Jabberwocky (1977) User Reviews (84)

A pleasant surprise for those who have heard it sucks

[funkyfry · 7/10 · 27 November 2002]

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.

Not one of the great solo-directing debuts of all time, but as a self-consciously stupid (dark) fantasy-comedy, it's mostly inspired

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 22 January 2005]

Terry Gilliam, in 1976, did something similar to a member of a rock band going off (while the 'band' not having yet broken up but on hiatus) and recording a solo album with his film adaptation of Lewis Carroll's poem Jabberwocky. However, like a solo effort, one expecting a full-on presentation of how the actual band plays together, might be disappointed. As it is with Jabberwocky, as Gilliam has said of it on the commentary on the DVD, "(Jabberwocky) was a transitional film, from Holy Grail to the other projects." This comes with pros and cons for certain viewers, some with more cons than pros.

The story is expanded upon from the original, surreal battle hymn of sorts from Carroll. The naturally funny Michael Palin stars (in only one role, following the narrative structure instead of the episodes of Python) as a son of a barrel-maker, who has to live on his own, wandering around for food. Meanwhile, a monster of demented, horrible proportions terrifies and slays the citizens, and the King (running his minions in a shamble), gets a tournament to decide who will kill the beast and marry the Princess. These two stories go side by side until the inevitable climax, when the silliness builds up to something very, very bizarre, but fun.

The thing about Jabberwocky is that there are so many jokes going on, visual puns, basic physical gags, trademark 'British' innuendo and irony, and the awesome, brash, curious style of Terry Gilliam (director, co-writer, and bit-player). Sometimes the biggest laughs come from unexpected places, sometimes not. And, unfortunately, a good number of jokes either fall flat or are not exactly laugh-out-loud funny. But one thing that is pulled-off well is a sort of cartoon-like approach to the film as a whole; one could imagine this same material, more or less, being translated to the kind of animation that came in The Hobbit. For its low budget, Gilliam and his cinematographer (who also implied a similar visual look on Holy Grail) make this world seem extremely real, and go for being appropriately stylish with many of the moves. In fact, it's a very serious-looking film, and that it's a comedy is almost an after-thought.

Jabberwocky at times is a mess, some of the story gets un-even in parts, and if you have any real taste in films it holds a facet akin to Monty Python in that it doesn't hold any real value intellectually. But it is also a medieval-fantasy-comedy, and it's also a display of a director testing the waters on his own. However, on some sort of gut level one was really struck by how the film moves, how it goes through its gags to the next best one even when a dud comes by or when Dennis is completely aloof. Even the monster is an inspired feat. And like Gilliam's other films, one may find more comic worth on a repeat viewing. B+

Comparisons to Holy Grail are inevitable, making Jabberwocky pale

[BrandtSponseller · 7/10 · 1 May 2005]

I've seen Jabberwocky a few times now over the years and I still can't say that I know where director/co-writer Terry Gilliam intended to go with the film. Without a doubt it's interesting. It has a good premise and varied interpretations can make the film intriguing as different kinds of satire. Unfortunately, it's not consistently entertaining or rewarding to watch, it has some technical, directing and editing problems, and it easily invites unfavorable comparisons to Monty Python. In the end, I had to give Jabberwocky a "C", or a 7 this time around, although I found myself continually wishing that I could give it a higher score.

Jabberwocky is really the story of Dennis Cooper (Michael Palin), a lovable dolt who is in love with Griselda Fishfinger (Annette Badland), the obese daughter of a local fisherman. It is set in the Middle Ages in England, probably around the 13th or 14th Century (partially based on a character identifying plaster as possibly being from the 12th Century). After Dennis' father dies, Dennis decides to head off to the "grand city" to find a job and make his fortune, so he can head back to his village in a state worthy to marry Griselda. However, things aren't going so swell in the city, either. Unknown to Dennis' village, there is a monster called the Jabberwock that has been terrorizing the countryside not far from the city. The city has been closed off and there's tight control over who gets in or out. People in and just outside of the city are starving; there is no work, and so on. Dennis finally sneaks into the city one morning and discovers the dire truth. The bulk of the film is a series of misadventures, focused on Dennis, as he tries to adjust to life within the city.

