Search

» » The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018)

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) watch online HD

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) watch online HD
  • Original title:The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
  • Category:Movie / Adventure / Comedy / Drama / Fantasy
  • Released:2018
  • Director:Terry Gilliam
  • Actors:José Luis Ferrer,Ismael Fritschi,Juan López-Tagle
  • Writer:Terry Gilliam,Tony Grisoni
  • Budget:€17,000,000
  • Duration:2h 12min
  • Video type:Movie

Watch online HD Download HD

Short summary

Toby, a disillusioned film director, becomes pulled into a world of time jumping fantasy when a Spanish cobbler believes him to be Sancho Panza. He gradually becomes unable to tell dreams from reality.
Toby, a cynical but supposedly genius film director finds himself trapped in the outrageous delusions of an old Spanish shoe-maker who believes himself to be Don Quixote. In the course of their comic and increasingly surreal adventures, Toby is forced to confront the tragic repercussions of a film he made in his idealistic youth - a film that changed the hopes and dreams of a small Spanish village forever. Can Toby make amends and regain his humanity? Can Don Quixote survive his madness and imminent death? Or will love conquer all?

Trailers "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018)"

Production finally finished on June 4, 2017. A few days later, Gilliam jokingly posted on Facebook that he had accidentally deleted the film.

When production started in August 2000, it was marked by misfortune. Jean Rochefort, originally cast as Don Quixote, had to drop out due to a double herniated disc. He'd spent seven months learning English for the role. A flash flood on the second day of filming washed away equipment and changed the color of the barren cliffs, making the previous footage unusable. Production halted within a week. It took Gilliam 16 years to get the film off the ground again.

Terry Gilliam tried to make a movie about Don Quixote for many years. He already went into production of the movie once and cast Jean Rochefort as Quixote, but the project ultimately failed. This was documented in Verloren in La Mancha (2002).

In 2010, Robert Duvall and Ewan McGregor were announced to star.

Said to be the most cursed film in cinema history.

In 2015, Jack O'Connell and John Hurt were cast in the lead roles. Both dropped out. Hurt died on January 25, 2017.

Jean Rochefort, Johnny Depp, Vanessa Paradis, Sally Phillips, Miranda Richardson, Christopher Eccleston, Bill Paterson, Rossy de Palma, Jonathan Pryce, Ian Holm, Eva Basteiro-Bertoli, and Peter Vaughan were all going to be in the original film that began filming in 2000. Pryce later took over Rochefort's role as Quixote in the production that started in 2017.

The film's cinematographer, Nicola Pecorini, used anamorphic lenses to "compensate" for the digital look provided by the Alexa camera and turned to a specific set of lenses : a set of handmade lenses by Technovision and assembled specially for Vittorio Storaro on Apocalypse Now. The shortest focal length on this set was 25 mm whereas Gilliam often uses shorter focal lengths on his other films. Indeed the 14 mm lens, which has been nicknamed "The Gilliam" among filmmakers because of his frequent use since Brazil, was only used for shots of the film directed by the character of Toby, which appear from time to time within the actual film.

Terry Gilliam started working on the film in 1989, but was unable to secure funding until 1998 when it entered full pre-production for the first time.

After production was cancelled in 2000, an insurance claim was filed on behalf of the investors. The insurance companies reportedly paid out US$15 million, and got the rights to the screenplay.

Received a 15 minutes standing ovation when it premiered at Cannes Film Festival.

After eight attempts since 1989, production finally wrapped in June 2017.

The first location shoot (at the first production in August 2000) was at Bardenas Reales, a scenic, barren area near a military base north of Madrid, Spain. Fighter jets flew overhead repeatedly, ruining the audio and mandating post-production re-dubbing.

Jonathan Pryce's costume as Don Quixote is the one Jean Rochefort wore in the 2000 attempt, as seen in Lost in La Mancha. Carlo Poggioli, the assistant of Gabriella Pescucci, costume designer for the 2000 version, rediscovered it while browsing for costumes for an opera. Pescucci gave her blessing for the costume to finally be used in a film. In the end, Lena Mossum, costume designer for the new version, did some adjustments, and the costume fit Pryce perfectly.

It's the first Gilliam feature film shot digital. And the first shot with anamorphic lenses.

After 17 years, Terry Gilliam announced on Facebook that the film finally wrapped production on June 2017.

After their film "Lost in La Mancha", chronicling the failed first attempt to produce "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" in 2000, the directors Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe came back to shoot a new making of for the new version of Terry Gilliam's legendary project. Their film will be called "He Dreams of Giants" and will favor a different approach than "Lost in La Mancha" by focusing more on Gilliam himself and the "internal struggle in an artist's mind".

