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!

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.

Anyone condoning this film is being really generous. Say what you want about who is in it or who did or how accurately it captures the middle ages. But at the end of the day the film is excruciatingly boring and entirely unmemorable. I saw the movie once and could not describe a single scene from the movie a week after viewing it. I can't imagine a more definitive way of recognizing a bad movie. It would be one thing if it evoked anything within me. I love Python and I know this isn't Python so this is not even a comparison. Forget who directed it or who's in it. Take it on its own merit and it becomes clear that it has none.

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+