Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Kirpianuscus a nice film. that it is the purpose. and the virtue of a film who remains seductive, far to be enemy to the Broadway versions. because it propose the novel of Miguel Cervantes y Saavedra in accessible, colorful adaptation. because Peter O 'Toole does a great job. and Sophia Loren is the same seductive, vulgar, sentimental Dulcineea who gives new nuances to the characters. short, a lovely version. the songs, dialogues, flavor of adventure and the last scenes are enough for save the errors and the small mistakes. old fashion entertainment, Man of La Mancha is one of rare trips in the essence of a legend and pretext for charming performance of O 'Toole. so, it is real difficult to criticize it too hard. because it remains nice, spiritual, a kind of fire work for entire family. and, not the least, useful invitation to read the novel.

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.

gwood194 First of all, let me say that I believe firmly that a work of art should be judged on its own merits and not in comparison to its source. If we look at "Man of La Mancha" on its own it isn't bad - perhaps a little flat but not bad. The real problem is that the source (Cervantes' "Don Quixote") is simply too big to be able to confine it to the stage or screen. The subtle nuances that Cervantes gave us work beautifully when read - so that our minds can savor them. Humor is a fragile thing and that which is beautiful when written may all too often become slapstick on the stage or screen.The difficulty in adapting "Don Quixote" to the screen is obvious - Orson Wells couldn't do it - Terry Gilliam couldn't do it. There is a TV movie with John Litgow and Bob Hoskins which is a credible effort - mostly because it doesn't try too hard.And maybe that's the problem - maybe "Man of La Mancha" tries too hard.

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.