Alejandro Jodorowsky is a film-maker who has made a number of very odd avant-garde movies. He is one of the most prominent surrealists in cinema history. Four of his films, primarily, are considered classics of the genre, namely, Fando and Lis (1968), El Topo (1973), The Holy Mountain (1974) and Santa Sangre (1989). With all of this in mind, a documentary about the man sounds like a great idea, given that watching his films generates quite a lot more questions than they do answers and his style overall is as highly personal and distinctive as they come.I would have to say, however, that this film, while interesting in some ways, is a bit lacking overall. Rather than focus mainly on his films, it looks more squarely at the man and covers not just his movies but his work in theatre and his personal philosophies also. There aren't really a lot of clips from the said movies to be honest and some aren't even covered at all, like in the case of Santa Sangre. He doesn't really say too much about any of them on the whole though. This is all unfortunate, given that it's Jodorowsky's filmography that is principally what makes him interesting. Having said that, there were some fascinating deviations, such as the material concerning the Panic Movement, which was a French theatre group who put on improvised shows with very provocative content. The clips of this are pretty memorable to say the least. While it was also interesting to learn more about the aborted project for a film version of Dune to be directed by him. His ideas certainly sounded fascinating and what we are left with are many drawings and one of the great cinematic 'what ifs'. But quite a lot of the running time is dedicated to his work as an unorthodox lecturer and we hear a great deal about his spiritual musings. These are occasionally interesting – such as the sequence involving the family tree of the director of this film – but on the whole this stuff is of much less interest than Jodorowsky's cinematic work. In the final analysis, this is certainly a film not without quite a bit of interest but one which would have been a lot better with more focus.

I look forward to Jodorowky's later films. They've been recommended to me by people I trust.But in the meantime, because I've seen this celebration of his greatness, I'm skeptical. Its because the guy sounds dumber than I think his films will be.Its a common phenomenon, I think. Great filmmakers typically say less than enlightening things. Partly, I think it is because they are asked such trivial questions. Also that they have to "explain" themselves so they invent simpleminded stories for general consumption. Perhaps they even believe them. But usually, these folks aren't very articulate verbally. I think that is why they are driven to cinema. Films that change lives can only come from someone fully in the thing, and that comes from urges. There's talent and insight in the mix of course, but its the urge that matters here. The less possible it is for an artist to convey something in words, the more he or she is driven, obsessed, with revealing it in another media.So I expect these interview things to be relatively useless except for perhaps historical reasons. But this one is worse than usual because of the guy's theatrical background. He's created a persona and some trivial catchphrases. He's fully internalized them, and in the end he convinces me that he cannot do anything meaningful.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

The perfect documentary. It is made by someone fascinated by his subject and includes valuable contributions from people who are able to speak insightfully about the subject. And then it simply lifts off and goes beyond. We begin traditionally enough with Jodorowsky being interviewed, although we should have known something was going on when the first question is, 'Who are you?' After a big smile Joorowsky, first says that the interviewer cannot ask that question and then points out that you have to be dead to be in a position to answer. He has simply not yet reached a position where he can describe himself. One has to smile too because surely this is what all artists are doing; continuing to try to define themselves and their vision, yes? So we proceed, spellbound and there are conversations with the illustrator, Jean Giraud (Moebius), the mime artist, Marcel Marceau for whom Jodorowsky wrote a piece (reprised in Santa Sangre) and even Peter Gabriel although I'm not really sure why. Then from nowhere, we are talking tarot and seminars when the documentary implodes as Jodorowsky strides across a crowded room pointing and heading towards us the viewer. No not us the viewer but Louis Mouchet, the man making the documentary. What happens next is nothing short of extraordinary and further illuminates the 'mad enough to be an artist' - Alejandro Jodorowsky. I should also mention that the clips included in the documentary are those scratchy, bleached images that used to be the only way to see this man's films until the recently released, completely restored gems that are now before us.

Alejandro Jodorowsky would be the sort of filmmaker/artist/therapist I might want to have a talk with over a cup of coffee or something about a slew of things he's concerned with- cinema, family, theater, art- but it'd be hard for me to imagine what he would do if I were on a film set with him. He's impulsive, and probably more than a bit crazy, but as one of his old cohorts in abstract art says, he's a disciplined madman with a method to his madness. He sometimes says things that make me think 'what a pretentious guy', like when he says he's hasn't started making films since he's only made six or seven of them. He also replies with a very typical answer for something that's obviously asked as a trick- who are you- with a story of an Emperor in China. But I also think after seeing this that he is a man genuinely happy with his niche in life. He's created all of these films that have been probably even more important for him than for the audience- even the times of failures like the aborted Dune project or Tusk- and he moved on to a kind of weekly group therapy he conducts where he gets people in touch with their 'family tree' and the problems that arise from past generations, one's parents, and in the end one's self. One sees that he went through an "enlightenement" with The Holy Mountain, and controlled his ego through doing the Rainbow Thief and the Moebius comic books, and even through an overlong treatment of the documentary director, Louis Mouchet, and his familial angst, that he's maybe even wiser than he would admit. Not that one doesn't raise an eyebrow when he deals in tarot cards, or never admits that some things are coincidence or luck (but then again he also never says anything about traditional religious institutions either, as part of the anarchy likely deep within him), but he never comes off dis-genuine, and he's even amusing in some of his telling of tales and conducting of group sessions. I may not precisely know who Jodorowsky is, but I have an idea, which is the best that Mouchet can do at any rate.