The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) - Adventure, Comedy, Drama

Hohum Score

80

Boring

Toby, a disillusioned film director, becomes pulled into a world of time-jumping fantasy when a Spanish cobbler believes him to be Sancho Panza. He gradually becomes unable to tell dreams from reality.

IMDB: 6.5
Director: Terry Gilliam
Stars: José Luis Ferrer, Ismael Fritschi
Length: 132 Minutes
PG Rating: N/A
Reviews: 14 out of 48 found boring (29.16%)

One-line Reviews (30)

Now, I've seen some bad movies, but this one takes the cake as an utter waste of time.

" and being incredibly bored inbeetween.

So there is more to this movie than meets the eye at first sight, and many reviewers, even the critics, seem to have overlooked it and dismissed it quickly with a yawn or even with a laughter - which is what also happens to adventurers sometimes, when the rest of the world fails to understand their adventure, and this is another essence of the myth of Don Quixote.

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.

It bores the whole world.

We've seen his movies described as crazy, confusing, and messy - and also brilliant, unique, and creative.

Half baked waste of time .

How rich and entertaining this movie is.

Worst movie in a long time...

Not as confusing as The Imaginarium, but with just as an elegant script; not as childish as The Baron, but equally exciting; and definitely, as funny as his Monthy Pythons.

Anyway Gilliam opposes openness (desert, big landscapes, etc.) to the tragedy of the architectural space, where the most intense plot points happen.

Entertaining AF + Oscar Material .

I enjoyed watching Don Quixote, but I can imagine most of the viewers to find it either uninteresting, dull, chaotic or 'pretentious'.

What's fascinating is how the meanings of each of the characters and their story arcs fold into each other from the director, Terry Gilliam's own life to Adam Driver, playing a Gilliam figure all the way to Jonathan Pryce's man who's seemingly lost his mind.

The result is purposeless, obscure, dull, and way too long.

It is not an easy movie, it is not a masterpiece, not rarely it loses its track and its rhythm, and at times you will be left stranded thinking "what the hell is this" and also a bit bored...

The love/sex scenes were really tiresome.

Waste of time, in every sense .

It is similar to films such as Holy Motors (2012), The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009), Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014) so if these ring a bell please give this film a chance.

The worst movie I ever saw .

Towards the end as the camera work reaches sea-sickening levels randomness it seems to lose faith in both the story and characters and tries to right itself by taking a random leap out of its own confusing narrative and into an outtake from Baron Munchhausen in order to get to a forced conclusion that it hasn't earned.

By 2002, there was a fascinating documentary, LOST IN LA MANCHA, which chronicled the reasons the film failed to get made and would never be finished.

I don't how many expletives and general FU's there were (I'm no prude) but it was tiresome, boring and in the end soooo unimaginative.

In Gilliam's head, the concept for all this surely must have sounded intriguing.

In the end, this movie reminded me of Lynch's Mulholland Drive, another movie that I loved a lot, and that is confusing only for those that do not make the effort to see.

I understand 'challenging' your audience but Terry's output since I'd say Brothers Grimm (VERY grim) has been literally unwatchable - this from a true master that created the likes of Brazil & 12 Monkeys.

When it works it's brilliant, when it doesn't, it's baffling and sometimes boring.

The blending of real life and fantasy, magic and mundane, literature and popculture, drama and comedy - what could go wrong, right?

Somehow the film is simultaneously smart and goofy; thought-provoking and confusing.

A lot of the typical Gilliam traits are here, but unlike many of his older films the cinematography and production values are pretty mediocre, the pacing is off, scenes seem to over extend and the shifts between reality and imagination seem, well, cheap, as were the rather inappropriate jumps in location between green hills and desert.