Gilliam started working on the film in 1989, but was unable to secure funding until 1998 when it entered full pre-production with a budget of $32.1 million without American financing, with Jean Rochefort as Quixote, Johnny Depp as Toby Grisoni, a 21st-century marketing executive thrown back through time, and Vanessa Paradis as the female lead. Shooting began in 2000 in Navarre, but a significant number of difficulties such as sets and equipment destroyed by flooding, the departure of Rochefort due to illness, problems obtaining insurance for the production, and other financial difficulties led to a sudden suspension of the production and its subsequent cancellation. The original production was the subject of the documentary film Lost in La Mancha, which was intended to be a making-of but was released on its own in 2002. Gilliam made repeated attempts to relaunch production between 2005 and 2016, which included Robert Duvall, Michael Palin, and John Hurt as Quixote, and Depp, Ewan McGregor, Jack O'Connell, and Adam Driver as Grisoni. However, all ended up being cancelled for various reasons, such as failing to secure funds, Depp's busy schedule and eventual loss of interest in the project, and Hurt being diagnosed with the cancer that would eventually result in his death. After yet another failed attempt, it was unexpectedly reported in March 2017 that filming had finally started, with Driver still attached as Grisoni, Jonathan Pryce as Quixote, and Olga Kurylenko as the female lead. On 4 June Gilliam announced that the shooting of the film was complete, 17 years after it originally started.

In 2008, Michael Palin reportedly entered talks with Terry Gilliam to play Don Quixote.

In a 2014 television interview with France 2, Jean Rochefort, who was originally cast as Don Quixote, said about his stormy relationship with director Terry Gilliam, "I have no sympathy for him." Rochefort accused Gilliam of intentionally starving the horse used as Don Quixote's noble steed, Rossinante, for 40 days so it would look emaciated, and that the starving horse was then led around the set by dangling apples in front of its face. Rochefort also said that the horse died on set one day after he left the production. In a 2018 interview for the French magazine "L'Obs", Gilliam said he had nothing to do with the treatment of the horse and that the animal died long after filming was done. In Verloren in La Mancha (2002), the horse is still alive 2 days after Rochefort left (on the 6th day of shooting), filming scenes with Johnny Depp.

The film is dedicated to the memory of John Hurt and Jean Rochefort. Terry Gilliam had chosen both to play Don Quixote in past incarnations of this project, and both died before the film was completed.

It is widely recognized as one of the most infamous examples of development hell in film history. Gilliam tried to make the film many times over the span of 29 years.

The story was inspired by A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

Jonathan Pryce and Terry Gilliam have worked on several projects together. The most famous was Brazil (1985).

The best-known adaptation of Don Quixote is arguably the musical 'Man of La Mancha', which has been produced on stage with, among others, José Ferrer. One of the actors that Terry Gilliam considered for the role in this film was Gérard Depardieu who, like Ferrer, has also played Cyrano de Bergerac. Fittingly, Cyrano is at one point asked if he has read Don Quixote, to which he replies, "I've practically lived it!"

The film premiered on 19 May 2018, simultaneously acting as the closing film at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival and being released in French theaters.

After Paulo Branco's legal action aimed at the Cannes festival to prevent the screening of The Man who killed Don Quixote, the President and General Delegate of 2018 Cannes film festival openly criticized the Portuguese producer in a joint statement. The press release issued on April 30th 2018 states that "Mr Branco has allowed his lawyer to use intimidation and defamatory statements, as derisory as they are ridiculous, one of which targets the former President of an event which he has made use of throughout his career to establish his own reputation." and goes as far as describing Branco as "a producer who has shown his true colors once and for all during this episode and who has threatened us, via his lawyer, with a "humiliating defeat"." In a following statement on May 10th, they criticized again Branco's "slanderous attacks and lies" after the French court dismissed his request to ban Terry Gilliam's film from being screened as the closing film of the festival.

In an interview for french radio France Culture in 2003, Jean Rochefort revealed that Terry Gilliam said that he'd ask him for approval for any actor that he would cast as Quixote in replacement of the french actor. Although he felt grateful for Gilliam's attention, Rochefort said he would never dare use such "power".

The movie is loosely based on the 1605 novel 'Don Quixote' by Miguel de Cervantes y Saavedra.

The squatting person depicted on the pre-production art announcing the film holds a significant similarity to the artwork 'Boy', a giant sculpture made by Australian artist Ron Mueck and exhibited at ARoS Art Museum in Aarhus, Denmark.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Kazimi
    Not a masterpiece, not a disaster, The man who killed Don Quixote has the qualities and faults of what it is, that is to say, basically, a film for one spectator only : Terry Gilliam himself. Announcing its legend in the opening credits, the film takes pleasure in referring quite openly to the misadventures of Lost in La Mancha, most often through lines put in the mouth of the producer played by Stellan Skarsgard. These winks would be at best anecdotic, at worst narcissistic, if we didn't realize little by little that, we are in the presence of a true cinematic exorcism. Exorcism of this damned project, certainly. Exorcism also, through the character of Toby, of what Gilliam could have become if he had listened to the sirens of advertising and had become a soulless hack. Exorcism finally, and this is the most touching, of what Gilliam is afraid of becoming (and that he may have already become for some), that is to say an old fool who no longer interests anyone, an old dreamer in a materialistic world, a relic from another time, mocked and ridiculed. Thus, despite all its failures (problems of rhythm, lack of breath due to lack of money, episodic structure that works randomly and unfortunately makes Quixote disappear many times), we can only admire this film which bears on its face its testamentary dimension. Transmission, summary of a life, return on his youth, everything is there. Gilliam is Quixote, Gilliam is Toby, Gilliam will die but Gilliam is immortal since his dreams are forever with us on film. This is the bittersweet and somewhat crazy statement of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, a film about films, a story about stories, an endless dream.
  • comment
    • Author: Whitebinder
    Maybe it helps to be familiar with Terry Gilliam's canon of work. But as a whole The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is a multi-layered story of the Ages of Man. The Dreamer and the Raconteur living in parallel lives.

