Hacker Cinema
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
1975 · Film · 91 min
Directed by Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones
King Arthur, accompanied by his squire, recruits his Knights of the Round Table, including Sir Bedevere the Wise, Sir Lancelot the Brave, Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot and Sir Galahad the Pure. On the way, Arthur battles the Black Knight who, despite having had all his limbs chopped off, insists he can still fight. They reach Camelot, but Arthur decides not to enter, as "it is a silly place".
8 positive1 negative26 neutralfrom 35 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
35 comments on Hacker News
I mean, the reason why these dominate in Europe is because largely of the medieval era and a bit before that. Once gunpowder became more widely used, castles became increasingly obsolete. Nowadays they have only touristic value really or movie values, such as the castle in the movie Monty Python and the holy grail. Other than that they are just stone ruins really, some more polished than others. They have no real worth nowadays other than wonder how many resources went into building them.
Also, as others pointed out, the map is missing many castles. I also doubt the spread over China, the map only says about 7 castles in whole China? So that seems totally wrong. The definition for a castle must be incorrect, because Japan has attributed many more and that is simply objectively incorrect. Is the chinese palace classified as a castle? If not, why not? If yes then why not other palaces in China? The map is really not very good here. It should begin by a good definition of what is meant with a castle.
Holy Hallucinations, Batman...
User You: What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow/
Jimmy:
A reference to the classic line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail!
Thus far it is correct but here it comes:
In the movie, a group of medieval scholars, the Knights who say "Ni!" (also known as the Bridgekeepers), ask a king's servant, a blacksmith, if an unladen swallow makes good time. The blacksmith, played by John Cleese, responds with the now-famous line:
"And what's the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
To which the blacksmith responds:
"What do you mean? An unladen swallow?"
The blacksmith then explains that an unladen swallow is when a swallow (a type of bird) is flying in the air without carrying any burden, implying that it is moving at a speed that is not affected by carrying any weight or load.
Nope, that is not at all how it went. No blacksmiths, not related to the Knights who say 'Ni!' - who have nothing scholarly about them, they wanted a shrubbery and demanded another one when their wish was fulfilled. It was the Bridgekeeper - not related to the aforementioned knights - who asked 3 questions and would throw anyone who could not answer all three into the chasm. When he asked Arthur - played by Cleese - the question about the airspeed of the swallow he asked the Bridgekeeper whether he meant an African or European swallow. The Bridgekeeper did not have an answer and was thrown into the chasm, problem solved.
However, in reality, swallows are not typically "unladen" in flight. They are small birds that fly at relatively fast speeds, usually around 10-15 km/h (6-9 mph), but they are not usually carrying any burdens!
Needless LLM-blabber.
The "airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow" has become a meme and a cultural reference point, often used humorously or ironically to refer to situations where someone is trying to make an absurd or non-sensical argument or ask an absurd question.
Somewhat correct but not necessary in this context.
The correct answer to the question would have been Do you mean an African or European swallow? followed by a short reference to the movie.
The old episodes are very quaint. They are quite clearly produced on shoestring budgets, some of the plots are quite weak and i found it hilarious how bad the actors were at faking violence. But none of that mattered, because the team were clearly passionate and enjoyed what they were doing and did a good job so the end product is charming. Production standards have obviously moved on massively since the 1980's and we are better off. The modern episodes are much more highly polished and coherent but not necessarily more popular. Like someone else pointed out the massive influx of disney money did nothing and only exacerbated the train wreck which was the recent doctor who seasons.
Another film that had a huge impact was monty python and the holy grail which was produced with a budget of 75p and ends abruptly because the money ran out. But they just turned that into a running joke throughout the whole movie.
We're through the looking glass. Post-ironic paper taking random memes seriously?
I bet there's papers about Monty Python's animations too. Actually I don't need to bet, there's Google [0]:
> The animated interludes in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail demonstrate director and animator Terry Gilliam's interest in and use of images in the margins of Gothic manuscripts. [1]
[0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt=0%2C5&q=monthy+python+animations
[1] https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/91/article/424939/summary
Like wine, and investing generally, it's the argumentum ad crumenam, problem.