Because Jabberwocky's release date was only two years removed from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), because it was directed by Python member Terry Gilliam, who also co-directed Holy Grail, and because it has a similar setting, some similar characters, some similar scenarios, and some almost identical costumes, it easily invites comparison to its better-known brother. That's Jabberwocky's first major hurdle for anyone who has seen Holy Grail, which is likely to be a large percentage of the audience who would seek out and/or bother watching this film. The problem is that Jabberwocky isn't anywhere near as funny as Holy Grail, and I don't think that Gilliam intended it to be.

For me, the most favorable reading of Jabberwocky has it as a fairly serious satire (so "satire" in the more academic sense) not of the Middle Ages, but of the popular 20th Century conceptions of what the Middle Ages (or the "Dark Ages") must have been like. This is further enforced by Gilliam and Terry Jones' remarks on the Holy Grail DVD commentary (and maybe better enforced on the Jabberwocky commentary, which I haven't had a chance to listen to yet) during the scene when King Arthur encounters the peasants who get into a political structure debate. There, they explicitly state that they tried to exaggerate the popular misconceptions of how such peasants would have been, and acknowledge that more academic research has shown those ideas to be false. In Jabberwocky, Gilliam has his entire population as filthy, stupid gits with deplorable personal hygiene who can barely figure out how to survive. They resort to eating rats, scams that involve hacking off their own limbs so they can beg as a cripple, and so on.

Monty Pythonesque humor of the less intellectual variety does enter occasionally, especially with the bits involving bodily functions or violating the "sanctity" of the body. That's not to say that Jabberwocky is not an intellectual film in any sense. But the intellect here comes with the interpretation above--in the skewering of our "progress"-oriented misconceptions about the past.

As promising as some of that might sound, and as promising as it might sound to make concrete Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky poem from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865), the film has a load of problems. Even though the focus is ostensibly on Dennis, he always feels like something of a bystander in the film, making any desired focus, and the viewer's attention, drift. Gilliam has problems making scenes flow smoothly. His pacing seems off. The sets and the cinematography are not very attractive. In fact, at least on the DVD release, much of the film looks extremely murky (oddly, I thought the color on the included trailer looked better). None of the auxiliary characters quite click, and it's often difficult to decipher what they're saying/talking about. Some scenes are almost repeated in the film, and other scenes, such as those involving the princess in her tower, or Gilliam's cameo as he's talking to castle guards, seem like rejected drafts of similar scenes in Holy Grail. In fact, all of this is in sharp contrast to the excellence of Holy Grail.

So despite all of the good points, including the opening, with its hilarious point-of-view of a Jabberwock attack, the fantastic extended final sequence, the more bloody scenes from the tournament, the sly jokes that work (such as accusing the innkeeper of cannibalism after Dennis disappears), and so on, I find my score gradually sinking throughout most of the film. Gilliam and Python fanatics will definitely want to check out Jabberwocky if they haven't seen it yet, but be prepared for a bit of a disappointment.

Not Python

[Krustallos · 16 February 2004]

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"

This early Terry Gilliam film is better than its reputation.

[RufusT · 7/10 · 12 November 1998]

This often neglected first solo directing effort of Gilliam's is certainly much better than its maligned reputation would have you believe. While it is though sledding the first time through, it gains appreciably with repeated viewings, but does demand you pay attention. Amongst all the excrement, garbage and filth, Gilliam and his co-writer actually have a little something to say about big business, but mainly JABBERWOCKY is very, very funny. Strong stomachs are required, however.

Well worth viewing, and viewing again!

[digitaria · 7/10 · 22 January 2003]

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.