    What's fascinating is how the meanings of each of the characters and their story arcs fold into each other from the director, Terry Gilliam's own life to Adam Driver, playing a Gilliam figure all the way to Jonathan Pryce's man who's seemingly lost his mind. Part of me wonders how much of this is a farcical documentary or auto-biography.

    Still as heady as it can be it still entertains. The acting is great, the characters are fully realized and the settings, cinematography and production design are signature styles of Gilliam: hand-crafted to bend to the will of his vision...as mad as it may be.

    This is not a run-of-the-mill linear movie. It's not a popcorn flick. There's a lot to interpret and involve the audience so, don't expect instant gratification. To a lot of reviewers it seems they were overwhelmed by an unclear story. Which that may be true for those who don't want to be involved in the story. It asks a bit of self-reflection, it asks a bit of trust that the characters, working on several levels of psychosis, dreams, hallucinations and madness will all come to a natural conclusion in their story arcs and bring the global story of the film into one single point of focus:

    We all had dreams once and we got lost. We may remember those dreams in our middle-age and yet in our old age we may become consumed by the dream to point of dreaming of our own existence.

    If you like BRAZIL or THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS you will like this film.
  • comment
    • Author: Zeueli
    As humans, we create stories to represent ourselves, and to grasp the world that we don't understand. Arguably everything that we call art is in the end some sort of narrative, some system created to explain aspects that we didn't understand. Those stories are abstractions, a simplification that we use to reach deeper, to make order out of the apparent chaos.

    At the end of the 16th century, a growing number of european unrelated artists were working on novel revolutionary ways to represent ourselves, changing how we explain who we are and actually changing thus "who" we are. Cervantes, Shakespeare, Velázquez, and others, were giving us new modes of abstraction, new modes of (self) presentation. Mirrors.

    Quixote is all about that. A story about someone who creates himself based on other stories. A character who wipes the definition of reality by merging it with his own reality, co created by him and all the other storytellers who created the stories that drove him to his paralell reality. Then, the confrontation of his invented world with the reality of the world that surrounds me - the common depiction of this is having the "real" world take Quixote as "crazy". That's an extra simplification, an extra abstraction. Irony.

    Cinema could be in theory a fine medium to translate Quixote into, and that has been tried a lot of times. Now we have this Gilliam attempt, and the layers of this project, its own story, add a bit more to the excitment of Cervantes. Some information is required:

    Gilliam had tried to do this project before. It failed for a number of pedestrian reasons. That failed project has a story of its own, and generated a film about its (attempted) making. Now he completes it, and the synopsis could go like this:

    A filmmaker (Gilliam) is making a film, based on Quixote, after having failed to do it 16 years ago (we are one layer deep from reality). This new film is about a filmmaker (Toby) who is doing a commercial film of Quixote in Spain (film within a film, 2 layers deep). We learn that the first images we see are actually part of a film within by a breaking of the 4th wall Truffaut style. Toby had done a student version of Quixote 10 years before, and that film sort of magically pops back in his life. He watches this other Quixote versions, we get glimpses of it (another film within the film, still 2 layers deep but paralell to the other film). As Toby visits the village where he had made that student film, he finds out that film affected the reality of all the people involved in it: the actor from Quixote believes himself to BE Quixote, Toby's girl/lover had her life pretty much destroyed by having done the film, and so on. This new discovered reality, provoked by Toby's student film, invades the reality of Toby's life, and he is literally taken into the old film (he rediscovers the old actor/Quixote watching his film) and mistaken by Sancho. After this we see the unfolding of superficially Fellini inspired episodes, of reality blurred layers, plays on "what's real", and a Wellesian party on a remarkable building, near the end (more on that soon). In doing that, Gilliam uses a bunch of tricks, some well used, some not so. None of them is completely novel, i think. So we have bits of self-reference, such as when Toby literally removes english language subtitles from the screen. In one scene he claims to have written the lines that Quixote is telling him (that one is masterful as dialogue serving the concept).

    The gypsy who give Toby the dvd and keeps coming up is a fundamental character. A wizard of sorts, i believe a kind of surrogate to Cervantes on screen, a master puppeteer who manipulates and drives the narrative, all the way to the end. That's a genius character.

