Don Quixote

I wasnt surprised of John Lithgow's brilliant performance in this movie, because just as I heard that he's starring I understood right away that he'd be a perfect Don Quixote. There is a TINY little bit of Dick Solomon in him, if you pay close attention, you might notice it, and I think that's why the directors invited him for this role. Bob Hoskins is also a perfect Sancho, the whole character of his here (as well as Lithgow's) is as it was classically presented to us in books and pictures. Although he has a thick british accent, although he has no problems changing it, he speaks with it through the movie which is kind of unusual for a spanish man. :) Anyway, Mr. Lithgow, if youre reading this, I want you to know that youre the most perfect Don Quixote Ive ever seen on the movie screen!

This is a visually sumptuous film which treats its central characters with a gentle quirky humour that never completely destroys their dignity and humanity.It is an almost impossible task to reduce Cervantes classic novel to film, but I doubt if there will be a better attempt. The success is primarily due to the outstanding performances of John Lithgow as the Don and Bob Hoskins as Pancho Sanza and John Mortimer's script. Lithgow's Don has a dignified strength which balances his over active imagination while Hoskins tongue in cheek interpretation owes much to the human weaknesses that so many of us share.It took a little while for the film to gain pace but as compensation this adult production had an imaginative energy that brought to mind Shakespeare's Twelfth Night and a Midsummer Night's Dream-it was indeed a good "Knight's" entertainment!Not for the action film addict but willingly suspend your disbelief and connive with its reality as the Duke eventually did and you will certainly enjoy.

Don Quixote has notoriously defied attempts to film it. This is a solid little TV version. There's a decent script by John Mortimer - though he does make it a bit too much about old age - and good performances by Bob Hoskins as Sancho and, particularly, John Lithgow as Don Quixote. Lithgow is credited as producer; this was clearly a labour of love for him and he gives his all in portraying a complex and difficult character. But the film needs something else - either more of the book's broad comedy, or more magic. It's just a little too wistful and bland - it captures Don Quixote's sadness but not his force. Makes you regret that Terry Gilliam failed to complete his version, it should have been just his bag.

This is a handsome retelling of the odd tale about a man who wishes to be a knight in a time that has no use for knights. It is a fable about the desire to dream and use the imagination -- the desire to go beyond the bounds set by society.

The cast is very good. Lithgow plays the sometimes-mad and sometimes-sane title character as a cross between a tragic figure and an over-the-top 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN zany. Hoskins, despite his accent which seems totally out of place, is very amusing as the faithful sidekick Sancho.

We all have giants, wizards, and windmills in our lives. Don Quixote is just able to see them better than most of us.

Alonso Quixano eats dinner with the Mayor once a month, walks to church once a week and is shaved by the barber every other day. He longs for more than this and it is his love for the tales of knights and adventures that sees him rename himself as Don Quixote and set out with sidekick Sancho Panza, to whom he has promised an island. Promising his love to the beautiful maid Aldonza (who he has renamed Dulchinea), Quixote sets out for four years of adventure, to spread his fame and prove himself worthy of the hand of Dulchinea.

I wasn't sure quite to expect from this film. Primary in my thoughts was the fact that the source material is one of those things that is difficult to bring to film – and indeed I have recently seen the documentary on Gilliam's failed attempt to do so. That this was a TVM with a cast more famous recently for their television work, a director whose best work is behind him and a writer famous for Rumpole of the Bailey. All this conspired to suggest that what I would watch would be little more than a very slight romp for everyone involved in the south of Spain. To some degree this is true but I actually enjoyed the film more than I expected.

Which is not the same as saying it is brilliant (as many have done here). Rather I found the film to be too long and deliberate, which did rather leave the material exposed as wanting. At its core I did find that the world of fantasy and aspiration around Quixote was pretty engaging for stretches of the film but it frustrated me the way that it seemed in no rush to really go anywhere. Had it had more depth and complexity in the characters then this might have been worth it, but as it was it left too much to the actors and didn't really bring up people beyond the obvious narrative development thereof. This was a shame because the performances were actually pretty good and deserved more to work with. Lithgow is the best example of what I mean. He gets the mix of madness and hope just right, producing a figure that is fun and engaging at the same time. However without the material to work with, he is left working as hard as he can but superficially – nothing wrong with that in itself but as the time runs on it does wear thin. Hoskins is similar – he is fun but his one-note turn does run out of steam with a lot of the film left to go. Rossellini and Williams are not that great and sort of drift around the edges, with the rest of the support doing so-so work.

The direction is solid if not spectacular – perhaps showing a lack of imagination across the material as he tends to go for the easy effect when it comes. The use of southern Spain is a good choice and does give the film a sense of place that helps cover up for other faults. Overall then this was better than I expected but still not a great telling. It lacks complexity and plays a straight bat throughout – which becomes more and more of a problem as the overly-long running time exposes the weaknesses.