"His teeth turned snow white overnight with fright"

[Steffi_P · 7/10 · 19 March 2007]

Jabberwocky is Terry Gilliam's first feature film where he has sole credit as director. Gilliam had up to this point made a career as an animator, actor and occasional co-director for the Monty Python comedy team. Co-writing the screenplay with another python, Michael Palin, who also stars, this marks the humble beginning of what was to be an impressive career as director in his own right.

First off it's strange that Gilliam and Palin decided to have their first non-Python venture in a medieval setting, seeing as Monty Python's first and at the time only film (Monty Python and the Holy Grail) was also set in that period. Jabberwocky is a very different film, but there's still a problem with the setting because it looks unoriginal and invites comparisons with Holy Grail.

Perhaps surprisingly the biggest deviation from Monty Python is the style of the comedy. The Pythons mostly relied upon long drawn out comedy dialogues - the African Swallow routine, the anarcho-syndicalist peasants etc. In Jabberwocky each joke is a stand-alone – one-liners, visual gags and most of all surreal and inventive ideas.

The real trouble with the comedy in Jabberwocky is that it simply isn't very funny. Some jokes are nice but not laugh-out-loud funny, others are just cringeworthy. The actual attempts to be witty are appalling. The neat little ideas and odd ways of portraying things, while never hilarious are the only things that really sparkle comedy-wise. The knights, for example, are cumbersome, inhuman looking things that, after a duel, have to be serviced like cars.

Jabberwocky's cast is a real treasury of British comedy acting, and not just the big names of the era either. There are a few older, respected figures like Max Wall and John Le Mesurier, alongside several rising stars such as John Bird and Gordon Kaye. Predictably, it is these supporting players who give us some of the best moments – Max Wall's king in particular practically steals the whole show.

One of Jabberwocky's greatest strengths is in the way it looks. The cinematography is stunning. Using mostly natural light and candle light Gilliam works wonders, with scenes at one moment reminiscent of Renaissance painting, the next fully conjuring up the atmosphere of the English countryside on a damp and foggy morning (an effect achieved largely by filming in Wales, which is damp and foggy all the time). For a first time director (albeit one with plenty of "here-and-there" directing experience) Gilliam shows a good eye for shot composition and detail. This also has to be one of the grittiest portrayals of peasantry ever seen on film, with far more dirt, dung and ugliness than in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Jabberwocky is a film with plenty of good elements. It's just a pity the humour isn't one of them. It's a good thing that, after this, Gilliam's films were more driven by his unleashed imagination rather than trying to be out-and-out comedy – his later pictures are much stronger as a result. The DVD release comes with a lovely, conversational commentary track from Gilliam and Michael Palin, and ironically this is actually far more entertaining than playing the film with its own dialogue.

Juddering

[daniewhite-1 · 4/10 · 21 March 2020]

'Jabberwocky' is a very low budget and small scale production which has nice handling from its director and production design. It also has a great cast of British comedy actors, the highlight this time being 'Dad's Army' veteran John Le Mesurier as a despairing Kings advisor and clearly a Chief minister or Court functionary. From here he gets to witness with resignation and calm reserve the films main concern: political satire. The top half, the better off, social superiors, social betters, the elite are shown to satirical comedic effect whereby the rich, successful, powerful and priveledged are shown in various degrees of uncomplimentary profiles! Greed and selfishness from merchants. Corruption from the Bishop. And undeserved and distant power for the king and utter naive credularity from the princess.

The visual style is usually convincing and a few scenes, routines, gags and exaggerated characters promo mild humour. Sadly though with what we are used to from these talents it just isn't funny or original enough.

A good cast, with one good role for Le Mesurier, solid direction and design means that 'Jabberwocky' is a decent but disappointing watch for devotees of the Pythons and underwhelming for general fans of period British comedy satire and parody.

I rate at a watchable 4/10 and I recommend, with heavy reservations, to anybody who finds the cast and crew list or the plot synopsis interests them. Mainly other viewers, I'd guess, will find this insufficiently funny, original or grand to warrant a close watch.