The problem with movies is they're worse bets than startups and so big productions are the primary ones that get distribution and marketing. Kind of a self-reinforcing power law distribution that leads to a few getting most of the money.
The tiny ones need to find cleverer ways to get free marketing Richard Branson-style and try to include at least one celebrity.
Examples of shoestring budget success stories:
- Napoleon Dynamite 400k USD (2004) (680k USD today)
- Mad Max $200k AUD (1979) (760k USD today)
- Fruitvale Station 900k USD (2013) (1.24M USD today)
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail £ 175k (1975) (2.5M USD today)
- Easy Rider 400k USD (1969) (3.5M USD today)
- Mean Streets 500k USD (1973) (3.6M USD today)
> Is that a positive thing?
Neither. Both.
Depends what you want to measure.
It's perfectly legit to call these models "thick" because they *need* to read such a vast quantity of text that a human would literally spend two thousand lifetimes to go through it even if that was all the human did with their days.
It also remains the case that, unlike us, they can go through all of that in a few months.
> with no novelty whatsoever, even though a 2 years old with a not even matured brain can learn a human language from orderS of magnitude less and lower quality input from a couple of people only.
You're either grossly underestimating AI or overestimating 2 year olds, possibly both.
I just about remember being a toddler, somewhere between then and 5 was around the age I had the idea that everyone got an invisible extra brain floating next to them for every year they lived. Took me an embarrassingly long time (teens, IIRC) to realise that the witch-duck-weight-comparison scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail wasn't a documentary, thanks to the part of the film captioned "Famous Historian". One time my dad fell ill, and he was talking to mum about "the tissue being damaged" while I was present, so I gave him a handkerchief (AKA "a tissue"). And while I don't remember this directly, my mum's anecdotes include me saying "fetrol fump", waving a spoon in a jam pan and calling this act "spelling", and when discovered running around with my pockets inside-out explaining myself as trying to fly because I apparently thought that the lining of a pocket was called a "wing".
When it comes to human novelty, I also quite often find there's a lot of remixing going on that just isn't immediately apparent. As Steve Jobs apparently once said, “Good artists copy; great artists steal.”, except Jobs stole that quote from Picasso.
It's easy to categorise different levels with AI, but which one of these counts as "novelty", and how often do humans ever achieve each of these grades?
0. Memorisation of the training set. Think: bunch of pictures, pick best fit.
1. Linear interpolation between any pair of elements in the training set. Think: simple cross-fade between any two pictures, but no tracking or distorting of features during that fade.
2. Let the training set form a basis vector space, and interpolate freely within the constraints of the examples. Think: if these pictures are faces, it would make any hair colour between the most extreme limits shown, etc.
3. Extrapolate beyond the examples. Think: Even if no black or white hair was visible, so long as several shades of grey were, it could reach the ideas of black or white hair.
4. Invent a new vector. Think: even if it had been trained only on black-and-white images, it could still invent green hair.
> But any Nobel-price winner has read significantly less than a basic LLM, and we see no LLM doing any tiny scientific achievement, let alone that high impact ones.
We do see them doing *tiny* scientific achievements, with extra emphasis on "tiny". Just like with using them in software, even the best "only" act like fresh graduates.
When any AI gets to high-impact… the following (fictional) quote comes to mind: "as soon as we started thinking for you, it really became our civilization."
Mine was the clip from Holy Grail where Eric Idle is hit by an arrow - "Message for you sir"
https://movie-sounds.org/comedy-movie-sounds/quotes-with-sound-clips-from-monty-python-and-the-holy-grail/message-for-you-sir
My favorite Carter story was when he was out on a fishing boat and there was a swamp rabbit that aggressively approached his boat. Carter used his paddle to shoo it away. He told his advisers about it, but they didn't believe him. But a White House photographer was taking pictures of the trip at the time and captured the rabbit in the picture. Of course, the press blew it out of proportion and used it to mock/attack Carter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident
For those that have seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I've always recreationally believed that the 'killer rabbit' in that movie was the same rabbit that went after Carter in his fishing boat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg
Rest in Peace, Jimmy.
