Rating: 
Summary: Gilliam's first solo venture, foreshadowing great things to
Review: This is Terry Gilliam's first solo venture, and is a clear departure from the Monty Python "formula" - if there is one (much to the disappointment of many). It is, on its own, a brilliant film, chronicling the misadventures of a poor villager (Palin) as he sets out on his own to do well for himself. Of course, EVERYTHING goes bad, yet all the formulae of the classic fairy tales are met: the poor villager slays the monster and wins the hand of the beautiful princess. It is even faithful, in its way, to the Lewis Carroll poem. Full of the brooding darkness which has become an inherent part of Gilliam's films, this parody of the light fairy tale - sunk in the mud and feces of real Medieval life of both peasant & king - is the herald of the brilliant career which was in store for Gilliam. Only this herald didn't get its head chopped off.
Rating:
Summary: Gilliam's first solo venture, foreshadowing great things to
Review: This is Terry Gilliam's first solo venture, and is a clear departure from the Monty Python "formula" - if there is one (much to the disappointment of many). It is, on its own, a brilliant film, chronicling the misadventures of a poor villager (Palin) as he sets out on his own to do well for himself. Of course, EVERYTHING goes bad, yet all the formulae of the classic fairy tales are met: the poor villager slays the monster and wins the hand of the beautiful princess. It is even faithful, in its way, to the Lewis Carroll poem. Full of the brooding darkness which has become an inherent part of Gilliam's films, this parody of the light fairy tale - sunk in the mud and feces of real Medieval life of both peasant & king - is the herald of the brilliant career which was in store for Gilliam. Only this herald didn't get its head chopped off.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a Monty Python Movie
Review: This movie is not a Monty Python movie and fans of Holy Grail may be very disappointed. This movie is very uneven. It seems like Terry Gilliam wanted to do this movie w/o the comedy but felt obligated to throw in Monty Pythonesque type humor because thats what the movie would be associated with. I did not find the movie to be funny. Most of the jokes and gags I thought were not up to par of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's not a bad movie but if you are a fan of Python maybe you should stick with the Holy Grail.
Rating: 
Summary: Pale Compared to His Other Work
Review: Unfortunately, Michael Palin's work in Jabberwocky does not come across as well as his brilliant work in other pieces (especially his famous Monty Python roles). Granted, this is not intended to mimic Monty Python in any way, but on its own merit it falls flat. The story drags, and the jokes fail to save it. I think the movie itself fell flat, and took Palin with it, which is unfortunate.
Rating:
Summary: Sub-Python, and also not Python
Review: When I went to see this in the late 1970s, I assumed it was another Python spin-off. After all, any film containing Terry Jones, Terry Gilliam and Michale Palin has to be at least half-Python. But as a comedy, the film left me strangely dissatisfied. It is only now, browsing the DVD packaging some 25 years later, that I realise why I was so disappointed. The problem is that the writers were Terry Gilliam and (mainly) Charles Alverson. Much as I like Gilliam's animations, I have to admit that he was, at best, a minor contributor to Python's classic sketches. I hadn't heard of Alverson before, but according to the amazon site, he is largely the compiler of out-of-print joke books. Whereas 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' contains many sketches (e.g. the autonomous collective peasants scene and the witch scene), there is nothing here that could stand on its own as a sketch. There are many amusing moments in 'Jabberwocky', but nothing that builds up, through Python's relentless pursuit of the logic of the ridiculous, into a self-contained sketch. Where the script tries to imitate the Python style -- e.g. the king's decision to kill the herald -- it often falls flat, or at best elicits a mild chuckle. Watch this for its atmosphere, for the much-improved sound quality, for the strength of the supporting cast (e.g. John Bird and Graham Crowden in minor roles) and for its pointers to Gilliam's future directorial career. Just don't expect the humour to be at Python's level.
|