It'll turn your teeth, snow white!

[cheewawa-1 · 9/10 · 18 February 2002]

This film makes me laugh with every viewing. The extreme attention to detail of hygene and costumes is excellent. I have it on DVD and it's the only way to see it. Listen to Terry Gilliam's commentary with Michael Palin and it gives you a whole new outlook to the hardships of making these kinds of movies. And it tells you about some of the short cuts they used and they still are displeased with to this day. Gilliam's "Diamond Man" steals both scenes he's in. This is a forgotten movie. I don't know too many people who remember it, but everyone I've told to rent it, have told me they really liked it. It's not a Python movie, but it's got the Python humour and a couple of Python cameos. Look for them. It's a very funny movie and it's a blast to watch. A real gem from Gilliam and company.

Forget the tale. Gritty reality. "You can't handle the truth."

[BeauEvil · 6/10 · 9 November 2009]

A number of comments here seem to lament the "squalidness" of the settings of "Jabberwocky". This is EXACTLY what keeps me coming back to this film.

Above all else, I love TRUTH; genuine, unabashed, unashamed truth. I love the slop jar scene in "Rob Roy". I love the hominid scenes in "Body Heat. "The Road Warrior" and "Quest for Fire" are my favorite films. I don't desire the silly illusion that Medieval castles were scrubbed clean, opulently decorated, with long tables piled high with food and silver, while the whole place is lit up with aircraft landing lights. That's Hollywood BS. THIS is the truth! One could smell a town for a mile before arriving there.

I don't even care for the Jabberwocky tale one whit. I didn't care for it in high school. I don't care for it now. If I could make my own edit, I would excise all references to the monster and leave a whimsical documentary of Medieval life, the easy dalliances of the superstars of that day, the daily quest for food and gain with few options, the birth of the middle class, the mores before Victorian times, the stumbling rebirth of pageantry, the cynicism of the clergy. God, SO MUCH to digest from one humble film! I love it so much, I want to soak in it. But, I think I'll avoid the fish. ;-)

The Story of the Fishfingers

[DasBobsWorld · 5/10 · 31 January 2019]

I think I may have actually seen this before, but I don't remember much about it other then being bored and not enjoying it. This time around, if it is the second time, I pretty much thought the same thing. I chuckled a few times, but all in all, I was very underwhelmed. Jokes didn't land, shots went on too long, and the movie relied on characters that just weren't all that fun to watch.

Although this is Terry Gilliam's first solo foray away from the Pythons and even with Michael Palin as the star, and a few cameos from Terry Jones and Gilliam himself, there just wasn't a lot of magic here. One of the main reasons why is that Palin's main character seems to be shoved to the background of all the jokes. We watch the king, the knights, the innkeeper, and even Palin's neighbors the Fishfingers take center stage every time they are on screen together. While these scenes affect Palin, they never really involve him more than being hidden under a shield or dragged along against his will. It makes it feel like this movie has no main character. No one to follow, no one to root for, or at least laugh at. I was most interested in the knight with the horned helmet that cut people in half. I could have watched 100 minutes of Palin being his squire as he went through the life of a medieval knight until facing a horrid monster and never getting credit for it.

It's not the most entertaining film, but it is probably worth one watch just to see where Gilliam's solo stuff started.

Side Note: I watched this on a 10 cent VHS which had three pictures from the film on the back. Well two from the film, and one from Monty Python's Holy Grail, I guess trying to use the Python's popularity to sell this to the unwashed. Like me.

Underrated gem!

[mlevans · 9/10 · 17 July 2003]

One of my fondest memories of my undergraduate college days is going with my frat brothers and various female friends to the `Midnight Movies' in the nearest civilized town (35 miles away). Of course this was usually during the school week, which somehow made it even more desirable. The trip was nearly always made to see Monty Python films.

