The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

Driver is great, Pryce is even better&the way the movie blends the story of the book into its narrative is fun, vibrant. But in the end feels like Gilliam ran out of steam for freshness, his themes coming through like a muted version of himself.constantly feels as though it might break out of this haze into something bright and glorious, but even running over two hours it never does. I'm left merely satisfied at a new Gilliam, and eagerly yearning to rewatch Baron Munchausen as soon as possible

If the original Don Quixote is a criticism of chivalry, Gilliam's meta-adaptation could be considered a criticism of inspiration. The plot is tangential to the novel, though focused on Driver's Sancho as he loses his grip on reality. Visually one of Gilliam's cleanest films, though his chaotic tendencies shine through into the narrative. The film touches on retrospection and identity, but never comes together. Worth watching for Pryce and Driver’s performances, with plenty of comedy therein.

I enjoyed this crazy mess of a movie. Jonathan Pryce was very entertaining as the old shoemaker turned delusional Don Quixote. It was also very amusing to watch Adam Driver. There were also a few very beautiful women. The story is wacky and weird but also unexpected and fun. I got several big laughs from a few of the priceless moments. Humorous, smart, unique and well worth watching.

Oh boy. I guess this was made to be a movie about dreams, what we make of them and what they make with us. The movie itself is probably Gilliam's greatest dream. But it's a mess, even though an interesting one. Sometimes it tries to go everywhere but goes nowhere. It feels uneven all the time with being slow at one moment and being hysteric at the next. And what about the horrendous depiction of women and the half ass jokes about muslims? That's just weak.

One wonders what Gilliam's Quixote might have been had he been successful in making it all those years ago, with Rochefort and Depp and Paradis. I expected more, as I'm sure most fans did. Still, for an underproduced, marginally coherent mess, it has much of Gilliam's quirky charm and sense of wonder. It's inspired despite the lacking premise and structure. I can't imagine anyone else making something quite like this.

A wild foray in Gilliam's imagination in a classic, but just a tad forced effort in what is a film that - for better or for worse - is evident he very much wanted to complete. Don't take me wrong - Don Quixote is a top form of entertainment, with Pryce and Driver providing a great synthesis and antithesis to each other, both equally thrilling. The plot progresses to a somewhat expected nonsensical bit of madness which didn't feel firmly linked with the overall direction, however. /c G8 Cinema

JONATHAN PRYCE

Unlike some, I think this was one of Gilliam's movies that did come together well. The shots were designed with attention and realized competently, with top-notch photography. You laugh, you feel sad, you remember loss, and you remember your dreams. Thank you, Terry.

Fool me twice shame on me, I still didn't see the Spanish Inquisition coming. Driver and Pryce are entertaining but the story doesn't come together all that well. It tacks closely to the modes of Gilliam's earlier work, between the LARPing of Holy Grail and literal time travel of Time Bandits. Development hell adds pinch of a meta to the preoccupation with the past. Great characters are eternal, born again in iteration.

Gilliam's tenacity is admirable, but he really should have resisted his compulsion to make it. Budgetary constraints forced him to make wrongheaded changes, such as the modern world setting, which adds a rather mundane dimension to its 'mythical' existence. Pryce gives it his all, but Gilliam/Grisoni's script betrays him at every turn.The Fellini comparisons are off because, even at his most unwieldy, he came up with memorable scenes to compensate for any narrative sluggishness. Gilliam is done.

Exceedingly post modern.

For a movie so long in the making, it was surprisingly good still. Especially the first half is very entertaining. The plot does fall apart a bit in the last half. Pryce is fabulous as the old guy who really thinks he's Don Quixote and Driver deadpan style is the perfect counter for that.

I've no idea what I was expecting. And I wasn't disappointed. It's weird. It's bizarre. It's Adam Driver being Sancho Panza and somehow it works and he owns it. This film is... it is. Just watch it. Be naive, be ready to be surprised, accept you'll never control anything and be pleased with that.

A bit uneven, especially towards the end, but still so delightfully Gilliam that I couldn't help but enjoy it.

Not worth waiting for.

