Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

marrzzie This is one of the best musicals ever written! But did they cast ANYONE who could. Carry a tune? No! The Impossible Dream , a fabulous song , spoken? Really? Aldonza/Dulcineas songs . All but destroyed. The closest thing to a singer they had was James Coco? Really? They 'looked' the part ,so Dub them if you won't hire singers! They did it for Natalie Wood ,Deborah Kerr and Audrey Hepburn , so do it again . I hate when they destroy a musical, hello, Little Night Music, and it is then doomed forever? Man of La Mancha is a very difficult musical vocally. This is no easy operetta. This requires some true vocal chops to perform. But this movie decides that beautiful voices should take a back seat to Hollywood image. This needs to be redone, and done well. For the sake of the music and Cervantes. DO OVER,PLEASE.

John Borg I recently viewed this film again, not having seen it since it was first released. Sadly, the disappointment I felt at first viewing hasn't changed much with the passing of time. I saw this show on stage many years ago and was charmed and captivated by it. I eagerly looked forward to the film version like many others no doubt. How can a film with such an enviable cast go so oddly wrong? I want to lay the blame at the director's feet but it's hard to be sure where the majority of blame lies. I suppose the concept perhaps was the director's but maybe it was the writers'. The film wants to open up and take us out of the stagy dungeon set but it only does so half heartedly so that we spend most of our time in a studio set of the inn. The cinematography is oddly dull and gritty even though it's the work of the justly famous Rotunno. And then there is the hideous make-up Peter O'Toole is obliged to wear throughout most of the film. And to get back to the cast again, although enviable the casting is far from ideal. Each actor seems to be in a different movie and acting in his or her own separate style so that in the end you don't get an ensemble you get a stew, and not a very tasty one. It would be a treat to see this musical done again set in a real Spain not just in Spanish clichés and with a really good cast of singer/actors. Perhaps, however, it is best to leave some stage pieces on stage.

stevenmbl In 1972, I was 6 years old when I saw the movie version of the show. At that time I was absolutely enamored by the movie. However, I have seen the movie recently--actually only parts of it since I skipped through much of it--and was gravely disappointed. I own the CD of the original Broadway cast with Richard Kiley et al and have listened to it numerous times over these past years. The music and singing on the CD provides excellent emotion and context that someone who has never seen the show can visualize. The 1972 movie, despite some excellent casting (Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren, for example, as well as Gino Conforti and Harry Andrews), falls way off the mark. The orchestration and instrumentation has lost all its Spanish flair. The voice dubbing (even of those who are actually using their own voices to sing) is more than obvious and therefore a complete distraction. I also am not sure why Richard Kiley et al were not cast in the movie (no offense to Peter O'Toole who is one of 5 of my favorite actors and Sophia Loren who is a perfect sultry match for her character.) The original cast could have provided the very look of the characters and the proper affect that the movie sorely needs. I have already suggested to a couple of people in the industry that Milos Forman would be an excellent director of a movie remake with someone as talented as Nathan Lane in the role of Sancho. A grand director like Mr. Forman would know how to envision a broad and beautiful palette with the humor and irony that the subject matter requires. He would also know how to direct into the songs the emotional spectrum, intensity, and sarcasm clearly evident in the aforementioned Broadway CD.

moonspinner55 Dale Wasserman adapted his (very popular) musical play "Man of La Mancha" for the screen, yet he failed to see this sub-Shakespearean material in cinematic terms; ditto director Arthur Hiller--who isn't very visual either--and their film muddies up that fine line between fantasy and quasi-reality, both undermined by baroque flourishes and sentiment. Peter O'Toole is alternately regal and aloof as the mad poet Miguel de Cervantes, who is arrested by the Inquisition and dumped into a dungeon; he manages to make dreamers and followers out of the prisoners there, staging the life and struggles of Don Quixote while firmly believing in the illusion. Sophia Loren (beautiful and busty in peasant garb) plays a scrub-woman/incarnation of Dulcinea, and James Coco is Cervantes' faithful assistant, Sancho Panza. Both are wonderful, as are some of the minor players, though the movie fails to really take off. Hiller, not my ideal pick to stage an operetta, mixes different moods and the songs well enough, but too often he's clumsy and oafish. The cinematography is good, but the editing is a little lax (particularly during a rowdy fight sequence where the focus is never where it should be). Worth-seeing, perhaps, for Loren and Coco's work, although O'Toole's frequent soliloquies (and his reading of "The Impossible Dream") are ham-handed. Fantasy should be intoxicating, not played to the rafters. ** from ****