For years I have lamented that few seem to remember Jabberwocky from the Python canon. It was not until I scanned the IMDb site this week that I discovered that it officially was NOT one of the Monty Python movies. This is a pity, since it perfectly maintains the flavor and feel of their other movies-although it may lack some of the frantic pace and rapid-fire gags.

I have just viewed Jabberwocky for the first time in several years and still find it to be an extremely enjoyable film. I still consider it a Monty Python film, whatever they say, and still consider it second in their canon, only to The Holy Grail. Like other Python films, Jabberwocky catches the essence of its time period. In these films, excrement, hunger, death and eminent danger are always close at hand-and well as some clever anachronisms. I'm not sure whether or not parodying the unrealistic romance of medieval times, as portrayed in movies, was one of the group's main goals. This certainly seems to have been a key point, though.

In Jabberwocky, Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin continue their fine work from the Holy Grail-minus the rest of the gang, of course, just two years later. They tackle one of my favorite poems, Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky. The film actually combines slapstick comedy, historic adventure and horror. We don't see the hideous Jabberwock until the very end.and then it is quite in keeping with Sir John Tennial's rendition of it. Borrowing John Williams' Jaws score as the monster approaches, just two years after the movie, adds a nice comic touch.

To briefly summarize, Palin is Dennis Cooper, named so for being an apprentice to his father, a master cooper or barrel-maker (Paul Curran). Rather than his father, though, Dennis looks up to a neighbor and merchant, Mr. Fishfinger (Warren Mitchell). This finally leads to Dennis' father disowning him on his deathbed. Dennis bids good-bye to his true love, Fishfinger's fat, rude and uninterested daughter, Griselda (Annette Balland), before heading off to the big city to make his own way.

Meanwhile, the Jabberwock has been terrorizing the entire kingdom, destroying whole villages and forcing panic-stricken peasants to flee to the giant walled city. The wonderfully named King Bruno the Questionable (Max Wall) is being pressured by his chief chamberlain (Jon Le Mesurier) to rid the country of the monster, while leading merchants urge him NOT to do so. (Business has never been better than during the panicked migration to the city!)

Without giving out spoilers, let us say that Dennis finds more trouble than he had imagined in and out of the big city, including a jousting tournament to determine a champion to fight the Jabberwock (and a DELIGHTFUL means of finally choosing the champion after 2/3 of the nation's nights are killed or maimed in the competition) and several narrow escapes.

The movie has wonderful absurdities, such as Dennis' unrequited love for the obnoxious and unattractive Griselda, compared to the amorous advances of the lovely princess (Deborah Fallender), the king's first long-winded herald (John Bird), and a cult of masochistic religious fanatics. Anachronisms like `rush hour' in the city, `rats on a stick' and Dennis' constant efficiency-expert suggestions ring out delightfully among the muck and mire of ye olden times.

This film deserves neither to be forgotten nor to be trashed. It still provides laughs, chills and a somewhat thoughtful look (as in the true Python films) at history. Even the climactic scenes with the Jabberwock look pretty darn good for a fairly low-budget 1975 film! Check it out and enjoy.just beware the jubjub bird and shun the frumious bandersnatch!

Real funny satire even on its low budget.

[Sergeant_Tibbs · 7/10 · 20 September 2013]

Ah, the wonderful world of Terry Gilliam. Controlled chaos or just plain chaos? Jabberwocky is perhaps the one film buried deep in his filmography but it deserves to be unleashed and live among his most well known. Although it looks like its on a shoestring budget with most of its cheapness coming from the equipment rather than the production design, Gilliam still makes great use of his signature dutch angles to have it feel bursting with creativity. Rather than being a spoof or an all-out comedy, it's a tongue-in-cheek satire on these types of quest films, as a character is called Mr. Fishfinger and the biggest and best joke is that the protagonist doesn't even want the gorgeous princess. It's all entertainment, too silly to be thought-provoking or emotional. Although the jokes are funny, the momentum of the story needed some work. It sets up its concept early and then it doesn't pay it off until way too late in the game. It does kind of remind me that Gilliam has a very rigid formula for the stories of his films. Naive protagonist out of their depth, whacky side characters bouncing around them and a hectic journey of self- worth. Still, it seems his formula works even on the lowest of budgets.

