AttyTude0 Like the poster tamrath, I sign up for defender of this film. No, it's not brilliant, but visually it's a treat. I never saw the Broadway version, but I do have the CD of the soundtrack. Voice-wise, Peter O'Toole (or whoever daubed him, if he was daubed) is no Richard Kiley. But his acting makes up for that, as usual. And if there ever was an actor who most resembles the description of Quijote that Cervantes made I have yet to see.As for Sophia Loren, it's true, she cannot sing. Or at least, not in the key she was made to sing in the film. But IMHO, she is scarcely worse than Joan Diener's shrill, metallic, over-the-top, almost demented Broadway rendition, which never fails to grate on my nerves. And again, from the physical point of view, she is the embodiment f what I always thought Aldonza would look like. Her acting is also excellent for Loren is always at her best when she portrays peasants and lower-class women.James Coco's rendition of Sancho is acting-wise flawless, but from the standpoint of voice it elicits the same comparison as the Loren-Diener: after Irving Jacobson's high-pitched rendition, Coco's sounds sort of lusterless.The rest of the cast is OK. Ian Richardson gives us a terrific cynical/ironic/pious Padre, a bit on the lines of his House of Cards Urquhart.So again, the film is not brilliant. But until a better version comes along (and I rather doubt it, given the "revised" politically correct-sanctioned trash that the entertainment industry has made a habit of inflicting on us) I very happily settle for this.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU The film is of course a pure creation and it is built on three layers, all of them fictitious, more or less, but always a little or a lot according to what you know or think of Cervantes and Don Quixote. First Cervantes, then Alonso Quijano and finally Don Quixote. The first one is the author. The second one is the real identity of the character. The third one is his imaginary identity in his knight errant fantasy and delusion.The film centers on Cervantes, a playwright and actor who performs in the market place. His plays are satirical and hence attack directly or indirectly the all-powerful church in Spain. It is true Cervantes was excommunicated by the inquisition, but here he is arrested, imprisoned in an underground dungeon and finally summoned for his trial and we will never know the end of it, though we know he was not executed, far from it.Then the film puts him on trial in the vast dungeon where he is imprisoned by the people in the dungeon, under the authority of the one who was appointed governor of this underground society by the inhabitants of this netherland. To defend himself he gets the right to perform his Don Quixote story, whose manuscript got nearly burnt. He uses his props and masks and all the people in the dungeon take part. It is thus a description of the life in such a prison and of a play that is acted in good faith and with fun by the prisoners as an entertainment. Think or dream of an entertainment in such a miserable environment where you do not see the light of day and where anyone can be summoned for trial, which means questioning (I guess this is a nice word for torturing) and then sentencing and executing.If the play is performed in the prison, the camera takes us in real outside décor and setting and we get the Don Quixote story in the real imaginary world of Cervantes. And we get everything, the giant windmills, the horse Rocinante, the whore Dulcinea, and many other niceties of that kind draped in some fantasy or delusion by Don Quixote. That world is cruel, cruel with women first of all, cruel with people who are not "normal" then, those who seem to be slightly "crazy" or "corrugated" if not plainly "deranged suckers." Violence is the basic condiment of this life and for women it is rape, which is not rape really in those days, just using the woman the way she is supposed to exist for. Willing or not is not a question in those days and love is nothing but sex at the request of the man and no is not a possible answer from the woman. Like it or not, that's your function. The film is not fuzzy about it.And yet that makes Don Quixote really crazy who lives in a world of chivalry that has been long gone in the sixteenth century, a world of chivalric and courteous love that has never really existed, except as a dream in the minds of some medieval poets, a world of honor, glory and enchanters, hence of some kind of magic that has never had the slightest beginning of an existence or reality. But we evade these two worlds into the real world of the fictional character Alonso Quijano who is dying. He is on his death bed totally unaware of his fantastic adventures when his servant Sancho and the inn maid from the local inn come to visit him and try to revive his delusion to lead him to a pleasurable death. And little by little his memory comes