One more masterpiece from Gilliam. He built bridges between best and most influential book of all times and current postmodern world. Of course it is not easy to get all the references behind traditional Gilliam-style visual carnival, but content and quality-wise this work stands near Fisher King and Tideland for me.

I tend to like messy movies because there's some raw untapped energy to them or daring imagery but this one.. ain't good. A lot of the ideas don't stick or give way to anything beautiful, which is too bad, because there are moments where the satire actually works, a lot due to Driver and Pryce performances and production design. At least Gilliam got it out of his system

Given its troubled history, the subject matter feels very apt. A film about art, lost passion, identity; it's delightfully meta, & that alone scores in its favour. Alas, while I'd love to say it's a masterpiece, that it was all worth it, the reality is that Gilliam's labour of love is merely a labour of love; charming, admirable & not without merit, but ultimately unsatisfying, frequently awkward & messily executed. Aspects are enjoyable, fans should see it, but it's not all it should be.

Very much a Terry Gilliam film. Strange yet fun.

An interesting reimagining of a classic, executed with a degree of mediocrity.

Amazing acting. Too loose and floaty to hold my attention.

Driver and Pryce are great, but everything else is lost in Gilliam's confusing messy surrealist dreamscape. It's not as terrible as you would expect for a film locked in 25 years of production hell, but you would think that would have given Gilliam/Grisoni enough time to write a better screenplay. The movie is simply way too long and convoluted for its own good.

This is shockingly bad (perhaps not so shocking if you've watched a post-2000 Terry Gilliam film) and somewhat depressing given the amount of effort Gilliam has put into his Don Quixote project for two decades. Pryce is fantastic but everything else is so lackluster, especially Gilliam's old trademark senses of humor and wonder - the latter you can tell is impacted by budgetary concerns.

A bloated and and self-indulgent film from Gilliam, but as it's Gilliam it is at least highly entertaining. It's a lot of fun, with Driver (as Toby/Don) and Pryce (as Javier/Don) really going all in to realise Gilliam's dream.

Pryce is great and it's especially fun to watch Driver play the kind of sleazeball that you suspect he actually loathes in real life. But overall the movie is a big mess, more intent on copying the plot of Don Quixote than actually telling a worthwhile story.

This seems to be a random mixture of unconnected elements, not all of them good, but surprisingly manages to stay quite watchable. But once more I wish Gilliam would have given his DoP a few more liberties with the amazing props he had.

S

Has it's moments but mostly it's directionless. The biggest problem is the writing which is the one thing you shouldn't be able to blame on it 25 year production problems.

Gilliam going all-out on his long-awaited project, creating a surreal time-bending experience akin to the The Hourglass Sanatorium, but this ethereal nature alleviates all emotional connection - no tension, no empathy, no through-line (not to mention a lot of bad humour), everything good you want in a film is thrown up in the air. An experimental masturbation that's taken 25 years to make (it only takes me 25 minutes), this is a hopeless, frustrating, and shamefully disregarding waste of time.

For a few minutes I thought finally Gilliam made a good film after 20 years; only for a few minutes.

Brilliant in many ways, but is hurt by not going full Don-Qui on us.

okay movie

harika bir filmin tamamlanamayıp oradan buradan toparlanmaya çalışılmış parçaları gibi hissettiyor. bu sene hakkında neredeyse hiç konuşulmamış olması esasen beklenmediğinden mi yoksa filmin beklentilerin altında kalmasından mı kaynaklanıyor bilemiyorum ama bu darmadağın halde dahi gilliam şahane bir sinemacı olduğunu gösteriyor. yalnızca metaforlarına bu kadar yüklenip anlatının ruhunu kaybetmeseymiş, o bile derinliği olan seyirlikten daha yukarı taşırmış.

17. Filmekimi - Beyoğlu Sineması.

Gilliam has lost much of that visual magic that has always been his trademark and here he delivers a tepid version of the white whale that's eluded him for so long. It may be a combination of age, budget (this final version takes place entirely in the modern day, which is cheaper but also makes it a lot more mundane) and an understandable desire to just get this out of his system so he can move on. At any rate this isn't much fun, doesn't have much substance, and isn't really worth recommending.