Jabberwocky (1977)

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

"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.

Lately, I've found myself wanting to watch some films over and over. But there are also those films that, perversely enough, I take pleasure in watching-- KNOWING, with full intention, that I will never watch them again. Terry Gilliam's debut as director, JABBERWOCKY, is definitely one of those.Starring Michael Palin, it's like an extended episode of RIPPING YARNS, which was dull & tedious to begin with. It's filmed in the style of MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, which means its view of the ancient world is filthy and disgusting and hopeless, but it isn't 1/10th as funny.The highlight is the DeWolff library tracks, among them, excerpts of both "Night On Bald Mountain" (when the champion is surrounded by The Black Knight's hoods, sworn to stop him so as to "protect" the monster for the benefit of the city's merchants), and "Pictures at an Exhibition" (heard when Dennis returns to the city in accidental triumph with the beast's decapitated head).The film's got some talented actors hidden in there... among them, it turns out, Harry H. Corbett, who was the "and Son" on England's STEPTOE AND SON, the younger partner of Wilfred Brambell, who played Paul's grandfather in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT. Because he's chasing after an innkeeper's wife, he gets Michael Palin to fill in for him when his master is chosen champion to face the monster.Also in there-- I KNEW I'd seen this guy before, but for the life of me could not place him-- was Graham Crowden as the head of a bunch of religious fanatics. He'd played "Soldeed" on the DOCTOR WHO story "The Horns Of Nimon", and has long been accused of doing some of the worst over-acting in the show's history!! No wonder he seemed familiar, I knew I'd heard that raving lunatic voice somewhere before.Brian Glover ("Lugg" on CAMPION) was the city "armorer" whose shop is destroyed in a clumsy accident. And Kenneth Colley (who co-starred with Palin in an episode of RIPPING YARNS and was in the 2nd & 3rd STAR WARS films) is a fanatic who INSISTS he be catapulted to a violent yet glorious death. Insists!! Oh yeah, and the Black Knight (whose face we never see, of course) was David Prowse, who, the same year, became Darth Vader.See this only to satisfy curiosity... but if you do, go in with the lowest possible expectations.

I had no idea for the longest time that this was not a Monty Python effort. I thought it was the next movie following Holy Grail. It was different but to my mind that was a good thing. I didn't want Holy Grail - The Sequel.I really like the sets and the costumes. I don't know if they were all authentic or not, but the coracle, the round boat made from skins stretched over a wooden frame is very authentic. I loved the cap the trapper wore which was made from a pelt - stretched and dried into form.I really like the dreary skies and decrepit buildings - the dirt and filth seen everywhere; the poverty and the desperation of the beggars. I don't think life was a piece of cake then - I'm really surprised that we made it where we are today.I loved the silliness and the sly wit heard and seen throughout the movie. I laugh my guts out when the loud mouthed obnoxious herald gets beheaded for his continuous interruption of the king.This is a great movie, every bit as good as the other Monty Python flicks, just different.

I rather liked this movie, it has that old cinematic appeal to it. Gilliam is a master at his craft. This is GOOD low budget stuff. If you like well done low budget film...There is a lot interesting history behind this movie that many people may not be aware of. This movie was being filmed at the time they were filming StarWars. And I believe Blake Edwards was filming A Pink Panther movie during this as well. I think they were trying to steal time on some of the expensive Edwards sets and got chased off.I found this movie funny. If your a Python fan you should like it.Best way is to judge for yourself.