back and he dies singing the song about reaching the unreachable star, as if dying was the surest way to do so, but it sure is a pleasant way to die for Don Quixote, or is it Alonso Quijano? The last and fascinating aspect of the film I want to mention is the music and the songs. They are absolutely mesmerizing and they are worth a fortune of pleasure. We can understand why Jacques Brel recorded the score in its French adaptation. There is no difference between, that Don Quixote and so many of the characters in Jacques Brel's songs, Jacky, Jef and innumerable other Caporal Casse Pompon. It is a true testament about real true voracious life fantasized by a truly insane person who believes a world that was a dream in the Middle Ages is possible in today's global village. The film here works on that dimension so well that there is no hope of any salvation in this universe, nor in any other post mortem cosmos except dying singing about a dreamlike Never- never-land with a Captain Hook and a Tinkerbell in the childish mind of Peter Pan. "I could pretend I'm flying away."Well done but not quite for younger children.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

readerguy There isn't much I can add to the many excellent reviews on this site. I thought the acting was superb across the whole cast. The singing by O'Toole and Loren obviously wasn't what you would expect from professional singing voices, but it was much better than I would have expected, and I thought it was wonderful that these fine actors were allowed to use their own voices in the film. O'Toole was beyond excellent as both a younger and older man as was Sophia Loren who fit the part perfectly, and she was breathtaking to look at in her every scene. I read that many people believe this is greatest novel ever written. The movie gives many who wouldn't begin to tackle the huge 1000+ page volume access to this wonderful story. While several of the songs are less than memorable, each performance of "Impossible Dream" in this film is very moving and alone are worth seeing the movie. The wonderful message here about a positive, idealistic outlook to life and the power of dreams makes "Man of La Mancha" a remarkable story - and, in my humble opinion, a truly great movie.

Gavno Along with the plaudits and praise, MAN OF LA MANCHA is getting a lot of bad reviews here. The reason is clear.If you look at ANY work written for the stage that was transformed into a film, you're going to see exactly the same sort of wildly divergent opinions listed.IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. TO THOSE WHO SAW A LIVE STAGE PERFORMANCE, NO CINEMATIC VERSION WILL EVER COMPARE FAVORABLY! At the same time... for those who never saw the work on stage, the film can and WILL stand on it's own merits.I'm of the generation that saw and emotionally connected with HAIR, and remember live performances well.HAIR was interactive. In the opening number, "Aquarius", the cast literally converged on the stage from all parts of the audience and theater.During the first act, protesters in the audience (actually cast members) disrupted the flow of the performance and interacted.In the closing number (FLESH FAILURES / LET THE SUNSHINE), the cast literally returned to it's origin, leaving the stage and mixing in with the audience.Over time, even the script itself evolved; periodically the worldwide casts received mimeographed sheets of changes to the script (sometimes, MAJOR changes to the story line).How could a movie version of HAIR ever hope to compare favorably with that? A film HAS to look inadequate by comparison, because we're looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the particular MEDIA EMPLOYED, and not the productions themselves.By comparison... the film version of HAIR looks pale and amateurish when placed beside the stage version. But in and of itself, the film isn't a bad representation of the script.Film versions of Broadway productions DO serve a valid and valuable purpose tho.Not every kid grows up in an urban area like New York City. Millions of youngsters never have the chance to attend a live symphony concert, an opera, or a Broadway play.A film or video version of a play can expose them great literature.I once saw a classroom full of high school freshmen in the north woods of extreme northern Wisconsin who were absolutely captivated and fascinated by a videotaped production of Thornton Wilder's OUR TOWN. I've seen live stage productions of it many times, and the video struck me as not nearly on a par with any of them... but these kids hadn't. The nearest theatrical company was over 300 miles away, so it was all new and unique to them.Maybe that videotape will, sometime down the road, inspire them to actually attend a live performance.MAN OF LA MANCHA has to be viewed in that same context. Take it for what it is... film making. Comparison with the Broadway stage is unfair and unproductive.