Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Ehirerapp Waste of time

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

cstotlar-1 Any excuse to hear Chaliapin sing is worth the listen and the watch. Also, it was great pleasure to see Pabst take on such a task in English. His camera never missed a beat and the scenery was magnificent. There are the things to object about as brought up by sever reviewers. It's true that Chaliapin's English was not good. He probably learned his lines phonetically. I've coached several singers in my time and it does sound like that. The music, by Jacques Ibert. was really quite good throughout and the players around Quixote himself were truly fine. This is a film for the history books - Pabst meets Chaliapin meets Ibert meet Cervantes meet the English language. They all win, but we do have to listen very carefully to the English. It is on the border of comprehension at times.

Armand For me, this film is defined by the printed paper and his metamorphosis. The bustle, the delicate ash, the music are principal words of Cervantes masterpiece definition. So, the film must be a success at least for impressive presence of Chaliapin.In fact, it is not a film but a huge monument, the Baroque interpretation of Chaliapin has the talent to create a fantastic world.The pathetism of opera is part of gorgeous sophisticated fine expressionOnly values for a verdict in this case are subjectives. A legend of Russian Opera is Don Quixote. Every feature of character is slice of a subtle science of chimera's revelation. Every gesture is a form to describe sweet secret of fragile world. And Chaliapin is Chaliapin.But, more important, it is statute of testimony. The trip between symbols and facts, between refuges and truth. "Don Quixote" is not a ordinary picturization, it is a propaganda instrument.The three versions, "Man and Mask", the recordings , Mefistofele, the shows in Europe and the fame are elements of a special artist portrait who gives to his character not only a special soul but a subtle vision about life and illusion.I believe that this movie was for Chaliapin an adventure. His art is same, his acting is interesting and correct. For he, the hero from La Mancha is an alter-ego not ordinary character. So, the force of interpretation is charming, strong and pure.

semi-buff Having only once attempted unsuccessfully to slog my way through the Peter O'Toole version of "Man of la Mancha," I was unfamiliar the plot of Don Quixote. I discovered this film at movieflix.com, a nice resource of free films. Even with the poor visual and sound quality of that site, this movie shines. Chaliapin and Robey are wonderful. (BTW, when another commenter refers to "Sancho caressing his ass in tears," he means his donkey.) Chaliapin's beautifully rich voice is matched by his acting, and he brings the full range of emotion to his role. It's a shame that this is the only film he sings in. There is much comedy and pathos here and it's beautifully directed. Highly recommended!

psteier I saw the New York Museum of Modern Art's print (the English language version). Only Chaliapin does much singing, but the music and lyrics are not much and I suggest you listen to his recordings to judge his singing. His acting seems very much staged.George Robey is very good as Sancho Panza (Don Quixote's servant), playing him as a Music Hall character. The scene with the traveling players at an inn is also interesting and fun.