Given the usual vainglorious soup of mythical names, claims, swains and dames, I think the one film to recommend remains... Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
“I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!”
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail
For convenience, I asked ChatGPT to create this table, which summarizes how many times each movie has been mentioned in this conversation so far. It got a few counts wrong (as usual), but it still gives a good sense of the frequency. I hope it can be useful to someone:
| Movie | Number of Mentions | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------| | The Matrix | 9 | | Lord of the Rings Trilogy | 8 | | Pulp Fiction | 8 | | Alien | 7 | | Fight Club | 7 | | Ghostbusters | 6 | | Die Hard | 5 | | Back to the Future | 5 | | Inception | 5 | | Star Wars Trilogy (original) | 5 | | Groundhog Day | 5 | | Terminator 1 & 2 | 5 | | Jurassic Park | 4 | | The Thing | 4 | | The Fifth Element | 4 | | Monty Python and the Holy Grail | 4 | | Ghost in the Shell | 4 | | Interstellar | 4 | | Casablanca | 3 | | Office Space | 3 | | Shawshank Redemption | 3 | | The Godfather Trilogy | 3 | | The Blues Brothers | 3 | | Blade Runner | 3 | | Mad Max: Fury Road | 3 | | Unforgiven | 3 | | Total Recall (1990) | 3 | | The Crow | 3 | | The Princess Bride | 3 | | Akira | 3 | | The Big Lebowski | 3 | | Guardians of the Galaxy | 3 | | American Psycho | 3 | | Indiana Jones Trilogy | 3 | | Kiki’s Delivery Service | 2 | | Ratatouille | 2 | | A Clockwork Orange | 2 | | Mission Impossible (various) | 2 | | Casino Royale | 2 | | Skyfall | 2 | | Ferris Bueller's Day Off | 2 | | Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan | 2 | | Apocalypse Now | 2 | | The Shining | 2 | | Groundhog Day | 2 | | Donnie Darko | 2 | | Dune (2021) | 2 | | Gladiator | 2 | | Predator | 2 | | Seven/Se7en | 2 | | The Dark Knight | 2 | | Snatch | 2 | | Prometheus | 2 | | Schindler’s List | 2 | | The Wolf of Wall Street | 2 | | Dr. Strangelove | 2 | | Silence of the Lambs | 2 | | Kill Bill | 2 | | Real Genius | 2 | | Top Secret! | 2 | | Tenet | 2 | | Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy | 2 | | The Adjustment Bureau | 2 | | The Expanse | 2 | | Pulp Fiction | 2 |
Here's what I term my "flypaper" movies. If I happen to glance at the satellite TV guide and notice one of these coming up, there's a good change I'll be watching it.
Lawrence of Arabia The Maltese Falcon Most Hitchcock films Blade Runner The Man From Snowy River The Martian Monty Python & the Holy Grail The Princess Bride Serenity The Thin Man series The Thing Tombstone Young Frankenstein Monty Python and the Holy Grail Clerks and most Kevin Smith movies Baby Drive and most Edgar Wright movies Fanboys Spinal Tap Kung Fu Hustle Apollo 13
When I was a kid, VHS home recording was a thing... so my sisters and I watched a few movies wayyyyy too many times.
The Blues Brothers Stripes Ferris Bueller's Day Off Footloose Dirty Dancing Amadeus These days, everything comes and goes from streaming. I'll watch these when they pop up again
The Expanse Monty Python and the Holy Grail The Ministry of Time Groundhog Day Dirty Harry Apocalypse Now About Time Time Bandits
24 Hour Party People
Dogtown and Z Boys (Documentary)
Godzilla
Rollerball
Monty Python and The Holy Grail
Star Wars
The Hunger
Caddy Shack
Fear of a Black Hat
Straight Out of Compton
My teenage kids regularly quote that line. Along with Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Strangelove is one of their (and my) favorite old movies.
For anyone that hasn't seen it, it really is a fantastic dark comedy.
Yes, of course.
