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

Jabberwocky is Terry Gilliam's grimier follow up to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, set in a dirty, mud-strewn vision of the Middle Ages. A monster is terrorizing the kingdom of King Bruno the Questionable, and it falls to a young cooper's son to slay the beast. In the process, he must deal with an oversexed princess, a randy squire, his fat lover and her family, and enterprising beggars.Jabberwocky is a dirty, darker counterpart to the Holy Grail, with greater attention to the class issues of the Middle Ages. The cooper is faced with corrupt merchants who want to keep the monster alive, restrictions on entering cities, and terrible food. Furthermore, the monster's attacks are by and large played seriously, with considerable violence. Although all is this is played for humor, it's much less zany than the previous film.The film's main drawback is that it's overlong, with the Jabberwock not really playing a role for most of it. A bit of editing would have tightened the comedic timing, and made it funnier. Still, it is an enjoyable dark comedy and a good companion to the Holy Grail.

Jabberwocky is a great, very funny film. If you like Monty Python you will like this. If you like anything by Gilliam you will like this. Jabberwocky has something that The Holy Grail hasn't - even though the Holy Grail is a great funny film it doesn't stand up to repeat viewings half as well as Jabberwocky does in my opinion! (and I've seen both films about the same amount of times in case you were wondering!) There's so many funny quotable bits in this film that I don't know where to start. Also - there's just about anyone who was British and funny in the 70s in this film as well! Its my dad's favourite film of all time (hes only slightly annoyed - still - because he was going to be an extra in this film and couldn't make it due to work!).Don't get me wrong, I love Holy Grail (Life of Brian is better) but Jabberwocky tops Holy Grail for me now.Give it a try...you might be surprised how much you like it!

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.