    I appreciate that Gilliam is a risk taker. This is a crazy imperfect film, which has some beautiful images. What I think Gilliam did well was to place the reluctant Sancho/Toby as a film director, and apparently the one through whose eyes we watch the story. That is self-referential in the way Cervantes conceived it, i think. So many people have misunderstood Sancho as some sort of "comic sidekick", the validation of Quixote's madness, and so on. But he is in fact the holder of the keys of paradise, the man who chooses to go mad, the character who sees both realities, and chooses to be in both almost always at the same time. He is one of the most powerful fiction characters ever, he is all of us at some moment of our lives, and he truly is the best character of Cervantes, and i believe the one where Cervantes projected his own self more clearly. In the original Gilliam project, Depp was going to play the part. Oh I wish he had... That's my personal film. Watching this new version i was simply imagining how Depp would handle the shifting between realities, between layers of fantasy. Driver is not quite up to the part. Pitty...

    I also don't understand why he had to channel the representation of Spain as a "Carmenesque" world. Carmen is after all a collection of spanish (mostly andalusian) clichés filtered through the eyes of a frenchman. They became popular in Europe inthe 19th century and still represent the images that most people associate with the meaningless concept of "spain" (bullfight, hot tempered love, sun, harshness and a certain concept of tragic fate). It is sadly ironic that Gilliam, who has some nice visual intuitions, and solid storytelling complex concepts fell into this so easily avoidable trap. I suppose this won't be such a problem for someone who doesn't now Spain, or watched it only through a touristic gaze (which is shamelessly sponsored by the very spanish government in their promotion of the country).

    Visually, he mixes his own well established style, the odd wide angles (often wellesian) with the by now required standard Quixote scenery... that thing about a guy in a horse and another in a mule riding the desert against sun light. But than he brings for his delirious climax his architectural eye, and that's what grabbed me more:

    Our characters are taken to an obnoxious russian millionaire's palace. The event is a masquerade ball (Arkadin style), where pretending to be Quixote won't apparently seem so crazy. That palace is a remarkable building. It's a convent and church, in Portugal, built across several centuries, with many of our best architects from each time participating in it. It is a collage of styles, each one integrating in the whole while retaining its own character. He films mostly the central church, a Templary octogonal church, a mystical powerful space, dynamic in that it invites moving around it; and 2 of the four big cloisters. The whole place has always been the center of strong spiritual representations that predate Christianity in Portugal, and it still retains its power. I'm thankful that one of the great film architects that we have got to film it. This is probably the second best use of portuguese architecture in cinema, after Welles filmed his Othello's "sauna scene" in a magical light portuguese cistern in Morocco.

    Anyway Gilliam opposes openness (desert, big landscapes, etc.) to the tragedy of the architectural space, where the most intense plot points happen. First the humilliation and breaking of Quixote's fantasy (check how that is ostensibly show as a film set, with visible lights, artificial props, SD indications, etc.). And than, the inevitable death of Quixote. We close our final (circular) narrative layer here: the shattered Toby, who killed Quixote, assumes his invented reality, and becomes Quixote himself, with his lover as Sancho. They ride with the former Quixote's body to bury him, and the meet the giants that Gilliam had shot for his first failed attempt. We actually see the test footage he had made. We are left there, with our Toby turned Sancho turned Quixote literally entering the film that Gilliam never made. That was masterful.

    I will choose Welles and Fellini over Gilliam. This is a flawed uncontrolled film. But Gilliam is all about that: letting his intuition (mostly visual) contaminate all the rest. I respect him. Watch this, but consider all the layers. It will make it richer, i think.
  • comment
    • Author: Froststalker
    It is worth nothing that while I am no great fan of Gilliam's more outrageous works, I do appreciate that there is something special about those very Gilliamesque films. And there are certainly flashes of that auteur level work evident here.

    There are also plenty of those elements that make his more commercial pieces effective.

    Just somewhere along the line it doesn't all hang together. I understand the premise but it just seems to be scattered throughout the film without any sort of consistency.

    Towards the end as the camera work reaches sea-sickening levels randomness it seems to lose faith in both the story and characters and tries to right itself by taking a random leap out of its own confusing narrative and into an outtake from Baron Munchhausen in order to get to a forced conclusion that it hasn't earned.
  • comment
    • Author: Levion
    Terry Gilliam has battled long and hard to make this film. I for one and grateful he persevered. It is not only beautiful to look at, but is at times funny, at times surreal, at times touching, at times dreamlike, but at all times involving of both the brains and hearts of the audience. Adam Driver is the Hollywood brat given a huge budget to make a movie about Don Quixote in Spain. One day he realised that he close to the village where he made his student version of the story, using locals. Curiosity gets the better of him when he sees a sign pointing the way to Don Quixote and discovers the man he cast in his student film has since stopped being a cobbler but believes himself to be the real Don Quixote. When the brat frees him from the prison his wife has him locked up in as a tourist exhibit, they embark on a series of adventures that mix up dreams and reality, and show the young man the damage he inflicted on those he used in his student film. The dreams and reality seamlessly overlap and provide the audience with non stop inclusion in what is going on. I absolutely adored this film, and went back to see it a second time only a few days later, knowing I will have missed a lot first time around, so full of images and colour and character that it is. Bravo Terry! And thank you.
  • comment
    • Author: Jwalextell
    This is the shambling zombie godfather of all vanity projects, and a living testament to the notion that true magnum opus just can't be forced into existence, although a creative mind should always aim for his/her best.