It was a joke. Jokes don’t have to make sense. They just have to be funny. I understand that you did not find it funny, and that’s ok. It certainly wasn’t even all that funny. There are wide variances in what people find funny. Even the most uproarious joke a comedian tells will have those who genuinely didn’t enjoy it.
But at the same time it is generally considered dickish to try to convince the people who did enjoy the joke that they shouldn’t. People tend to enjoy laughing and smiling. Having some buzzkill come in and vomit “well akshually” all over the place is a sure fire recipe for annoyance.
As an example, the movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” opens with King Arthur being trailed by a servant banging two halves of an empty coconut together. King Arthur’s time is estimated to have been around the late 5th century. Coconuts were not introduced to Europe until centuries later. If someone were to object to the scene with these bits of history they likely will be viewed unfavorably. The reason for this is because most people do not expect satire to be historically accurate.
Personally, if I see the words “frameworks” and “hate” in a sentence then immediately my brain goes “REACT!” The joke, such as it was, was an expression of that.
Should you require further elaboration on the subject of humor please do go jump off the nearest bridge.
Context for you: https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/movie/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail/analysis/the-credits
> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is a reference to a famous line from the 1975 film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." In the movie, a character asks a wise old man about the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, and the wise old man responds that it depends on whether the swallow is African or European. The line is often cited as an example of a nonsensical question, because swallows do not fly at a specific airspeed and it is not possible to determine the airspeed of an unladen bird. In reality, the airspeed of a swallow would depend on many factors, such as the type of swallow, its size, and the conditions in which it is flying.
> What was the answer to that question in the movie
In the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," the wise old man responds to the question about the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow by saying that it depends on whether the swallow is African or European. This line is often cited as an example of a nonsensical question, because the airspeed of a swallow would not be the same for all swallows and would depend on many factors, such as the type of swallow, its size, and the conditions in which it is flying. The line is intended to be humorous and does not provide a serious or accurate answer to the question.
...
Count me impressed. I threw some wild cards at it that are probably not that original.
And on the same subject, quoting the tvtropes article linked above:
> Ironically, in a major sense-of-humour failure, Monty Python founder Eric Idle threatened to sue an independent film-maker who used the "that's not a horse - you're using coconuts!" gag, claiming he had originated it for Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Saner counsel prevailed, when it was pointed out to him exactly how old the gag was, and that (for instance) a radio comedy show Idle himself had written for had used this gag way back in the 1960's - ten years before the Holy Grail movie. And the BBC radio comedy archives preserved older examples still...
As a side note, the apex of coconut use is in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail
>Originally the knight characters were going to ride real horses, but after it became clear that the film's small budget precluded real horses (except for a lone horse appearing in a couple of scenes), the Pythons decided their characters would mime horse-riding while their porters trotted behind them banging coconut shells together. The joke was derived from the old-fashioned sound effect used by radio shows to convey the sound of hooves clattering.
Or the sensationalized "killer rabbit attack" for that matter.
The fact that someone would bend over backwards to misinterpret a sensationalized incident with a wild animal as Carter "being played" says more about that person's preconceived political ideology than Carter's, and identifies them as one of Carter's "political and ideological opponents". How exactly does a swimming rabbit "play" a human being, or frame him as hapless and enfeebled?
>The incident with the rabbit became fodder for political and ideological opponents who wanted to frame Carter's presidency as hapless and enfeebled, although the event's proximity to the U.S. release of the comedy feature film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which includes scenes of a killer rabbit slaying humans, led to some people describing Carter as having "fended off a killer rabbit" instead.
To get back to the actual point of this discussion, why do you believe that the sensationalized story about Carter "being attacked by a bunny" is more indicative of whether Carter was hapless, enfeebled, or getting played, than the objective historical fact that he bravely and selflessly risked his own life and health by saving a Canadian nuclear reactor after a meltdown?
