The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

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.

source: The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

source: The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

At 1:22:30, the protagonist, Toby, utters this line. So I did stop the film, made a sandwich and cup of tea, then decided to watch to the end, which didn't come soon enough. As visual art, the film is superb. But as a story, it is confusing. With all its bizarre references self-reflexivity, the central story becomes a side plot. It was visually beautiful, well-acted, great costumes and music, but thoroughly disjointed and confusing for much of the time. It had me thinking "this movie wasn't made for an audience".

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.