IMDb RATING
6.0/10
906
YOUR RATING
The story of a Spanish gentlemen gone mad and his dim-witted squire Sancho Panza, who set forth on a journey to right wrongs and accomplish good deeds in the name of chivalry.The story of a Spanish gentlemen gone mad and his dim-witted squire Sancho Panza, who set forth on a journey to right wrongs and accomplish good deeds in the name of chivalry.The story of a Spanish gentlemen gone mad and his dim-witted squire Sancho Panza, who set forth on a journey to right wrongs and accomplish good deeds in the name of chivalry.
Francisco Reiguera
- Don Quijote
- (archive footage)
Akim Tamiroff
- Sancho Panza
- (archive footage)
Pepe Mediavilla
- Don Quixote
- (voice)
- (as José Mediavilla)
Juan Carlos Ordóñez
- Sancho Panza
- (voice)
- (as Juan C. Ordóñez)
Constantino Romero
- Narrator
- (voice)
Paola Mori
- Woman on Motorscooter
- (archive footage)
Edward Marcus
- Narrator
- (English version)
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
- …
Fernando Rey
- Closing Scene Narrator
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
Allan Wenger
- Don Quixote
- (English version)
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Orson Welles(original footage)
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaUnlike other unfinished Orson Welles films, "Don Quixote's" incomplete state was not because of lack of finances. Welles always considered his Don Quixote a "private exercise". Or as he put it, he worked on it like an author works on a novel; under no obligations, no time constraints, and could finish it whenever he feels like it.
- ConnectionsEdited from Nella terra di Don Chisciotte (1964)
Featured review
No matter how you put it together, this is awful
This film is terrible, and don't blame Jesus Franco, because its not his fault.
This film was shot silent over many years by Welles as he got the money to bring a crew and the actors together to do some shooting. How much film Welles actually shot is not clear, although not all of the film or all of the sequences are here since several "key" sequences, such as Quixote in a movie theater, are in the hands of collectors or backers who wouldn't give them up. The film here is just under two hours and I would be hard pressed to imagine it ever really working at any length. I'm of the opinion, based on several comments that Welles made before his death, that he never really intended to release the film, but was putting it together as a personal toy.
What exists here is for the most part is beautifully shot, but dramatically dead. Very little happens for the first hour other than Quixote and Sancho wandering around the country side. Dull would be a kind description of the material. In the second hour Quixote ends up in modern Spain and in a series of not very good sequences deals with everyday life. This isn't to say that there isn't a few nice moments, the windmill and the chicken sequences are quite good, but mostly this is a vast waste of film and time.
"Completed" by Jesus Franco, who was Welles' assistant director on the vastly superior Chimes at Midnight, we have a bunch of film fragments that have been put together as best as possible. Many people have crucified Franco as having been the reason the film stinks, but frankly one can not make a good movie from crap material. One critic has gone on record as having seen a different cut of the film in the 1970's, which meant that Franco made this version up on his own and ruined it. While that maybe true, I've run across stories of Welles cutting and re-cutting the film many many times over the years since he could never get it right.
This film is terrible no matter how you slice it.
Ultimately I'm left wondering just how good a film maker Welles was. Aside from Citizen Kane almost all of his films have been plagued by lack of budget or interfered with so we are left with the excuse that many of his films "would have been better if only...". How do we know? How can we know? Perhaps Welles was a man of less talent than we thought and many of his borderline films just aren't that good, and never would have been. While this is no place to argue the place of Welles in film history, the surviving material of Don Quixote, assuming it approximates what Welles intended (I think it does), is a good case for rethinking how we view the man and his work.
4 out of 10 for the good sequences (though 2 out of 10 is probably closer to reality)
This film was shot silent over many years by Welles as he got the money to bring a crew and the actors together to do some shooting. How much film Welles actually shot is not clear, although not all of the film or all of the sequences are here since several "key" sequences, such as Quixote in a movie theater, are in the hands of collectors or backers who wouldn't give them up. The film here is just under two hours and I would be hard pressed to imagine it ever really working at any length. I'm of the opinion, based on several comments that Welles made before his death, that he never really intended to release the film, but was putting it together as a personal toy.
What exists here is for the most part is beautifully shot, but dramatically dead. Very little happens for the first hour other than Quixote and Sancho wandering around the country side. Dull would be a kind description of the material. In the second hour Quixote ends up in modern Spain and in a series of not very good sequences deals with everyday life. This isn't to say that there isn't a few nice moments, the windmill and the chicken sequences are quite good, but mostly this is a vast waste of film and time.
"Completed" by Jesus Franco, who was Welles' assistant director on the vastly superior Chimes at Midnight, we have a bunch of film fragments that have been put together as best as possible. Many people have crucified Franco as having been the reason the film stinks, but frankly one can not make a good movie from crap material. One critic has gone on record as having seen a different cut of the film in the 1970's, which meant that Franco made this version up on his own and ruined it. While that maybe true, I've run across stories of Welles cutting and re-cutting the film many many times over the years since he could never get it right.
This film is terrible no matter how you slice it.
Ultimately I'm left wondering just how good a film maker Welles was. Aside from Citizen Kane almost all of his films have been plagued by lack of budget or interfered with so we are left with the excuse that many of his films "would have been better if only...". How do we know? How can we know? Perhaps Welles was a man of less talent than we thought and many of his borderline films just aren't that good, and never would have been. While this is no place to argue the place of Welles in film history, the surviving material of Don Quixote, assuming it approximates what Welles intended (I think it does), is a good case for rethinking how we view the man and his work.
4 out of 10 for the good sequences (though 2 out of 10 is probably closer to reality)
helpful•1820
- dbborroughs
- Nov 13, 2004
- How long is Don Quixote?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Orson Welles' Don Quixote
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 56 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content