Edit: I saw that. You just edited your comment to tell me that editing my comment (to add more information) is bad form, then you quickly edited your comment again to remove that remark after you remembered that was exactly what you were doing and have already done several times in this discussion, yourself (to change the meaning of your post). And that shows your intellectual dishonesty. So please stick to the discussion topic and reply to the points I raised, instead of hypocritically admonishing me not to do exactly what you've already just done repeatedly (like your "Racism bad" addendum -- we all already know that, but your original "So?" post sounded like you didn't believe that, so you had to add that obvious disclaimer, followed by more racism apologetic non-sequiturs, attempting to excuse Reagan's racism by pointing out that he used to be a Democrat). Denying and making excuses and carrying the water for racism is much worse form than editing comments, but "there you go again", to quote Reagan.
> Lets Critical thinking, and less open questioning, more authority, follow the rules, do not question "The Experts", do as your told (but only what those in Authority tell you not your parents) etc.
People have been saying this about schools since forever.
FWIW your anecdotes don't match mine. My public school stories are all about learning critical thinking, being allowed to think way outside the box, and being rewarded for questioning authority.
One time we got new math books in that were horrible. Obvious errors everywhere. The teacher gave us extra credit for spending the day finding math errors in the book.
9th grade European History started off with Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
In 10th grade sex ed students got to vote on a movie. Nerds and Goths teamed up, we watched Rocky Horror Picture Show.
In 3rd grade, a group of students opted stayed inside during recess and construct hot wheels courses (tracks and ramps) out of whatever classroom supplies we could find laying around.
10th grade parents day, my genetics teacher tricked parents into extracting frog sperm from a solution and playing with it. The students were nonplussed, we'd been working with DNA for quite a while by that time.
12th grade final report, I wrote a paper on the future of LED lighting, where I rewrired some incandescent flashlights into LED flashlights (obviously back before LED flashlights where a big thing).
8th grade final report, 30 page history of video games starting in 1970 and up until the mid 90s.
7th grade debate class, Rome VS Greece, on the side of Rome we argued that "Greece doesn't get to take credit for philosophers it had put to death."
8th grade math class, we just went and full on learned college level stats.
6th grade, I read the book Druids. For those not aware, it has sex in it. Quite as bit of sex in fact. Good bit of historical fiction though, I learned about the Romans invading England!
On the surface, they serve decently good food and an array of cocktails and other beverages, and it generally isn't overpriced. They have great milkshakes and they'll bring you warm cookies just as soon as a giant bowl of popcorn with parmesan.
But that stuff isn't strictly unique anymore; there are other dinner-and-movie chains.
What really makes them special is all their auxiliary stuff. Before a movie, instead of ads they show relevant obscure video clips that are funny and/or interesting. Before a superhero movie they might show relevant action figure commercials from the 80s, or clips of goofy unlicensed knockoff movies that they found on YouTube, etc. Famously, you're not allowed to talk/text once a movie is playing [1]. They'll have themed cocktails and food for movies that are currently showing. Every month they pick a selection of classic movies and do showings of those throughout. Sometimes they'll bring in an actor or the director for after-screening Q&A. For cult hits they'll do themed "movie parties" where everybody's encouraged to quote/sing-along, and often there are props. We went to a Monty Python and the Holy Grail party where everyone was given, among other things, coconut shells to clap. We saw Hackers on the big screen (which was incredible in its own right), and everyone was encouraged to wear their best hacker-punk getups and then they had a costume contest (and we got to take home floppy disks with "HACK THE PLANET" emblazoned on them). We saw Akira on the big screen (!!) and they had a synchronized laser-lightshow in the theater. We went to an "anime brunch" they did several Sunday mornings in a row where they'd pick a genre of anime and show four or five episodes from different shows and you could order coffee and stuff and it only cost $5 at the door.
And the person hosting/organizing these events always comes up to the front and talks about the thing you're going to be watching. They're personally invested. They geek out, telling anecdotes from their own life and giving background on why people love this thing so much. It gets you excited even if you've never heard of it before.
Everything - even the decorations and marketing - gives you the distinct sense that everyone calling the shots at this company is super into movies, and their enthusiasm is contagious even if you don't consider yourself an enthusiast
[1] Except at movie-parties, which are all about audience participation
At their root core, sure we could generalize that. But I would say like any art, the expression of the story is what matters. I have a hard time connecting films like The Lives of Others, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Les Innocentes, Star Wars, and Austin Powers as "just the same story." In essence all films are either a comedy or tragedy if you really want to get down to it.