7/10

Not as funny as it should be

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 17 August 2018]

JABBERWOCKY feels very much like a follow-up to MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, featuring as it does an identical medieval setting, similar fantastic elements in the story, a grubby look, and many of the assembled Monty Python cast (although Eric Idle, Graham Chapman and John Cleese are notable by their absence). This one's a very loose adaptation of the Lewis Carroll poem, with Michael Palin playing a youthful idiot who must battle a legendary monster. Truth be told, this is rather a scattershot affair that never manages to be particularly funny, or at least as funny as it should be. However, it does have an excellent supporting cast of numerous faces familiar from British comedy (Bernard Bresslaw, Warren Mitchell and John Le Mesurier to name but three), so at least that's something.

Gilliam's first solo venture

[didi-5 · 10 August 2003]

A hit-and-miss post-Python affair, directed by Terry Gilliam and featuring former teammates Terry Jones (briefly) and Michael Palin (throughout), alongside a Who's Who of British comedy including Max Wall, Bernard Bresslaw, Harry H Corbett, John Bird, Neil Innes, John Le Mesurier, Warren Mitchell, Graham Crowden, and others.

Jabberwocky starts off in a promising way, using the Lewis Carroll poem plus gory visuals as the monster claims its first victim. After that it meanders along with the story of Dennis the cooper (a caricature very like Python's Arthur Pewtey) as he goes to the big city in search of fame and fortune. Max Wall is delightfully funny as King Bruno the Questionable, but several of the gags fall flat and are just too silly to be funny.

All this aside, it was a fine idea, done on a shoe-string budget, and has a lot of good amongst the dross. Remembered with affection.

HA! It grows on you (like mold?)

[rjeby · 7/10 · 1 June 2000]

In typical Monty Python fashion, you need a certain mentality to truly appreciate this movie. The first time I ever saw "The Holy Grail" I hated it- now it's one of my favorites. I'm sure Jabberwocky will continue to grow on me, too. I think you should grab a beer, put your feet up, and chortle out loud when you watch this show. I do wish some of the scenes inside the castle had a bit more light- it was kind of hard to see at times. I love how everyone looks dirty and gross, complete with bad teeth, unlike other movies set in the middle ages where everyone looks like they're 20th (21st) century actors dressing up in old clothing. There are thousands of details in this movie that make repeated viewing a must!

A very uneven mix of utter chaos and amusing fun

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 24 February 2017]

Signalling the film directorial debut of Terry Gilliam, it is somewhat fair to say that he did go on to much better things since. This said, 'Jabberwocky' is not a film to be avoided, it is not for all tastes and is wildly uneven but to me there were enough good things to be a better film than reputed.

It is easy to see why 'Jabberwocky' is remembered fondly, while most in question still acknowledge that it has faults, while it is every bit as easy to see why people may have a mixed view or dislike it. Despite how it was advertised, 'Jabberwocky' is not a Monty Python film and has very little in common with Monty Python, other than the involvement of Michael and Terry Jones (in a small cameo) and that the sets are reminiscent of the ones in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'.

'Jabberwocky' is by no means perfect. The story often is in serious need of a tightening up and trimming pacing-wise and is told in a way that's messy (with some lack of cohesiveness) and meandering. The humour is wildly variable, with too much of it being too silly and in poor taste (the character of Griselda leaves a bad taste in the mouth). Gilliam's film directing experience shows in some lethargic pacing, lagging comic timing and lack of visual and stylistic care.

Production values are mostly not great, with the low budget coming through loud and clear. Not in the costumes and sets, they're pretty stunning in fact while also being successful in showing that the medieval age was less than glamorous in many ways. The titular monster actually doesn't look too bad considering and credit is due in making it look like the illustrations of John Tenniel. Less good are the slapdash editing, shoddy and unfocused photography (apart from the odd handsome and atmospheric part), dim lighting and the sense of being under-rehearsed.

