definitely a Sixties child plays somebody's mother.

A little bit of Kind Hearts And Coronets with a dash of The Canterville Ghost is thrown in as a whole bunch of unfortunate accidents keep happening. Someone is helping a well known family curse along and I won't say who.

Idle, Moranis, and Cleese keep the laughs churning in Splitting Heirs whose moral seems to be mothers keep track of your children.

Ever watched the old Mahabharata?

[pknair · 5/10 · 12 January 2003]

Well, this movie wasn't the worst I've ever seen...but it was far from the best. It was mildly amusing at times, and although the talent they collected for this film was great, the writing fell flat. Keep an eye out for some great Python-esque jokes, and Barbara Hershey is surprisingly convincing as a sex-crazed duchess, but the one real thing to keep an eye out for is the Hindu Dream Sequence. If you've ever seen the old Indian (Bollywood) version of the Mahabharata, be prepared to laugh your head off. The depiction brought back everything I thought as a kid when I first saw that movie. There were a few other jokes in there that only the British or South Asians would get, but if you're not in either of those categories (or not sufficiently familiar with either) these jokes will be lost on you. Rent this only if you're an insomniac or a die-hard fan of cheesy humour.

Severe flaws and not enough laughs

[Beta_Gallinger · 5/10 · 24 December 2008]

I was too young to see this 1993 British comedy (rated PG-13) when it was released, but saw it a couple times in 2005. Before seeing it, I knew it featured Eric Idle and John Cleese, both of Monty Python fame, as well as Canadian actor Rick Moranis, whom I knew best for his role as Bob McKenzie, one of the two stereotypical Canadian brothers, Bob & Doug McKenzie. Knowing about those three cast members, I was hoping for a funny movie. Around the beginning, I was getting disappointed, but eventually found that it got better. My second viewing wasn't much different from my first, but my third viewing, over three years later, was disappointing.

In the 1960's, the son of the 14th Duke of Bournemouth is born, and is his rightful heir. The boy's hippie parents accidentally lose him, and find a baby boy which is assumed to be him. However, it turns out that they had the wrong boy! Their son is adopted and raised as Tommy Patel by an Indian family in England, and has no clue that he is actually the rightful heir to the title of the Duke of Bournemouth until after he grows up! That title goes to an American named Henry Bullock, and it is after Tommy meets him that he gradually finds evidence indicating that he is not the rightful heir! Tommy talks to a lawyer named Raoul P. Shadgrind about this, and learns from him that it will be hard to claim the position while the current Duke is still alive, but it will be easier if Henry dies! With that in mind, determined to get back what he lost as a baby, Tommy begins to carry out assassination attempts on the false heir!

Even back when I was reasonably impressed with this movie, I realized that there were casting problems, with Barbara Hershey as Duchess Lucinda, the real mother of Tommy, played by Eric Idle. The problem with this is that Hershey is about five years younger than Idle, and I would say she looks even younger than that! Plus Idle plays a character who was born during the hippie era, even though Idle himself was born over twenty years before that era began! However, those major casting problems certainly don't completely ruin the film. The main problem with "Splitting Heirs" is that it simply isn't very funny. There were definitely times when I laughed during my third viewing, with the outcome of some of the assassination attempts, and I guess some occasional really funny lines, but there was not quite enough humour to satisfy. Duchess Lucinda can be a tad irritating, with her sex-obsessed ways, and it seems Hershey tries to be funny in this role, but doesn't succeed. There are some fairly lame gags involving her character. I think I realized this during my second viewing, but it seemed worse with my third. I guess that's because I didn't find enough to make up for it this time.

No, this movie isn't very long, but during my most recent viewing, it seemed like it was! I remembered not being so impressed around the beginning of the film before, so it didn't surprise me that I wasn't laughing much during the early part of the film this time, but unlike before, I didn't find that it ever really improved much as it went along! For the most part, the dullness continued. Whenever a really good gag came along, it didn't last long, and then the dullness would soon come back. Maybe "Splitting Heirs" is good for one or two viewings, but wears thin after that, or maybe I've changed a bit in three years. Well, whatever the reason is for my recent disappointment with this film, I'm clearly not alone, though I still don't hate it like some people do. For Monty Python fans, Eric Idle COULD make you laugh in this film, and so could John Cleese in his smaller part. As for Rick Moranis, of "SCTV" fame, I don't think his character in this film has ever really stood out to me. So, for Python fans, this movie, written by and starring Eric Idle, could be worth a try, but could also seriously disappoint you. In any case, your expectations definitely shouldn't be TOO high.

