Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

ShangLuda Admirable film.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Woodyanders Cowardly and dim-witted peasant Dennis Cooper (a likeable performance by Michael Palin) stumbles his blundering way into a situation in which he has to slay a ferocious monster that has been terrorizing a rundown medieval kingdom. Director/co-writer Terry Gilliam not only presents a grim, grungy, and rancidly unromantic evocation of the Middle Ages, but also delivers gobs of hideous gore, provides a wickedly funny satirical commentary on the evils of commerce and the dismal failure of bureaucracy (the local merchants want the beast to continue to live because they make more money off all of the people seeking refuge in the city!), and further spices things up with a deliciously twisted sense of pitch-black humor. Moreover, this film acquires considerable sardonic bite from the crafty way it savagely mocks standard notions about heroism and chivalry. The spirited acting by the enthusiastic cast rates as another substantial asset, with especially praiseworthy contributions from Max Wall as inept buffoon King Bruno the Questionable, Warren Mitchell as crude merchant Mr. Fishfinger, Deborah Fallender as a lovely, but hopelessly naïve princess, Jerold Wells as desperate beggar Wat Dabney, John Le Mesurier as the sharp-tongued Chamberlain Pesselewe, and Bernard Bresslaw as a hot-tempered landlord. Terry Jones makes a brief appearance as an ill-fated poacher while ubiquitous British bit player Fred Wood can be glimpsed as a bandit with a bushy beard. A delightfully subversive treat.

phishtails Gilliam's first "Definitely NOT a Python Film" (as it was advertised on the movie poster) is typical of an artist's early attempt to escape from the pigeonhole of an annoyingly successful run in a cult-followed genre. If you need other examples, I cite William Shatner and Douglas Adams. Though he put more gore and serious satire in this film, the comparison to "Holy Grail" cannot be avoided. Gilliam's goal of escape ultimately hurt this film as he tried to squash his own artistic intuition that nevertheless surfaces in a battered and gasping form.The satire of a war-driven economy is brilliantly done, cast starkly against the backdrop of a nonsensical poem brought to life. The choice to make "real" a completely unrealistic story to justify a society's reaction to hide behind religion and governmental protection at the cost of personal freedom and happiness is nothing short of genius. It serves as a contrast to today's society in which many have given up those same freedoms and taken refuge from a threat that is imaginary.A few bad points: The film is low-budget and overstepped the limits of its budget in a few scenes. Film equipment makes an appearance here and there, and the Jabberwocky itself is a bit hokey. The costume and prop recycling from "Holy Grail" is glaringly apparent. I think if Gilliam had embraced this fact during its conception and production, this film would have gone in a much different direction. Better production? I couldn't say.Terry Gilliam is a brilliant director who has gifted us with gems such as "Brazil", "Fear and Loathing", and "Parnassus". I hold no illusions that this has colored my review of this film and possibly even added a star or two to its grade. If I had seen this movie before other Gilliam works, I would have been a bit confused by some of the inappropriate zaniness of some scenes. As a study of Gilliam's early works, it is a great milestone in his transition from Python-to-Director.If you are unfamiliar with Terry Gilliam's later films, I recommend that you NOT see this as your first. Come back to it later though -- it's an interesting by-line to director who later found his own brilliance.

BeauEvil 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. ;-)

fedor8 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.