This movie is dreadful. I was very dissapointed, being a big Pailin/Python fan I really expected much more than this. This movie was obviously made on a shoestring budget. The lighting and camera work are painful to watch. It's not very funny - and there's absolutely no point to the whole film. It's pythonesque, but is more like a cheap talentless Python copy. Do yourself a favour and give it a miss.

A Python spin-off, owing much to the earlier 'Monty Python and The Holy Grail', Jabberwocky is a fine film in its own right, featuring a tremendous cast of British stalwarts, a regrettably high percentage of whom have since died. Harry H Corbett, John Le Mesurier, Max Wall, Bernard Bresslaw and Brian Glover all feature and none is still with us. Disinherited by his father and therefore unable to win the hand of the appalling Griselda Fishfinger, who snacks on raw potatoes, gormless but optimistic Dennis Cooper (Michael Palin) sets off for the city to make his fortune. The city is somewhat under siege by the vicious Jabberwock(y), a beast influenced by Lewis Carrol's doggerel poem of the same name. Dennis, in the time-honoured tradition, is ultimately required to rid the city of the threat and accordingly claim half of King Bruno the Questionable's creaking kingdom and the hand in marriage of his beautiful daughter, notwithstanding the dubious but apparently lingering attractions of 'Greasy' Griselda. The riotous succession of eccentric characters encountered along the way is what it's all about, of course, with a memorable string of ridiculous situations and occurrences and liberal spattering of mud and gore to be undergone. This film rewards repeated viewing, when previously unappreciated subtleties emerge. The Fishfinger family's changing attitude to Dennis, according to his perceived fortunes, Dennis narrowly escaping death or serious injury on a regular basis, Gordon Kaye appearing briefly, dressed inexplicably as a nun, the kingdom by degrees collapsing, there's a beggar who attracts charity by means of auto-amputation, street-racing merchants, the King displaying only intermittent episodes of lucidity, characters who step out of line are suddenly and brutally eliminated - it's all great fun. Jabberwocky is less well known than the pure Python films, but none the worse for that.

Terry Gilliam's fantasy satire (looks like a spoof, but it's a satire) is halfway between "Holy Grail" and "Time Bandits", and about half as good (which ain't bad). The wit is sardonic, and the story pretty well reverses every rule of the fantasy genre -- a dimwitted "champion", out to secure the hand of his 300+ lb. "princess" by killing the evil Jabberwocky that is making life tough for the local peasantry (but very pleasant for the merchants). Great photography, decent production values. The direction is very good, and although the script's wit is shining, there are not enough really funny jokes (mostly it's stuff you'd have to think about to laugh at). I particularly like, though, how a lot of the good jokes come out of how the value of something is relative -- Palin carrying around a rotten potato discarded by "Griselda", which he prizes for sentiment, but which the townspeople want for food. Superior medieval satire shows Gilliam was on the right track towards his masterpieces.

I think the mistake a lot of people make is to see this as another Python film. It isn't, and one of the reasons it improves with each viewing is that you come to realise that. In contrast to "Holy Grail" which is essentially a series of sketches, this is a proper film with its own rules and a style which is based much more on gentle whimsy and sly satire than in-your-face Pythonesque clowning. High points are the cast of veteran British comedy and music hall actors - what a lovely swansong this is for the likes of Max Wall, Harry H Corbett and John le Measurier - the attention to detail, which is quite remarkable, and the constant reversal of expectations. And I love the deadpan little touches like John le Measurier addressing the King as "Darling". This and "Time Bandits" are my favourite Gilliam movies, I always feel he works better on a small budget where his imagination has to do the work, rather than the somewhat overblown likes of "Brazil"

Don't expect any Python humour here. In fact, don't even expect that much British humour; this stuff is more French in nature, i.e. people tripping over each other, plus a lot of overacting/mugging going on. Most of the gags bomb, apart from the occasional genuine laughs such as the hilarious "improved efficiency" scene and the hysterically funny hide-and-seek-playing knights. Gilliam has often tended to be more interested in style than content, especially very early in his career (his contributions to Monty Python's writing have always been minimal; not surprisingly, he added much to the look of Python). Nowhere is this more apparent than in "Jabberwocky", which is visually quite interesting, what with its greenish-brownish moody look - and considering the movie's pitiful budget it's nothing short of miraculous what Gilliam managed to pull off here. However, the script is mediocre and relies too much on the actors clowning around rather than on truly good ideas/lines. It's difficult to understand how Gilliam could have possibly thought that Innes banging a drum that was smashed on his head would be funny. (It may be screamingly funny to the French audiences, but then they'll laugh at anything.) Some of the dialogue is barely comprehensible, which doesn't exactly help matters. The feel and look of the movie as well as the costumes remind a lot of "Monty Python's Holy Grail" (some of the same costumes/props having been used in both films), but don't expect a movie anywhere nearly as good as Python's first feature film. This is more for fans of simplistic buffoonery than clever, original satire.