However, the soundtrack is great with inspired use of two of Mussorgsky's best known works "Night on Bare Mountain" and "The Great Gate of Kiev", amongst others. There are moments in the script that are genuinely funny and witty with a perceptive touch, some of the gags are amusing and some parts are wonderfully dark and brutal.

The conclusion is fun and perceptive, while the atmosphere of the Medieval era is brilliantly evoked. The production design, occasional parts of the photography and the Jabberwocky design are surprisingly good.

Meanwhile the cast do a good job with what they have, making the most of their characters. Max Wall is particularly uproarious and Michael Palin is an appealing hero. Bernard Bresslaw and Harry H. Corbett do well too. Terry Jones overdoes it somewhat in his cameo and Annette Badland is all shock value and not much else.

In conclusion, very uneven, very chaotic but not without its fun moments. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Yes, it's similar to Monty Python!

[mario_c · 7/10 · 28 March 2007]

I was expecting to watch "Jabberwocky" for a long time because of the comparisons which many people do between this movie and the Monty Python's "Holy Grail". I really did like the Python's film so I was expecting something equally good in this one. I must say I didn't get disappointed.

"Jabberwocky" is a medieval tale about a monster which was frightening the lands of King Bruno "The Questionable", and it is, in a good measure, comparable to "Holy Grail". It might not to be so hilarious and so funnily absurd like Python's movie, but it has a similar kind of humour and many (good) laughable scenes. Like Python used to do, it mixes an intelligent and corrosive humour to the foolish type and the result is quite good and entertaining.

The settings and the costumes are also very nice, because they really create a medieval "ambience".

Jabbered

[Cineanalyst · 4/10 · 30 August 2020]

Terry Gilliam's "Jabberwocky" is a lot like "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975) except that it's not very funny. Both parody medieval fables in a silly fashion, and "Jabberwocky" features several of Gilliam's fellow Python members, including Michael Palin as the protagonist. Indeed, the film was marketed in the United States based on this Monty Python connection--much to the understandable disappointment of audiences, then, having expected to see a production by the entire troupe. I'm disappointed, too, because I saw this with the expectation that it would have something to do with the titular poem from Lewis Carroll's book "Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There," but only the broad outline of the poem's plot--the least interesting thing about it--is retained here and, otherwise, the film is preoccupied with making fun of the Dark Ages.

The filmmakers seem to have taken "Dark Ages" literally, as the action here often takes place in shadows. Meanwhile, the castle crumbles around them. Actually, this picture is more interesting to look at than to listen to, and one gets the sense that Gilliam has always been a better production designer than a writer. He claims he wanted to get away from the sketch format of Monty Python here, but the results remain sketchy, just not funny. Many of the jokes are piss-poor toilet humor. Others, oddly enough, are economic gags. Palin's Dennis frequently gets into pratfall and debasement-based humor from his interest in a Taylorism-type efficiency in business coming into conflict with the aristocracy, guilds and artisan insistence upon craftsmanship of the Middle Ages. Even the potato business is over its value being relative. And, there's the country-and-city dichotomy, with the apparent abundance of food with the Fishfinger family while those within the city walls risk starvation. But, mostly, the people and settings here are brutal, if only for comic effect.

"Jabberwocky" begins with a butterfly or moth--presumably the Caterpillar from "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" transformed--beginning to narrate Carroll's poem before Terry Jones squashes him with his foot (the image of the foot, by the way, being reminiscent of Gilliam's animation for "Monty Python's Flying Circus"). Jones, then, puts a rabbit in a bag with a fox, whereupon the creature reminiscent of the White Rabbit from the book is assuredly killed. This opening sequence sums up Gilliam's treatment of Carroll's works quite succinctly, and when he's not butchering the Alice books, he's treating the Jabberwock as if it were the shark from "Jaws" (1975). My recommendation is to read the poem instead.

