Yeah, I didn't think much of this surrealist western, even though I was prepared to like it and WANTED to like it was I watched. By the end I couldn't help but feel it's another case of "the emperor's new clothes" in terms of style over substance, and the sum of the whole ending up much less than the individual parts.The story starts out straightforward enough, with a distinctive gunslinger discovering the aftermath of a massacre and vowing to take revenge on the outlaws responsible. Once that story is out of the way, though, it starts getting weirder and weirder, almost existentialist, as the gunslinger has encounters with a series of deity-like characters in the desert and undergoes a religiously significant transformation. By the end, I was quite frankly bored.Here's the good stuff: Jodorowsky's cinematography, which is glorious. EL TOPO is vibrant-looking and colourful throughout, and I love the use of surreal imagery which really works. There are poignant scenes and flashes of Peckinpah-style ultra-violence and the contrasting elements are mixed together well. It's just the script, really, which lets it down, becoming too abstract; I always prefer a more concrete narrative as a basis on which to pin the more fantastic elements, but EL TOPO is lacking such a construct and at times just seems to be being made up as it goes along.

"El Topo" is one movie that will probably not leave people neutral. Alejandro Jodorowsky's underground masterpiece about a gunfighter on a quest for enlightenment almost seems like a joke given the over-the-top violence, but is one of the most impressive pieces of work. I figure that the movie very likely irritated the religious authorities due to one scene in particular. But the movie is truly something that you have to see to believe. It's sort of half-western, half-mysticism, with the main character's journey mirroring the efforts of a mole to find the light. It's easily the sort of movie that Quentin Tarantino could've directed. Overall, one might call "El Topo" the supreme rejection of the John Wayne type of westerns. If in fact Jodorowsky ever gets around to making a sequel, I'll be eager to see how he continues the story. Really good movie.

This movie (!?) reminded me of Monty Python, although it is not as nearly funny and clever. Apparently, in those days any number of shoots collected and somehow put together has been regarded as "movie". And got "cult" status instantly. This approach still has faithful followers nowadays (see - or don't - The Orphan Killer, paranormal Acticity, Blair Witch and such). And the less sense it makes, it is considered more "artistic". Like, acting is a shame, editing is something not worth bothering, and directing means (probably) explaining to the participants what they should do (or otherwise, if they do not feel like it) over a large amount of alcohol. Don't get me wrong: this movie (!?) has its moments and is a material worth remaking (by Terry Gilliam, for instance) but this... Jesus! Surreal? Introspective? Thoughtful? My ass! Plain stupid. Forget about it. It's that simple.

i refuse to appreciate a film just because it is different n surreal or due to the wider opinion of the movie bourgeois that only they can enjoy it and thus are elite or of a more intelligent constitution and those who cant are vermin. there are many movies in this genre n of course the attributes on which a movie is merited are debatable but the foremost dharma of a movie is enjoyment of the viewer. i feel this does not achieve that. it comes across as a misguided eastern fixation and its erroneous interpretation, not unknown in the western civilization unfortunately, together with the horrible amalgamation of it with a western, ritualistic scenes and unnecessary violence which has culminated in this work.