Our introduction to Catherine Zeta-Jones, eh?

[lee_eisenberg · 8/10 · 23 June 2006]

Eric Idle does his typical zany stuff as an heir to a castle trying to unseat a loopy American (Rick Moranis), who has taken the position. Some of the scenes in the movie really make you think "JESUS H. Christ!!!!!! I'M REALLY WATCHING THIS!!!!!!!" Probably the aspect that catches peoples' eyes the most nowadays is the presence of a very young Catherine Zeta-Jones; when we first saw the movie, we didn't know who she was. But whether or not that's the aspect of "Splitting Heirs" that most catches your eyes shouldn't be the point. The point is that it's a really funny movie. Whether it's Rick Moranis on the roller skates, Eric Idle getting caught with more than his pants down, or something else, you won't find this movie boring. Also starring Barbara Hershey and John Cleese.

extra funny when compared to Kind Hearts and Coronets

[bjjones1960 · 7/10 · 14 June 2006]

The movie reminded me of one of my favorites - Kind Hearts and Coronets - except instead of killing several relatives in the line of succession as Alec Guiness's character did, Eric Idle's character was trying several methods to kill one. Also, Eric Idle strongly resembled every ancestor in the Duke's portrait gallery much like Alec Guiness looked just like every member of his family in Kind Hearts and Coronets (since he was playing all the roles).

John Cleese was so funny describing how the new Duke could meet with an accident and then listing possible accidents which included poison mixed with scotch to disguise both the taste and cause of death.

Eric Idle's character was very likable, and even though he's much older than Kitty, his smile and charm made them seem like they could be a couple. The whole cast was all star - Cleese, Idle, Barbara Hershey, Catherine Zeta Jones, Rick Moranis, and like Monty Python movies, there are loads of quotable quotes.

Nothing special

[cricketbat · 5/10 · 30 August 2018]

An entertaining movie, but nothing special. John Cleese's character is a big reason why this got the score it did - he's hilarious.

Very under rated

[sweek2003 · 2 September 2003]

This film cracks me up, especially John Cleese's character, the sight of Cleese rolling down a hill atop of an upside down Renault which moves thanks to the bikes holding up the entire car, will stay with me forever. I'm giggling to myslef as I write this review. Admittedly it's not for everyone. For example, a lot of Americans prefer bold, in-your-face comedy to Brit wit.

Also, this is probably Eric Idles second best film outside of Monty Python (1st being Nuns On The Run).

Doesn't live up to the sum of its parts.

[blrnani · 5/10 · 28 December 2018]

I had never heard of this film, but saw it on offer and snapped it up because of the cast - 2 Pythons and Catherine Zeta Jones! Moreover, Barbara Hershey attacks her role with relish, Sadie Frost shines in a love-hate relationship with Idle and Rick Moranis manages not to be irritating, and there are cameos from some classic TV stars: Stratford Johns (Z-Cars and Inspector Barlow), Eric Sykes (Carry-On and his own comedy show) and Brenda Bruce (theatrical works). And yet, somehow, it doesn't quite come together to provide the level of entertainment I expected. Nevertheless, it is worth a watch on a rainy afternoon when one is in the mood for silliness.

A Not Quite Perfect Blend of British and Canadian Humor

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 21 April 2012]

A member of the English upper class dies, leaving his estate and his business to an American (Rick Moranis), whom he thinks is his son who was lost as a baby and then found again.

The problem with this film is that it is only three-quarters baked. Eric Idle is an excellent writer, but I feel like he did not give himself enough time between the writing and the beginning of filming. An additional joke or revision here or there might have made all the difference.

Rick Moranis shines, John Cleese is excellent. Eric Idle himself is quite good. Give them a bit more to work with and this film could have been a winner. Instead, it has been largely forgotten. Even an early appearance from Catherine Zeta-Jones did not save it.

comedy without laughs

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 7 September 2015]

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.

Great cast and a hilarious comedy.

[Bodhi-8 · 7/10 · 27 November 1999]

I can't believe this comedy is rated so low. I've seen this movie and I thought it was a great comedy. I can understand not everyone will enjoy this movie, but if you love typical British "Eric Idle" humor, then this is your ticket !

