Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Tetrady not as good as all the hype

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

cstotlar-1 Any excuse to hear Chaliapin sing is worth the listen and the watch. Also, it was great pleasure to see Pabst take on such a task in English. His camera never missed a beat and the scenery was magnificent. There are the things to object about as brought up by sever reviewers. It's true that Chaliapin's English was not good. He probably learned his lines phonetically. I've coached several singers in my time and it does sound like that. The music, by Jacques Ibert. was really quite good throughout and the players around Quixote himself were truly fine. This is a film for the history books - Pabst meets Chaliapin meets Ibert meet Cervantes meet the English language. They all win, but we do have to listen very carefully to the English. It is on the border of comprehension at times.

TheLittleSongbird As somebody who admires the Russian bass Feodor Chaliapin, I was very impressed by Adventures of Don Quixote. I have seen all three versions, all three excellent, but my favourite is the french one. The English version is very effective, though I think the lyrics in the French version are a little more poetic, and Chaliapin is better at French than he is at English, which is not bad as such, just that there is a somewhat heavy accent that I didn't find noticeable in the French version.On a more positive note, it does look great, with beautiful photography and convincing settings. The music is a delight, the lyrics here is not quite as poetic as the French version but they are perhaps more intelligent and the melodies stayed in his head a long while after. I equally love the humour and pathos in the script, and the story is succinctly told with three scenes in particular standing out; the scene at the inn with the travelling players which is a lot of fun, the windmill scene which for the time was an accomplishment and still impresses and the very moving final scene.The acting is very good, George Robey is a splendid and relaxed Sancho Panza, the Duke and Duchess are amusing and humble, and Renee Donnio again plays Carrasco and is excellent. The film's best asset is Feodor Chaliapin's performance in the title role, he is brilliant. Vocally, he is not him at his very best, with a heavier tone than in his early days and some moments where his pitch is approximate.However he brings to his performance here his rich voice, robust vocal expression, vivid acting- I have often seen cited that Chaliapin was one of the first, or even the first, singer to take acting in opera seriously and I can see why- and towering physique(of any bass I think only Martti Talvela was taller) that was perfect for his best roles Boris Godunov and Mephistopheles. This is especially true in the final scene.Overall, well worth seeing, with my only real criticism being a few missing frames occasionally making the film jumpy. It is a very impressive film though, and for any anybody who loves or admires Chaliapin this is something to treasure forever and seeing how influential this legendary bass was in opera important as well. 9/10 Bethany Cox

MartinHafer There are two reasons why I chose to watch this film. First, it was in the public domain, so it was free to watch (a definite plus) and second it was directed by the famous German director, G. W. Pabst. Well, despite this, I just did not enjoy the film. One of the main problems was the casting of the main character. Feodor Chaliapin Sr. was an excellent operatic type of singer from Russia. And, while I'll freely admit that he had a lovely voice, the guy was all wrong as Quixote. His accent was VERY strong and it sounded as if he really didn't know English but was doing his lines phonetically. It just seemed weird to have have this sort of accent coming out of a guy who was supposed to be Spanish. Second, instead of the normal version of the Cervantes book, this a musical where again and again Chaliapin would break into song for absolutely no reason--and the songs just didn't fit the film. It was as if his performance was important but the plot wasn't--why else would they put this guy in the lead? So what's the rest of the English language version like? Well, the acting was pretty good--even if the actors were often very English. The sets looked nice and the acting was good. But because of the musical nature of the film, I just can't recommend it to anyone--as who would like this sort of film? It certainly hasn't aged well and I can see why it's a rather obscure public domain film.

psteier I saw the New York Museum of Modern Art's print (the English language version). Only Chaliapin does much singing, but the music and lyrics are not much and I suggest you listen to his recordings to judge his singing. His acting seems very much staged.George Robey is very good as Sancho Panza (Don Quixote's servant), playing him as a Music Hall character. The scene with the traveling players at an inn is also interesting and fun.