    Terry Gilliam tried to pull this project together for 29 (!) years, and while he succeeded in finally finishing and releasing it, the result sucks so hard that it took me considerable strength to just stay with it for more than 10 minutes.

    The "Monty Python" legend - director and one of the two screenwriters of this misfire - has given life to his fair share of interesting movies. But none of them were released during current century, and this is definitely the new all-time low.

    The best that can be said about the movie is that it's a sad, sad example of how people sometimes refuse to let go things that are clearly failing.

    It is not mediocre or unpolished diamond in search of a better form. The movie just doesn't work, on any level - and to add insult to the injury, it looks and feels cheap and outdated, as if done ages ago and then forgotten until now.

    The result is purposeless, obscure, dull, and way too long. And the limp, graceless attempts at humor are too obvious to be funny. I didn't even smile once.

    In Gilliam's head, the concept for all this surely must have sounded intriguing. The blending of real life and fantasy, magic and mundane, literature and popculture, drama and comedy - what could go wrong, right? Well, almost everything as evidenced here.

    There is no emotion, no proper story - only outlines of it - or fleshed-out characters.

    To put it bluntly, "Don Quixote" is filled with cartoonish situations supposed to feel wacky and funny, and people used as pawns to move the scenes along, more decorations than real figures that we could somehow relate to.

    We have some interesting actors here - Adam Driver, Stellan Skarsgård, Jonathan Price - but they are not able to compensate for the material's obvious lack of wit and charm.

    Like many failed comedies, the result might have worked as a sketch - or series of sketches -, but not as a coherent stroy lasting over two hours.

    Actually, "Don Quixote" does not really work even in short doses. It takes about 45 minutes to see the first moments hinting at the creative chaos Gilliam has aimed at, but the content is never inspired enough to lift the veil of dullness and detachment which covers everything as a shroud.

    Whoever's interested in this is probably better off just reading about the making of it, which is said to be one of the most cursed film projects in history.

    By the way, Gilliam's old "Monty Python"-era colleague and co-fighter Terry Jones' latest is almost equally terrible and unfunny.

    But compared to current fiasco, 2015's "Absolutely Anything" at least resembles a professionally put together movie.
  • comment
    • Author: Dianalmeena
    If you know the story of Don Quixote, the Man from LaMancha you will find this film to be very clever in its layering of the original tale intertwined with a new tale that is infused about a narcissistic director (Adam Driver) who has lost his creative mojo whilst filming a feature film about Don Quixote in Spain. True to its original intent, it is a hybrid of reality and fantasy with the cruelties of the world as a backdrop to what could be with a touch of madness. It has much to say about youthful and brave creativity, and the artistic freedom that comes from true independence and the necessity of reframing your reality to match your circumstance. Love, passion, friendship, empathy, and generosity of spirit are explored in a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition. The jailhouse sequences are sublime in their mash up of real and unreal. It is a clever, witty and multilayered script with much for the literate fan to digest and plenty for newcomers to the tale to learn. Jonathan Price is perfect as Don Quixote and Adam Driver manages to deliver skepticism, narcissism and empathy along an increasingly complex tightrope with ease. The script is a marvel and the directing and edit are to be applauded. I don't know what the film offers people unfamiliar with the original story- but as I've been waiting for many years to see this film I can say it does not disappoint, I'll be thinking about it for a long, long time. Well done Terry Gillem
  • comment
    • Author: Qulcelat
    It's interesting to say the least. At first it might seem to be heading in a quite weird direction and be somewhat crazy, but then you'll understand it is going in a great direction and it's totally crazy! Maintains the themes of magic, illusionment and disillusionment very well and has that great sense of humor only Gilliam seems to manage. Jonathan Pryce is amazing as the Don! Wonderful movie!
  • comment
    • Author: Owomed
    Gilliam's passion project sums up much of his filmography: it conveys almost all of the director's rs recurring tropes, themes and elements. It isn't an easy-to-enjoy film (mostly due to Gilliam's style), nonetheless an interesting film to watch, if not for else, because of its cursed fame.

    Don Quixote is mainly about human madness, a theme Gilliam also explored in 'The Fisher King' and in 'Twelve Monkeys', two films from the time when the director started developing this movie. As for visuals, style, and the overwhelming sense of chaos that the third act conveys, it reminds of 'The Brothers Grimm' and more in particular of 'The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus', (coincidentally two films that also had, on lower scale, a troubled production). 'The Zero Theorem' and 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' are the only Gilliam films I found to be devoid of any direct connection with Don Quixote.

