This is a great sketch! I can't help feeling that the argument has been inspired by the utterly childish way certain politicians communicate with each other ;)
It's a shame you didn't get your facts right - Chris Langham served several months in jail for downloading child porn. He is certinly not a paedophile,
@trouper3 It's a small step from looking at child porn to actually wanting to see a child naked. Anyway, he'll never work in TV again and that's good enough for me.
@trouper3 Well, my BA and my MA in psychology and my work at various prisons with sex offenders mean I'm pretty clued up about these things. But what do I know? It's only been my life's work.
@trouper3 Well, considering I'm on the Internet, on a site that shows just about anything ever captured on film, talking to a man named "trouper3", I choose to express my own, rather than a strictly professional view.
This could never be anything but hilarious. I am a little upset that they guy in Graham's spot kind of messed up the one line ending with pervert, but it's still pretty funny either way. I really wish Graham Chapman hadn't died, he was a real comedy genius, may his soul rest in peace.
@watayapupuya Not to be mean, but you as a person were never mentioned in my comment so you really have no business asking such a moronic question. Your literary skills need work. Had I put a comma after the word "you", then I suppose it could be taken as me talking to whomever read the comment. However, seeing as I did not place a comma, there is no implication of me speaking to the reader. I'm simply complementing Chapman. If you'd like to argue then go ahead and respond. If not, then goodbye.
@Shadow07Warrior1989 Well... no. A comma after "You" would make no sense in that sentence. If your intent was to declare that Graham Chapman rocks as if you were speaking directly to him, the proper place for a comma would be after "rock." As it stands, you *are* telling someone to rock Graham Chapman. However, since "You" is ambiguous in this context, watayapupuya was indeed presumptive in posing the question.
I trust this explanation further confounds the issue. :hat tip:
@OeditpusRex It does indeed slightly confound the issue but at least I can respect your argument on the subject. Well played OeditpusRex, well played.
It's interesting to note that John Cleese is not as fiery even back then compared to the Hollywood bowl rendition of the skit. Still got the magic though!
This is a great sketch! I can't help feeling that the argument has been inspired by the utterly childish way certain politicians communicate with each other ;)
MadonnaImperia 5 months ago
1:53 ---> oh god
Monaqute 7 months ago
"... lengthy, moist rogering" ???
Kailoa36 8 months ago
No it isn't
Gareth7685 1 year ago
@Gareth7685 yes it is
jnjbaggott1 1 year ago
John cleese + Michael Palin = EPIC COMEDY :)
Charapova100 1 year ago 5
I disagree, it is just the same without Graham Chapman (AKA. start of an arguemnt).
MisterLister68 1 year ago
It's a shame Chris Langham turned out to be a Paedophile.
lanpingpug 1 year ago
@lanpingpug
It's a shame you didn't get your facts right - Chris Langham served several months in jail for downloading child porn. He is certinly not a paedophile,
trouper3 1 year ago
@trouper3 It's a small step from looking at child porn to actually wanting to see a child naked. Anyway, he'll never work in TV again and that's good enough for me.
lanpingpug 1 year ago
@lanpingpug
"It's a small step from looking at child porn to actually wanting to see a child naked".
Sorry, didn't realise you were an expert in paedophilia. Obviously you've investigated child porn very thoroughly.
trouper3 1 year ago
@trouper3 Well, my BA and my MA in psychology and my work at various prisons with sex offenders mean I'm pretty clued up about these things. But what do I know? It's only been my life's work.
lanpingpug 1 year ago
@lanpingpug In that case I am even more suprised by your unprofessional comments.
trouper3 1 year ago
@trouper3 Well, considering I'm on the Internet, on a site that shows just about anything ever captured on film, talking to a man named "trouper3", I choose to express my own, rather than a strictly professional view.
lanpingpug 1 year ago 4
I miss Graham Chapman...
cluedo1 1 year ago
and where is "leopard of the yard" from the "silly sketch without a proper punchline" -division ))
MoveOverCasanova 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
noooooo this is a flying circus skit make dont do it again
pinkyellowblackred 1 year ago
noooooo this is a flying circus skit make dont do it again
pinkyellowblackred 1 year ago
Chris Langham isn't half as good as Graham Chapman.
PollyJuice 2 years ago 8
well, mike and john are great as always, but now I want to watch the version with graham...
OrontesRM 2 years ago 4
This could never be anything but hilarious. I am a little upset that they guy in Graham's spot kind of messed up the one line ending with pervert, but it's still pretty funny either way. I really wish Graham Chapman hadn't died, he was a real comedy genius, may his soul rest in peace.
You rock Graham Chapman!