For once, a mediaeval odyssey as it would have actually looked.

[mynie · 9/10 · 20 November 1999]

Let's make one thing clear. This, as most critics are quick to jump to, is NOT simply Gilliam trying to recapture Holy Grail. I take it as more of Gilliam simply liking the mediaeval theme and elaborating on it a bit, this time with a more plot-driven tail.

Palin stars as a kind-hearted bumbling son of a barrel maker. After being denounced by his own father on his death bed and ousted by his love, he decided to leave his comfortable country existence for city life. Only problem is that recently the city has been under storm by a very large and frightening monster. Plain makes it to the city, where he struggles a bit before meeting a squire who gives him food, room, and a job. The king stages a tournament to see which of his knights is to fight the monster, and Palin eventually ends up chasing after it.

The plot, sort of like BRAZIL, is presented in a bunch of confusing images. It's easy to get lost while watching this film, added to the confusing editing it the fact that most copies of it aren't of very good quality.

Some of the humour falls flat, and the editing is a bit too confusing, but the harsh, overly-realistic set and costume design and the great Gilliam cinematography more than make up for it. For once, a medieval odyssey as it would have actually looked.

Smart satire and fantasy on dark ages by a solo Monty Python's member!!!

[elo-equipamentos · 7/10 · 2 June 2020]

I love all those Monty Python's satire movies, this one is regarding as under-appreciate solo work by Michael Palin and directed by Terry Gilliam, however not despicable movie that takes place at middle ages about a journey of dumb guy Dennis Cooper (Palin) into a great village which he never seen before, where the King Bruno the Questionable has his poor castle and rules the nearby territory, as Python style has dozen funniest scenes along the movie becoming a pleasant to watching, also Dennis is appalled when a new world unfold at your sight suddenly, there are so many sub-plot as King and all their counselors and all people around provide a smart satire on high circle of the power, when the King asking for a champion to destroy the giant Jabberwocky monster, all wealthy merchants disagree, due they earn much money with the chaos, the Bishop is in the same line as well, aftermaths the monster advent the church is full filled ever since, perceived that the merchants and the Bishop were richest than the King, a strong social commentary that hits the target, also has a hard criticism on labor union when Dennis meets a beggar who self amputated his single food to get money due him wasn't associate on union and didn't get a job, countless funny gags on back and sharp humor, maybe a low point was the battle against the monster, as the improbable hero, be ready to laugh a lot!!

Resume:

First watch: 2013 / How many: 2 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7.25

Bewildering experience

[mccarthyos · 1/10 · 7 September 2003]

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.

My...God!

[jzappa · 9/10 · 30 April 2007]

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.

Python adjacent

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 30 November 2018]

It's the dark ages. A monster called Jabberwocky is destroying the countryside. Dennis Cooper (Michael Palin) has lived in his small community all his life. His cooper father is on his deathbed and disowns him in a scathing rebuke. He vows to make it big in the city before returning to win over the voluptuous Griselda Fishfinger. In the city, the King offers his daughter's hand in marriage to the champion who would kill the Jabberwocky. Through a series of misadventures, Dennis comes face to face with the monster.

It's Terry Gilliam's first solo directing of a full length feature. Michael Palin leads and it has a similar setting as The Holy Grail. It's all very Python adjacent. The most notable difference is the weight of the comedy and the utter ugliness in the production. Palin provides a light touch to the comedy but otherwise, there is an aggressiveness to the gross disturbed humor. Secondly, the look is simply ugly. If rotten teeth, dirty faces, ramshackle settings, and grotesque manners are off-putting to you, this is not your movie. My main complaint is not following Palin enough. It's his story and the movie needs to be his exclusively. There are sections that follow the king, and others that aren't quite as compelling. Frankly, those sections without Palin almost lost me due to boredom. I simply don't care about those characters or maybe in reality those actors.

Rubbish.

[gridoon · 2/10 · 12 October 1999]

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.