It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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.

I really don't get the guys who don't like the movie. Must be because they were not growing up in the 70ies or 80ies. We laughed our ass off watching the film. And still today the movie has some good laughs. Yes in comparison with today's movies without CGI and stupid sex jokes the younger ones don't understand this chaotic but somehow truthful to the medieval reality. Michael Palin is great as Dennis and even Terry Gilliam plays more than the usual. It just came out Remastered on Criterion and I really would recommend it to everyone.

"Jabborwocky" is clearly a transition from Gilliam's work with the Monty Phyton environment to his own distinctive vision and style. There are elements of Phython that are probably over done in the film, but there is an emerging of what his work will mature to. His later works are essentially faerie tales, and allegories, often dystoptic, still based, in part on the absurd, but with more consistent themes and execution, less dependent on buffoonery and slapstick. He is capable of some very good, even classic, films such as "Brazil", "The Fisher King", "12 Monkeys", and Fear and "Loathing in Las Vegas". You might think of "Jabborwocky" as a training ground for those movies.Without saying too much, the film is a fairie tale loosely based on Dodgson's "Jabborwocky" found in the looking glass by Alice. It is considered one of the greatest nonsense poems in the English language."And as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!"What struck me the most was the authenticty of the people, the costuming, the settings, and the lighting. He says in the film's commentary that he was heavily influenced by Durer and Brueghels. For example, The opening image of a tower is obviously inspired by Breughel's "Bable". Other works like Brueghel's "The Peasant Wedding" or Durer's "The Knight and The Devil" probably influenced GIlliam too. I think Gllliam was also influence by Rembrandt and the other Dutch painters for his sense of lighting and composition. I think the lighting was excellent. Gilliam showed rooms lit by a single candle as essentially dark and dreary as they really are, not flooded with artificial light. Sometime light a single candle in a dark room and see how little it fills the room. Gilliam was sensitive to this as well as he was with the lighting in other scenes in the movie. Most movies do not really convey darkness very well. He could use lighting very well in other scenes too, most memorably the back lighting of the naked princess in the flimsy gown. I'm sure many will carry that image with them after seeing the movie.The people seem appropriate to the period and costumes as they were, not as we romanticize them to be. They were the common peasant, shop keeper, soldier, or beggar. Most directors today look for pretty faces. I don't know if you recall the early silent films. They were a wonderful collection of faces. For example, the actor who plays the king played without this false teeth causing his mouth to sink in, almost as if he were gurning. He truly looked old. The actors teeth had blackened teeth and costumes were dingy and dirty, as you wold expect from the period when the were no dentists and an aversion to bathing and they made the clothing out of scarce materials.The next thing I noticed was the language. There is the usual English country twang, but the words they use and how they use them are amusing, ironic, and witty, like Monty Phyton's high comedy or in "Jeeves and Wooster" or the like. To me, one of the highlights of the film is the interplay between the king and his chamberlain, high comedy at its best. It leads you to believe that the king and chamberlain were lovers (the word dear slips in once and awhile).I would recommend the movie, not as a work of art in itself, but to get a better into Gilliam as a director. On the DVD, watch both movie and Gilliam/Palin's commentary. The commentary is quite enlightening.

This 1977 medieval comedy film, a largely extended version of Lewis Carroll's poem, "Jabberwocky", was the first full-length movie directed solely by Terry Gilliam, after years of working as a member of the Monty Python comedy troupe, and he has gone on to direct a number of others since this one. Like several of his other non-Python movies, this one features other members of the groundbreaking comedy team in the cast. The lead role in "Jabberwocky" is played by Michael Palin, and Terry Jones makes a brief appearance. The film also features a small role from Monty Python contributor (not an official Python) Neil Innes. I first this film a few years ago, and couldn't remember much from that viewing. Watching it a second time, I think it did improve somewhat, but not quite as much as I could have hoped.Set in the Dark Ages, a kingdom is terrorized the Jabberwock, a dangerous monster that kills humans! Dennis Cooper is a young cooper who lives in a village which has been left alone by this horrible creature. He is in love with Griselda Fishfinger, an obese young woman who also lives in this village, but she doesn't seem to be too interested in him. On his father's deathbed, the dying man disowns his son and does not leave him with any kind words. After this, Dennis decides to leave the village and go to the city to find a new job. He intends to return after he has made his fortune and is ready to marry Griselda. Unfortunately, the young former cooper doesn't know how much trouble he is headed for on this journey! When he arrives at the entrance of the enclosed city, where people are well aware of the Jabberwock, the guards refuse to let him in, since he has nothing to offer, but he soon manages to sneak in through another door, and is in for a lot of chaos inside as he meets many different residents of this city! This comedy adventure doesn't seem that promising around the beginning, with the narration and such, though there are some mildly amusing moments. It could be funnier, and the scene with Griselda scratching her rump is a part that stands out as unfunny to me (though I've certainly seen worse). The deathbed scene made me laugh, and other early scenes might have as well, even if they weren't big laughs. The part when Dennis first comes to the entrance of the city and meets the guards might be funnier than anything that comes before it in the film, and there were many more times when I laughed during my second viewing, with the way Dennis sneaks into the city and many chaotic things that then happen while he's there. However, I also found the story for "Jabberwocky" to be somewhat dull and tedious. The film can also be a little hard to follow at times, and maybe a bit too noisy as well. Unfortunately, the laughs are not quite consistent enough to completely make up for the severe flaws.This movie was made in between two hit Monty Python films, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and "Life of Brian". Because of that and the fact that the director and lead actor were both members of that highly influential comedy troupe, it's obviously hard not to compare "Jabberwocky" to the work of Monty Python, even if it's not quite the same idea. Even after seeing it twice, I still can't say I think it's anywhere near as good as Python, as much as I know many would disagree. In my opinion, it could have used a little more focus and is fairly forgettable, even if I can remember a lot more of it after my second viewing than I could after my first. I remember within the next year or so after I first saw this film, I saw several other non-Monty Python movies from Terry Gilliam, including "Brazil" and "Twelve Monkeys", which are much more popular than this 1977 release, and I thought those two were much better. Some Python fans might dislike Gilliam's non-Python work in general, but if you're a fan of Gilliam as a filmmaker, then this film COULD be worth watching for some good laughs. I'll just say that you MIGHT not want to expect it to be one of his greatest films.