Even for a fan of oddball British comedy it is difficult to imagine a worse waste of time and money than this misguided and misdirected film. 95% of the jokes fall flat, the story is often incomprehensible and it is boring. The astonishing thing is that all this must have been obvious during production. The whole mess should have been left in the can.

Spoilers herein. Rest assured that there is little relationship between this film and Carroll's poem about his father's crusade against French etymology. Instead, we have the first chapter in Gilliam's quest for an appropriate vehicle for his imagination. That imagination isn't comic in the ordinary sense. Gilliam's world is one which is architecturally cinematic, has lots of incongruous objects, and is governed by alternate laws of whimsey. The humor comes in the incidental overlaps between our world and his. These overlaps are accomplished by his commitment to various narrative tricks of folding: visions, hallucinations, irony, invented memory. You can follow his quest - which is much like the quest depicted here - through episodes of social commentary, puppet shows, sexual innuendo and pratfalls. Nothing works in this film or in his career until `Fear and Loathing' which is perfect. If you insist on watching this, at least you can see his treatment of space. It is inexpert here, but you can see his respect for presenting the space of a scene. Some of these are bald theft from Eisenstein's Ivan films and Tarkovsky's nod to them `Andrei Rublev..' Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Absolutely awful, staggeringly unfunny "comedy" may be worth watching for the weird fight scene between the heroes and the dragon, but that's at the last 10 minutes, and sitting through the previous 90 is an almost impossible mission. Director and lead may make you believe that this is some kind of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" sequel, but you would be wrong: that one was brilliant, this one is utter rubbish.

Jabberwocky has more gore and mayhem than a mace fight, and that is its theme, purely and simply. It's an ode to carnivorous, vicious, rampaging monsters, exploding people, dismemberment, impalement, et cetera. The climax is met after what seems like endless rising action, loaded to the brim with blood and guts. That is its charm. The cinematography is grainy and bad, almost on purpose, but it's definitely not charming. What Terry Gilliam gives this film that works so well is a great intensity in its pace. It begins fairly slowly, but it sneaks up on you and accosts you. Its sense of humor is one of the most morbid I've ever experienced, and it's very funny, I must say. All of the things I said this film is an ode to are at some point played for laughs at least a handful of times in Jabberwocky. I suppose the verdict on Jabberwocky is that it's not a great film and it's not one that I care to see again, b ut during the time I was watching it, I was laughing and I was successfully bashed by its intense outpour of action, violence, and excitement, all in wonderfully bad taste.

I think the biggest reason I hated this film was due to its EVIL marketing campaign. When it was released in America, it was deliberately billed as "Monty Python's Jabberwocky" in many theaters and newspapers. It was NEVER intended as a Python flick at its release, as it stars ONLY Michael Palin and is directed by Terry Gilliam. The rest of the Pythons are completely absent (with the exception of a BRIEF cameo by Terry Jones)--along with much of the humor. I wonder if my feelings would be quite as strong if it had marketed more honestly. Well, maybe, though the movie had many repellent aspects that would have surely turned me off anyways. The "fair Griselda" was a repulsive, fat pig of a woman and Palin's being so smitten by this wretch may at first be funny, but it is too unfunny a joke upon which to base most of the movie. Then, the beggar who saws his feet off to increase donations (out of pity) isn't funny either. There may have been funny moments, but sadly these are the only elements that have lasted over the years. In perusing the other reviews, I wonder if something is amiss. This was a bad film but the reviews are mostly favorable. Could this be a case of people rating a film highly because of their love for Monty Python? I love the show as much as anyone (I have all the episodes and films), but feel it's a bit dishonest to over-rate a film just because you like the director or starring actor! I've seen this happen with quite a few other films (a great example is ERIK THE VIKING) and I just wish the reviewers ignored other projects and focused on the specific film itself. Sentiment for past projects doesn't make a good film.