Watch Jabberwocky For Free

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

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

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 was expecting to watch "Jabberwocky" for a long time because of the comparisons which many people do between this movie and the Monty Python's "Holy Grail". I really did like the Python's film so I was expecting something equally good in this one. I must say I didn't get disappointed."Jabberwocky" is a medieval tale about a monster which was frightening the lands of King Bruno "The Questionable", and it is, in a good measure, comparable to "Holy Grail". It might not to be so hilarious and so funnily absurd like Python's movie, but it has a similar kind of humour and many (good) laughable scenes. Like Python used to do, it mixes an intelligent and corrosive humour to the foolish type and the result is quite good and entertaining.The settings and the costumes are also very nice, because they really create a medieval "ambience".

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.