Shadow07Warrior1989 2 years ago 66
I agreed
strangerinwhite 2 years ago
@Shadow07Warrior1989 How can I "rock Graham Chapman"?
watayapupuya 8 months ago
@watayapupuya Not to be mean, but you as a person were never mentioned in my comment so you really have no business asking such a moronic question. Your literary skills need work. Had I put a comma after the word "you", then I suppose it could be taken as me talking to whomever read the comment. However, seeing as I did not place a comma, there is no implication of me speaking to the reader. I'm simply complementing Chapman. If you'd like to argue then go ahead and respond. If not, then goodbye.
Shadow07Warrior1989 8 months ago
@Shadow07Warrior1989 Well... no. A comma after "You" would make no sense in that sentence. If your intent was to declare that Graham Chapman rocks as if you were speaking directly to him, the proper place for a comma would be after "rock." As it stands, you *are* telling someone to rock Graham Chapman. However, since "You" is ambiguous in this context, watayapupuya was indeed presumptive in posing the question.
I trust this explanation further confounds the issue. :hat tip:
OeditpusRex 8 months ago
@OeditpusRex It does indeed slightly confound the issue but at least I can respect your argument on the subject. Well played OeditpusRex, well played.
Shadow07Warrior1989 8 months ago
@Shadow07Warrior1989 And to you, good sir. :hat tip part deux:
OeditpusRex 8 months ago
They never lost that wonderful chemistry, did they?
cottagechskitty 2 years ago 11
OMG! I WANT TO GO THERE!!!
hrbrox 2 years ago 6
No getting hit on the head lessons?
rory09 2 years ago 4
Michael...mmmm :-) Such a hottie.
LongLiveOx 2 years ago 12
@LongLiveOx I know right. I'm 41 & I've had a crush on Michael since I was 16. He seems like an absolute doll.
tenofivelips 1 year ago
classic!!
earthmother 2 years ago
i could be arguing in my spare time..haha amazing
KulaAShaker 2 years ago 7
priceless
MaddTopHatter 2 years ago
ahaha thats amazing and my second name is langham tooo aha :P
Miichael1217 3 years ago 2
michael i LOVE you :):)
malibudollparts 3 years ago 2
i actually come from a country where regular encounters with the state bureaucracy look like this
igottaexplain 3 years ago 8
England? :-)
silarnon 3 years ago 7
If you're speaking of America, it does resemble a DMV situation, doesn't it?
If you're not speaking of America and you come here... avoid the DMV at all costs. Bastard paper pushers thrive on ruining your day.
hobobuckettre69 3 years ago 2
I think my favorite line in this sketch is:
"I told you once."
It's like the world stops for one moment.
trublgrl 3 years ago 16
And Chris Langham - let's not forget him!
dfarmbrough 3 years ago
ahaha gd choice with dawn french, the funniest comedien apart from jo brand
keithmoon90 3 years ago
I love this clip!! HAHAHA!
greenmama1218 3 years ago 2
No you don't.
cocochanelleke 3 years ago 4
what a brilliant first line to a sketch XD
oyagain 3 years ago 2
No it isn't.
LillSenorita 3 years ago 3
lol i bet john and michael hardly even had to rehearse...awesome sketch! :D
BellaSparrow 3 years ago 4
It's just not the same without Graham... :(
natali20023 3 years ago 50
YAY! DAWN FRENCH!!!
NUTCASE71733 3 years ago 6
Chapman's replacement doesn't hold a candle to The Colenel.
IamConnorMacLeod 3 years ago 13
Michael and John look great.
communiqation 3 years ago 4
That's Chris Lang
weenyone 3 years ago
No they don't.
cocochanelleke 3 years ago
It's interesting to note that John Cleese is not as fiery even back then compared to the Hollywood bowl rendition of the skit. Still got the magic though!
Boonanzar 3 years ago 2
Dawn looks fantastic!
campag1979 3 years ago 3
i feel sorry for them, having to do the sketch without graham...:(
smalltalkNchips 3 years ago 16
i love it how john cleese say "thank you!".
suhaili 4 years ago
This was just before Graham Chapman died, which explains his absence from the sketch, and also explains why Palin and Cleese are looking depressed.
youvebeenthunderstru 4 years ago 10
Which was was Graham was it the short one ??
thebritish25 3 years ago
Well, no. Graham was 6'2" I believe.
youvebeenthunderstru 3 years ago
Humm What did Graham look like ??
thebritish25 3 years ago
Tall, Blonde, Was King Arthur and Brian.
StoliDassah 3 years ago 2
ah - I didn't see it's from 1989 - they *really* look depressed ...
OrontesRM 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
It wasn't five minutes. Dawn Frech was rubbish.
scampben 4 years ago
GREAT!!! I love to see them this in different performances, they're brilliant... missed Graham at the beginning though...
lucynaribola 4 years ago 2
Thanks! I've never seen this performance before. They did great!
freeindeed7 4 years ago 5
Terrific !!! never seen this one before.
4kisch 4 years ago
omg this totally made my day. thx a bunch.
ash180587 4 years ago 2
lol dawn is just fantastic isnt she yes i did no u didnt yes i did no u didnt hilarious
fandsfan 4 years ago 3