While not directly answering your question, Wikipedia provides some grist for the mill:In recent years Idle has been criticised for commercialising the legacy of Monty Python. In Slate, Sam Anderson wrote in the article "And Now for Something Completely Deficient" that though Idle "has earned a spot in Comedy Heaven for his Python days... his jokey 'exposure' of his own exploitation (he has called tours 'Eric Idle Exploits Monty Python' and 'The Greedy Bastard Tour') is more irritating than funny." Of Spamalot, Anderson opined that "Python was formed in reaction to exactly the kind of lazy comedy represented by Spamalot – what Michael Palin once described as the 'easy, catch-phrase reaction' the members had all been forced to pander to in their previous writing jobs".
Spamalot had mixed reactions from other Python members. John Cleese lent his support by voicing God in a recorded performance that was integrated into the musical. Michael Palin observed: "It's a great show. It's not ‘Python’ as we would have written it. But then, none of us would get together and write a ‘Python’ stage show." Terry Gilliam had a mixed reaction to the show, calling it "Python-like". Terry Jones described it as "utterly pointless and full of air".
Perhaps he considers this new film as guilty of exploiting the Python legacy as has been accused of him.
Stay on the bright side of life, my friends.