Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

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.

TheLittleSongbird Man of La Mancha has often been on people's worst movie musicals list. Seeing it recently to see whether it was as bad as all that. After seeing it, it is a long way from great but it isn't as bad as I'd heard(Hair and Annie have also been maligned and are other movie musicals that are not that bad, I personally love Annie and have done since childhood). It is nowhere near as good as West Side Story, Beauty and the Beast, The Wizard of Oz, Singin' in the Rain, Mary Poppins, Fiddler on the Roof and The Sound of Music, but it is better than Xanadu, Can't Stop the Music, Mame, Grease 2, Across the Universe, The Wiz, A Little Night Music and A Chorus Line.Man of La Mancha is far from irredeemable. The best asset is the noble and commanding performance of Peter O'Toole, even if Golden Helmet is slightly overacted and his make-up is far too heavy-looking. Sophia Loren is breathtakingly beautiful, sassy and charming, and James Coco is fun and touching, his character is much more subtle here than in the stage musical. The "maddest of all..." dialogue is incredibly poignant as is the prison scene, the sets are striking and while only two or three are truly memorable(The Impossible Dream is rightfully a classic) the songs are very easy on the ear. Unfortunately The Man of Mancha has failings too. I'm going to have to agree about the singing, not only are the singers ill-suited for the songs but those who dub don't make much of an effort to sound like the actors.That is especially true of Simon Gilbert, an unsteady and underpowered voice that doesn't sound much like O'Toole's quite noble and baritone-like speaking voice. IMDb also seems to say that Ian Richardson did his own singing for the Padre, I'm not convinced, it may have been the case but Richardson's speaking voice isn't really that similar to the reedy sound heard with the singing. Loren took a brave risk singing her own songs but it is a risk that doesn't pay off, she sounds strained and while she does have some singing ability(Harry Andrews' singing was also rather limited) her range is too low for the songs she sings. Another problematic spot was Arthur Hiller's direction, the kind that doesn't have much of an idea in how to direct the film. Often it is rather heavy-handed, self-conscious and of the try-too-hard type.With the visual look, the sets are lovely but the photography could have done with a brighter and a more cinematic approach. There is not a fault to be had with the score and songs themselves, but in the film they seemed to have been under-scored and anaemic, more grandeur and sweep would have been more welcome. The film does deserve a little credit in trying to translate a big and quite difficult to stage already musical but it tries so hard that much of the dialogue lose their impact and the story loses momentum. Not all the support cast work, Ian Richardson is a sympathetic Padre but Brian Blessed's Pedro is wildly overplayed attired in a rather stereotypical costume.Overall, not as bad as touted to be from a personal opinion stand-point but the criticisms are understandable actually and even with things that were done quite well Man of La Mancha could have been far better considering the talent. 4/10 Bethany Cox

John Borg I recently viewed this film again, not having seen it since it was first released. Sadly, the disappointment I felt at first viewing hasn't changed much with the passing of time. I saw this show on stage many years ago and was charmed and captivated by it. I eagerly looked forward to the film version like many others no doubt. How can a film with such an enviable cast go so oddly wrong? I want to lay the blame at the director's feet but it's hard to be sure where the majority of blame lies. I suppose the concept perhaps was the director's but maybe it was the writers'. The film wants to open up and take us out of the stagy dungeon set but it only does so half heartedly so that we spend most of our time in a studio set of the inn. The cinematography is oddly dull and gritty even though it's the work of the justly famous Rotunno. And then there is the hideous make-up Peter O'Toole is obliged to wear throughout most of the film. And to get back to the cast again, although enviable the casting is far from ideal. Each actor seems to be in a different movie and acting in his or her own separate style so that in the end you don't get an ensemble you get a stew, and not a very tasty one. It would be a treat to see this musical done again set in a real Spain not just in Spanish clichés and with a really good cast of singer/actors. Perhaps, however, it is best to leave some stage pieces on stage.

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.

indy-39 Judging from the reviews here there are obviously two camps the reviews fall into- people who saw some production of the play on Broadway(as I did) and those who have not. The people who have are admittedly a little harsh on the film- i myself would never have actually watched more than twenty minutes of it had I not been recently been laid up for a week and a half in the hospital. I watched it to try and remember what it was about the story that I loved so much when I was young impressionable boy. While the film did allow me to recall what it was that grabbed me so long ago- it has a gigantic obvious flaw. I always felt that of all the musicals that benefited from the immediacy of the theater-La Mancha was at the top of my list. It was magical and otherworldly and yet I suspended my disbelief readily and was swept away by the story and songs. The films big flaw, to me, is that it's "flat" and never really comes alive- I can live with bad-dubbed singing or miscast performers- but a flat LaMancha makes for a hard recommend. The question then becomes: Is it better for someone not to ever see it at all if this is their only alternative? Very tough call. It might be best to wait for a new production- it depends on if you're the kind of person who can have an inferior production ruin a better one that awaits down the road. The people who have never seen this done well on stage don't know what they're missing- sadly. But it's not as tragic as Camelot the film with Richard Harris as compared to Camelot on-stage with Richard Burton- when I think of it I could actually weep- there is no way to rescue the play without him. Lamancha is a play best seen in person, I think.