    Adam Driver and Jonathan Pryce pull off memorable performances. I was pretty sure about Pryce succeeding, but didn't expect Driver to be this good, especially towards the end.

    Frankly, I think this film was a bit underrated. It's true that Gilliam's post-'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' generally had little critical acclaim, but I personally couldn't find anything to complain about, or better, I couldn't find anything arguable that isn't a recurring element in Gilliam's cinema: a chaotic third act, a bittersweet ending, and so on. I enjoyed watching Don Quixote, but I can imagine most of the viewers to find it either uninteresting, dull, chaotic or 'pretentious'.

    Don Quixote might be Gilliam's last film. With 'The Zero Theorem' he closed his dystopia Sci-fi trilogy, now he has finally finished the film he probably was most eager to complete, so it seems to me that there are no narratives left that he intends to explore. Let's just hope that I am wrong, and Gilliam will be doing another half-dozen of movies, but otherwise, Don Quixote is the perfect conclusive film for his career. Maybe it's not his best or easier to appreciate, but definitely it is his most representative one.
  • comment
    • Author: Togor
    I'm a long term fan of Gilliam's work but this is nowhere near the quality we as fans expect. The film makes no sense. The actors try hard with what they're given but the story is poorly written, the swap between reality and fantasy is so minor and irrelevant that you hardly notice it - the way this was promoted I was expecting transitions the like of my favourite Gilliam film Brazil but this is so far away from a Brazil that it's hard to believe it was made by the same film maker. In conclusion, I'm sorry Terry but this is utter toss.
  • comment
    • Author: Yalone
    Totally bonkers, dreamlike, vintage Gilliam and in the end even Lynchian weird. When it works it's brilliant, when it doesn't, it's baffling and sometimes boring. But even when the script doesn't work, the movie is saved by the incredible cast. It's among both Adam Driver's and Jonathan Pryce best work. Also, I'm in love with Joana Ribeiro.
  • comment
    • Author: Axebourne
    There are those who have a deep desire to see beauty and even be part of it. There are also those who are on moral quests. There are people who are excited by the imaginative. If this is you this movie may turn out to be a favorite of yours. The movie is not a retelling of the Don Quixote novel. It's a variation on the themes, the landscapes, the yearnings and other ingredients in the original Spanish source (Cervantes). Universal ideas and conflicts from it are reworked and put in different contexts. Gilliam's best for a long time? We'll see. I would say that it's loftier than he's gone before (but with some low comic touches for sure). There are many storyline twists in 'The Man Who Killed Don Quixote.' In addition, the movie business is satirized (sometimes with a feather, sometimes with a hammer). As for the locations: Gilliam has chosen them with great care; the cinematography does not let his gorgeous choices down. The directing, acting and music are superb. To date, (for me anyway) these are the most memorable film performances by Jonathan Pryce, Adam Driver, and some others in the cast. Pryce is eloquent but above all touching; Driver is perfect as the freaked-out guy who needs to escape the mess. Other characters/actors give me the creeps or fill me with praise for their spot-on nasty or nice performances.
  • comment
    • Author: Tiv
    17 Million was that just because a few notable stars were in it? Terry, do 12 Monkeys 2 - you would make the money back burnt on this travesty.
  • comment
    • Author: Foiuost
    This guy has made 3 of my favourite films ever in 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Brazil, as well as a host of other great films such as Fisher King, Baron Munchausen and the Monty Python stuff, so needless to say I'm a massive fan. Unfortunately that means I came to this movie with high expectations. A lot of the typical Gilliam traits are here, but unlike many of his older films the cinematography and production values are pretty mediocre, the pacing is off, scenes seem to over extend and the shifts between reality and imagination seem, well, cheap, as were the rather inappropriate jumps in location between green hills and desert.

    What bothered me most of all though was the language inauthenticity - Jonathan Pryce in particular was a really bad casting choice to play a Spaniard, he clearly could barely speak Spanish if at all, and couldn't even pull off a decent Spanish accent when speaking English. Why not cast a Spaniard, or a Latin American who can do a passable Spanish accent? He's the most prominent but not the only such example in the film, and scenes between native Spaniards speaking in English to each other also made little sense.

    There were of course positives, as in every Terry Gilliam movie - visually the movie gets much better once they get to the final act in an old castle setting, and some of the casting choices (e.g. Driver, Skarsgard and Ribeiro) were good. And the same old Gilliamish odes to imagination, innocence and the belief than anything is possible (even when it isn't) never truly get old. But due to the aforementioned issues the emotional impact just wasn't as strong as it could and should have been.
  • comment
    • Author: Skunk Black
    Why Don Quixote? Why today?

    Gilliam answers brilliantly.

