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.

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

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.