Eric Idle plays Tommy Patel, a guy who's adopted and raised by Asian parents. On one day he comes to believe that he's the biological heir. He hates the American heir (Rick Moranis) who turns out to be the fake heir, so Tommy Patel will do anything to conquer his place to become the rich heir.

Great cast, good acting and a hilarious comedy.

If one of the readers love British humor ("Life of Brian" or "The Holy Grail") then you'll love this movie.

My rating: 7,5

I think the CIA uses this movie to torture prisoners into talking

[culwin · 3/10 · 8 September 2001]

There is nothing more painful than a comedy which just isn't funny. It's like that person (I think we all know someone like this) who always tells bad jokes, but thinks they are funny. The people involved probably had fun making this film, but you won't want to watch it. This is right up there on my list of bad comedies with "Leonard: Part 6" and "Maid to Order". Avoid, unless you are masochistic.

British humoresque black comedy on Monty Python's legacy!!

[elo-equipamentos · 7/10 · 6 November 2020]

Whatever movies from the formers Monty Phython's members are quick-witted works, Splitting Heirs has two of them, Eric Idle and John Cleese, although it's a minor work, lays out on their patterns, providing a fancy British humor, even having a substantial American actors, the plot is quite riveting, a tale about an extensive ancestry of the Bournmouths of British aristocracy, when the 15th Duke Tommy (Idle) was born on the sixties and was left on a restaurant and aftermaths he was swapped by another child (Moranis), strangely Tommy was adopted by an Indian family located on London and raised by them, already adults somehow these two guys come across occasionally and becomes friends, Tommy visiting Henry's castle realizes some blatant sameness over him and many pictures of the Bouronmouth's displayed on the walls, hereinafter he makes a research, finding strong evidences that he was the real inheritor of the family and deserves his place back, the movie has many enticing elements to hold the viewers as black comedy than anything else, the casting encloses the sexy Catherine Zeta-Jones and a still youthful Barbara Hershey in great shape, also John Cleese in a secondary role, nothing bad at all.

Resume:

First watch: 1996 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7

A really bad film.

[sebastian_carr · 1/10 · 5 October 2004]

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.

She caught so many strokes in the 60's people called her the US open.

[ans-19 · 9/10 · 27 September 2008]

I rented this movie on VHS in the late 90's and somehow I never quite got to returning it to the store. Lacking the absurd humor of the Monty Python era, as a huge Idle and Cleese fan I was at first a bit disappointed. Eric Idle had produced what seemed at first a rather shallow comedy flick. Still, it had it's moments and at the end of the first viewing it left me satisfied, yet no more than that.

In the following days however, I found myself watching this movie over and over again, getting to love it more and more each time. The brilliance in this movie is not in the script (a rather basic story about a personality mix-up) nor the usual Python-esquire absurdity (almost completely missing, except for the notion of an American as a British Duke) but rather in the main characters themselves. The American educated Duke-to-be, the Duchess Mummy who is so much of a man-eater it defies each sign of royalty, the gold-digging yet promiscuous fiancée, the scheming cook and the mad lawyer. Not to mention the blond haired, blue eyed Asian. Each of them has a sort of second layer to their personality which is so absurd, yet intriguing, that simply playing their characters is enough for the actors to make this a memorable appearance.

Rick Moranis especially surprised me, if only by not being his obnoxious self.

Nowadays, whenever I switch on my old VCR i get to wonder which tape will be in it, Splitting Heirs or Jackie Brown. Either way, the next time it will be the other way around.

A treat!

[lavignebiz1 · 6/10 · 25 November 2018]

I'd never heard of this until I read about it in Eric Idle's superb new sortabiography, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life. As I was watching it, I realized that it's an updated version of Kind Hearts and Coronets, the Ealing Studio comedy starring Alec Guinness as eight characters. This movie is delicious entertainment! Eric Idle wrote the script and stars in it, with sporadic appearances by John Cleese.

My guess is that the film was a box office failure because it was released at the wrong time. It's utterly delightful, on the order of the original Death at a Funeral (the UK production, of course!)

Truly god awful

[redkiwi · 1/10 · 14 May 2001]

This film epitomises everything that is wrong with Hollywood. A quaint American knowledge of what the British aristocracy is, which bears absolutely zero resemblance in fact, is spun into a stunningly unfunny tale about Eric Idle having his inheritance taken by a mistaken identity while he was a baby.