    Because cheap factory-churned romance still exists, and it deserves equal parts love and parodic rebuke. Because the Inquisition still exists. It's called ICE in America, or the Spanish national police evicting undocumented migrants from their already precarious homes. Because the duke in his castle still exists. He is a Russian magnate that has bought up entire hamlets in southern Spain; he is Putin and Weinstein and Trump rolled into one. Because there are many young women in the "me too" world world for whom the justice these dukes have to offer means exactly nothing.

    More than a personal obsession, beyond the self-deprecating and amusing meta-fiction and self-referentiality, this is a movie, much like the notoriously difficult to film source material, about the value of anachronism. About the value of allegedly bygone ideals and ethical principles in a world that too often seems to say to want to be 'over' them. A "post"-modern reflection on the contested value of prefixes. Is Don Quioxote really so old and out of place in our 21st century, as he already was for the 17th century, that we should want to throw him out like last year's iPhone?

    The fact that there are still inquisitions and galley slavers alive and well today may make us think twice. That the very idea of "justice for the downtrodden" should be called anachronistic by so many may make us think twice.

    The making of the film itself became something of a quixotic enterprise, and that itself seems poetic. In perfect resonance with the source material, which much like Gilliam's film, also happened to be made at a time of incredible violence and censorship toward the most vulnerable among us.

    The film can seem opaque at times to those who have not followed Gilliam's exploits or read Cervantes' classic. But being an unapologetic fan of the second, I can confidently say this is an act of careful reading and imaginative reinterpretation for our precarious present: the only kind of reading that matters in the end.

    Rest easy, Mr. Gilliam. You did good.
  • comment
    • Author: Мох
    Wonderful beginning with beautiful setting, powerful cast, captivating connection with the classical story and then later on lost in script. What was the aim? Total confusion related to scenario, unnecessary, absurd and long dialogues to make even time to time talented artists acting like in a primary school show. What a waste.
  • comment
    • Author: Cildorais
    Let me start by stealing a line from another review: "Quixote reminds us of the romantic ideal that the world needs dreamers who dare to defy convention. "

    Terry Gilliam has always been that dreamer. And so have I. And that's why this movie made me sad. It's both an ode and a swansong to the world of dreamers. Moving along the same lines as the fantastical Baron Munchausen or the embellishing of Tim Burton's Big Fish, Don Quixote mixes fantasy with reality, fiction with fact and gives both hope and warning to dreamers in this world.

    It's not without its flaws. But reality never is.
  • comment
    • Author: Gaudiker
    Y es que es uno de los directores que más se está cayendo en su oficio. La película es un caos total en el que nada tiene sentido. Sus películas suelen ser muy especiales y estar muy retorcidas pero tienen alguna lógica. En este caso no hay lógica en nada. Cada situación se vuelve loca. Es una suma de cosas incoherentes.

    Los actores no es que estén mal. Es que están peor. Salvo Jonathan Pryce que esta formidable, los demás no hay quien se los crea. Muchos están sobre actuados.

    Tiene una iluminación que no puede ser peor. Creo que no se han gastado ni un duro en un foco, pero es que luego en postpo tampoco han empleado un segundo en mejorarlo.

    El director, que siempre hace locuras en sus películas pero siempre se caracteriza por colocar la cámara de una manera estupenda para narrar la película. En este caso, no he visto un plano típico suyo. Ha alargado la película hasta el infinito. Aburre a todo el mundo. No sabe dirigir a los actores.

    La decoración, el maquillaje la peluquería, están tan mal, que no te crees nada. Es como ir a un sitio estupendo y no hacer nada creíble. Todo se ve que es un decorado para una película.

    Que perdida para el cine de este gran director.

    And it is that he is one of the directors that is more falling in his office. The movie is total chaos in which nothing makes sense. His films are usually very special and very twisted but they have some logic. In this case there is no logic in anything. Every situation goes crazy. It is a sum of incoherent things.

    The actors are not that they are wrong. It is that they are worse. Except Jonathan Pryce that is formidable, others there is no one who creates them. Many are over actuated.

    It has a lighting that can not be worse. I do not think a hard one has been spent on a focus, but then in postpo they have not used a second to improve it either.

    The director, who always does crazy things in his films but is always characterized by placing the camera in a great way to narrate the movie. In this case, I have not seen a typical plane of yours. He has lengthened the film to infinity. It bores the whole world. He does not know how to direct the actors.

    The decoration, the make-up, the hairdresser, are so bad, that you do not believe anything. It's like going to a great place and not doing anything credible. Everything is seen to be a set for a movie.