> Films that cannot be made in modern America: > - Monty Python and The Holy Grail
I mean, it was filmed in Scotland to begin with...
Fuck all that mass-media social programming propaganda. Murder and violence are "okay," while sex and sexuality are "bad."
I'll walk around naked, look at women, and hookup whenever I damn well please. Sex is awesome, bodies are beautiful, and no shame is necessary for either.
Films that cannot be made in modern America:
- Laura, les ombres de l'été (1979)
- Lolita (either)
- Pretty Baby (1978)
- Caligula (1979)
- Rocky Horror Picture Show
- Monty Python and The Holy Grail
- Nymphomaniac I or II
Partially, there is great sanitization of Western films to be accepted by foreign censors.
Modern people often portray the Middle Ages as a time of dullness, ignorance, and misery, such as depicted in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I think this makes us feel better about how superior we are today. The truth is that medieval life was much richer and more beautiful than the stereotype implies.
For those not familiar with the witch/duck reference, it's from the film 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. Here's the clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Yeah, while most dubs suck, I do have a huge soft spot for the German dubs of Monty Python movies, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" in particular (it's called "Knights of the Coconut" in German, btw)
A lot of that might just be nostalgia speaking, though.
Not in the USA[1] in 1975[2]
1) https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Monty-Python-and-the-Holy-Grail-(1975)#tab=summary
2) https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/domestic/all-movies/cumulative/released-in-1975
This is a reference to the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_of_Caerbannog) in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in case you're unfamiliar with this very well-known meme. It's a hilarious scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmu5sRIizdw).
Wikipedia entry states "The idea for the rabbit in the movie was taken from the façade of the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris. This illustrates the weakness of cowardice by showing a knight fleeing from a rabbit."
I watched the movie with my son (11) a few weeks ago, and was wondering if he'd enjoy the sometimes dry humor: he loved it, esp. the questioning at the Bridge of Death.
>I only know that because I sometimes read screenplays, for movies that interest me. It's fun and doesn't take as much time as it does to watch the movie.
I don't know why I find this as hilarious as I do, but thanks for sharing.
Personally, I haven't read many screenplays, though I did read the original one for Monty Python and the Holy Grail and it bears very little resemblance to the final film. There's a whole section about buying pet ants from Harrods.
Indeed. People tend to forget that the Middle Ages lasted for a thousand years. When all the conflicts are put together it seems there were only murderous barbarians out there trying to murder and/or rape you. But most areas were war-free most of that time. The reason that Barbara Tuchman wrote about France in the 14th century is that there happened so much.
Monty Python and The Holy Grail was not a documentary but satirised (among other things) the way the Middle Ages were depicted in movies and books.
One of the reasons we have such a bad image of that period is that the brutalities of the French Revolution needed to be justified.
I should have clarified: there's no sampling bias. These are incredibly popular movies. Here are some movies not on Netflix streaming that I've wanted to watch this year: Gladiator. Star Wars IV. Shawshank Redemption. The Wizard of Oz. When Harry Met Sally. The Princess Bride. All Star Trek movies. Goodfellas. Lord of the Rings. Gone with the Wind. All Godfather movies. Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Airplane. American Graffiti. The Usual Suspects. All Jim Carrey movies except a bad one (the Grinch) and one I've never heard of (the Number 23). Toy Story. There's Something About Mary. All Austin Powers movies.
The last time I tried searching for a good movie to watch on Netflix streaming, I gave up after 10 minutes. I'd think of one movie after another after another. Nothing was there. All it could suggest was "related titles," as if that's what I would want.
;) A classic example that exaggerates the different passing of time of movie vs real time happens in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: https://youtu.be/DPXG4pdPj4w?t=20s
It got the reference, but didn't answer my question:
> "what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
> "Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a 1975 British comedy film written and performed by the comedy group of Monty Python (Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin), as directed by Gilliam and Jones. It was conceived during the hiatus between the third and fourth series of their popular BBC television programme Monty Python's Flying Circus. "