The king of not being funny, Rick Moranis, takes his place and of course Eric tries to knock him off, and it's predictable as it is painful, and every single thing you could see happening.

Quite how John Cleese could lower himself to this I'm not sure, and I have no doubt that Catherine Zeta Jones will look back on this and cringe in years to come.

Never ever see this film, it's terrible.

Brilliant comedy from Idle and Cleese

[snibril · 15 May 2001]

I saw this film a few nights ago as a late night Channel 4 film. Eric Idle and John Cleese are in classic Monty Python form, with a few in-jokes thrown in too. Rick Moranis is an interesting addition, not brilliantly funny, but he adds the American humour element. I was absolutely sure the film was a late 70's film, from the title sequence, visuals, jokes, the fact that it said "and introducing John Cleese" in the opening credits, and Eric Idle looks very young. I was very surprised to find it was from 1993!

Great comedy, I'd love to see more like this.

Has its moments but loses steam shortly before the end

[spencer-w-hensley · 6/10 · 9 August 2022]

I bought this at a thrift store because I am a Rick Moranis fan. I cannot wait for him to come out of his long acting hiatus for the new Honey I Shrunk the Kids reboot. Although he disappeared from movie screens for a while this man is very talented and has left us behind some great comedy classics. I also like Eric Idle, although I am not a die hard Monty Python fan who doesn't love the Holy Grail?

Barbara Hershey was great in Hoosiers and a then unknown Catherine Zita Jones co-stars with a small appearance by another Python member John Cleese.

The reviews for this movie were pretty bad and it failed badly at the box office so I was a little concerned but still willing to give it a chance.

The good news is I did laugh a handful of times, there are definitely some very funny moments in the Python tradition.

The bad news however is the plot gets more convoluted as it goes along and as a result the laughs run our towards the end and it runs out of steam.

The idea for the comedy is good and although I laughed a decent amount that was only in about thr first hour of the movie. The last 20-30 mins of this needed to be a lot sharper as the beginning was.

The mistaken identity plot is nothing new but the first hour of this movie offers some fresh spin on that familiar idea.

By the second half though the pacing slows down and it settles to become contrived, predictable, and rushed providing very little laughs that the first hour did.

Rick Moranis has certainly done worse films than this (i.e. Big Bully) but with his supporting cast here the results should have been a laugh riot from start to finish, even in incorporating black comedy.

Also John Cleese's character is contrived and unnecessary and shouldn't have even been there to begin with. He was much better used in A Fish Called Wanda. Here he adds nothing important or noteworthy.

If you are a die hard Moranis or Python fan I would recommend this for that solid first hour, because it contains some good laughs. But after that you may be looking to the clock a lot even though the movie is only an hour and a half.

I enjoyed the first hour but sadly the second half is just nowhere near as song. I guess your enjoyment of this will depend on how much of a Moranis fan you are or a fan of any of the other supporting actors. If you like any of the cast this one has some good and is not a total disaster, but the cast has also done a lot better work.

Not bad, rent if you love Eric Idle or Monty Python

[KITHfan1 · 10/10 · 23 March 2003]

This film wasn't awful. I'll start by saying that. There was many things that this film was, but awful was not one of them. Reading that last sentence, it didn't really make sense, but you know what I mean. I'm a die-hard Monty Python fan and rabid Eric Idle lover, so I'm a bit (Ha!) biased. But really, this wasn't bad. It wasn't something that I'd expect from a great like Eric, but there's nothing wrong with making a movie solely for profit. It may have looked good on paper, but it didn't translate well to the screen. Other Monty Python and Eric Idle fans will love this for the inside jokes, but those who don't like Monty Python do yourself, and Eric, a favor and stay away. Go rent 'Life of Brian' or 'All You Need Is Cash' to see Eric at a better time. The one thing that really bothered me was John Cleese's character. It's like Eric called him up and said, "Hey John, why don't you play an evil, selfish lawyer? You know, for a change?"

Certainly no comedy masterpiece, but fun nonetheless

[Anomaly-2 · 7 December 1999]

Gosh, I seem to be one of the few people who enjoyed this movie. It certainly wasn't up to the standards of Eric Idle's and John Cleese's other movies, but it still far surpassed many other comedies available (IMHO anyways).

Some parts of this movie had me in stitches. John Cleese right at the end standing on the car for instance.

I'd say this movie isn't the best in the world, but It's still good. 7 out of 10.