    What a loss for the cinema of this great director
  • comment
    • Author: Mataxe
    I saw this as a surprise screening just now and when the name Terry Gilliam popped up everyone was really happy and excited about what we were about to witness. Unfortunately the movie - ambitious as the idea might be, paying hommage to Don Quixote placing it in a real contemporary setting - it was a chaotic and upsetting disaster with me at times feeling embarrassed for the awful lines "f**k you! Alexey is the only one who does that!" and being incredibly bored inbeetween. Can't believe Adam Driver gave himself for that. This is no Brazil, it's confusingly bad and written to hurt you! Ok the costumes are cool but that doesn't save it.. Stay away!
  • comment
    • Author: Redfury
    This movie was shown to us as sneak preview. The problem was that the movie in total is a complete chaos. You recognize that the Regisseur tried to create a movie which shows more than the present but also the past and the impact of the decisions of the past, but the movie is in total not good. The cast tried to rescue as much as possible, but after long 130 minutes there remains nothing which is mentionable.
  • comment
    • Author: Elizabeth
    This review comes from a 40 year old male that's generally appreciative towards movies, both for their stories and production quality; from someone that goes to the cinema approx 45-50 times a year, at least for the past 4-5 years. Now, I've seen some bad movies, but this one takes the cake as an utter waste of time. The cast performed admirably, the cinematography was really good, but the story is just shambles. As someone else said, it's not even worth checking out how bad this movie is.
  • comment
    • Author: Tygokasa
    I sat down for a full evening of wholesale masochism watching this Crime Against Humanity followed by Lars von Trier's even WORSE The House That Jack Built and am continually reminded of the (paraphrased) line "the mightier you are, the further you fall" (Mel Brooks' abrupt 360 from Genius to APPALLING right after Blazing Saddles comes to mind). I understand 'challenging' your audience but Terry's output since I'd say Brothers Grimm (VERY grim) has been literally unwatchable - this from a true master that created the likes of Brazil & 12 Monkeys. What a rambling, chaotic, autopilot CATASTROPHE this is - it's as if a junior high class of halfwits got together to remake The Fisher King (the 'tragic hero' dreamers theme, yada yada) and failed, HORRIBLY. Adam Driver's manic persona - stuck at '11' throughout - became extremely grating after about 5 minutes' screen time, typically brilliant Jonathan Pryce was pitiful, Terry's penchant for 'the grotesques' was on full display but NO exposition on the introduction of characters and/or any discernible PLOT - just one shambolic, desperate episode after another, NONE of which elicited anything but groans. At least Stellan Skarsgaard was his usual hilarious self with the bit part he was given. Avoid at ALL costs. Time to retire, Terry, you've done nothing but embarrass yourself and INSULT your fan-base for decades now (Fear & Loathing was his last true masterpiece me thinks). I recommend watching the BRILLIANT 2002 documentary ABOUT the torturous and tortuous never-made production of Quixote: Lost in La Mancha - bad luck of BIBLICAL proportions.
  • comment
    • Author: Clodebd
    In the history of the world literature there not a lot of works that can be regarded as magnus opus of an author. I mean now just life lasting huge in volume piece of writing, but a book, you touch once and "life will never be the same". Plato, Aristotle, Marcel Proust are coming to my mind.

    Don Quixote stands separately. It if undoubtedly magnus opus pf the whole Spain and Spanish literature. Don Quixote was heavily interpreted by philosophers, artists, novelists etc - Ortega, Unamuno - the most impressive among them.

    You have to be prepared to encounter Don Quixote in you life either via original book or mediation or movie. Be careful - Don Quixote undoubtedly will leave trace in your soul.

    Really great movie where director has attempted to reveal to the screen this complex, multi layer correlation between Don Quixote and the world, between reality and allusions, between you and me, between humdrum reality & a dream that can come true.

    I like movies, where you feel like in a boat on a river riding towards unforgettable experience. In case of Terry Gilliam's film you not just float, from time to time you lose the sense of reality, you become absolutely engaged in the events happening in the movie without being confident where are you and what the f..k in happening :)

    Great work, liked it very much!
  • comment
    • Author: WOGY
    Why, Terry? Why? Should have just left it at the documentary of the unmade movie. It was a good, memorable cult piece. This is just tragic.
  • comment
    • Author: Laitchai
    Absolutely brilliant: story, sets, actors - flawless each one of them. Thank you for this gem! "When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams - this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness - and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!" Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quixote
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    José Luis Ferrer José Luis Ferrer - Don Quixote (commercial)
    Ismael Fritschi Ismael Fritschi - Sancho Panza (commercial) (as Ismael Fritzi)
    Juan López-Tagle Juan López-Tagle - Spanish Propman (as Juan López Tagle)
    Adam Driver Adam Driver - Toby
    William Miller William Miller - 1st AD - Bill
    Will Keen Will Keen - Producer
    Jason Watkins Jason Watkins - Rupert
    Paloma Bloyd Paloma Bloyd - Melissa
    Óscar Jaenada Óscar Jaenada - Gypsy
    Sonia Franco Sonia Franco - Flamenco Dancer
    José Aser Giménez José Aser Giménez - Flamenco Guitarist
    José Antonio Fernández José Antonio Fernández - Flamenco Percussionist
    Viveka Rytzner Viveka Rytzner - Junior Creative
    Alberto Jo Lee Alberto Jo Lee - Chinese Translator / Creative Creep
    Bruno Sevilla Bruno Sevilla - Client Rep
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com