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.

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.

stevenmbl In 1972, I was 6 years old when I saw the movie version of the show. At that time I was absolutely enamored by the movie. However, I have seen the movie recently--actually only parts of it since I skipped through much of it--and was gravely disappointed. I own the CD of the original Broadway cast with Richard Kiley et al and have listened to it numerous times over these past years. The music and singing on the CD provides excellent emotion and context that someone who has never seen the show can visualize. The 1972 movie, despite some excellent casting (Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren, for example, as well as Gino Conforti and Harry Andrews), falls way off the mark. The orchestration and instrumentation has lost all its Spanish flair. The voice dubbing (even of those who are actually using their own voices to sing) is more than obvious and therefore a complete distraction. I also am not sure why Richard Kiley et al were not cast in the movie (no offense to Peter O'Toole who is one of 5 of my favorite actors and Sophia Loren who is a perfect sultry match for her character.) The original cast could have provided the very look of the characters and the proper affect that the movie sorely needs. I have already suggested to a couple of people in the industry that Milos Forman would be an excellent director of a movie remake with someone as talented as Nathan Lane in the role of Sancho. A grand director like Mr. Forman would know how to envision a broad and beautiful palette with the humor and irony that the subject matter requires. He would also know how to direct into the songs the emotional spectrum, intensity, and sarcasm clearly evident in the aforementioned Broadway CD.