User Reviews

I couldn't resist the urge to paraphrase the Tenacious D lyric for this review's title, cause I can't imagine anything more fitting.

I watched this documentary in anticipation of Denis Villeneuve's Dune, trying to better understand why adapting Dune in film has been such a challenge. One answer I came away with is that the sheer magnitude, complexity and transcendental nature of the source material triggers the fantasy-turned-burden of creating the greatest film in the history of cinema. It's like the Dune film has been the holy grail of modern sci-fi filmmaking. Jodorowsky was the first to chase it and was - and still very much is - convinced he had it. If only those pesky studio execs could see past the director's unconventional M.O. and cough up the money.

Jodorowsky's passionate and fascinating retelling of this epic adventure in filmmaking alone is enough to fill the screen for the whole 90 minutes, but we also get regaled with a good amount of the original concept art, animated storyboards and music that give us a taste of the project's intended aesthetic. The testimonies of some of the artists involved in the project help ground this implausible-sounding tale to reality.

I don't think the documentary makes any attempt to be objective, so it shouldn't be viewed as a complete chronicle of how this ambitious project went down. It's more a character piece on Jodorowsky himself, as a - slightly unhinged, slightly megalomaniac - uncompromising visionary, who at that one point in history managed to recruit an "army" (his term) of avant-garde talent (a jaw-dropping list of huge names from all over the artistic world from Orson Welles to Mick Jagger, from Salvador Dali to Pink Floyd).

Jodorowski the person is intriguing and flawed in equal measures. He reminded me a lot of Ayn Rand's Howard Roark (The Fountainhead) in the way that he put his art before anything and anyone else, displaying hints of cruelty: he admits to subjecting his 12-year-old son to a 2-year punishing training regime in preparation for his role as Paul Atreides, then he casually uses rape and "not respecting" women as a metaphor for creating great art (a bit you'd think the director would have chosen to cut out so as to protect the old man in this otherwise hagiographical portrayal).

In all, it's well worth a watch, especially in light of 2020's Dune, but it's good going into it knowing what to expect and what not to expect.

This documentary is about the making of the movie "Dune". No, not the 1984 mess of a film and financial disaster helmed by David Lynch, but an earlier version by the surrealist director, Alejandro Jodorowsky...a version that never ended up being made.

The film gathers together the surviving members of the production crew to talk about the Jodorowsky version and how great it might have been. And, through the course of this film, you see many of the story boards, concept art and more.

As I watched this film, I couldn't help but think that if the Jodorowsky movie had been made, it probably would have been much weirder, much more violent* and much more confusing than the Lynch version. The Lynch film was mostly confusing because it was cut to pieces and should have been at least a 3-4 hour movie. The Jodorowsky version, in contrast, would have been so surreal as to make Lynch seem like an ordinary filmmaker! So, while everyone associated with this project thought the movie would have been great, I just have no idea WHO would have actually gone to see it...especially since Jodorowsky wanted to make a 12-20 hour film AND completely re-write the ending, in which Paul would die! I just can't see the fans wanting to see this...especially when in this documentary Jodorowsky talked about wanting to 'rape Frank Herbert" (not in a literal sense)!

It's a fascinating film where you get to follow Jodorowsky's thinking and the steps taken to try to get the film made. However, I cannot see this as a 'masterpiece' as some have said. First, it never got made...so how can it be a masterpiece? Second, while it could have been an amazing film (who knows?), it also might easily have been one of the biggest debacles in movie history, though the chances of the film being made seem insanely remote as you watch the documentary.

Overall, the documentary was fascinating and well worth seeing....the "Dune" project, however, sounded like a nutty gamble to say the least!



*If you don't think the film would have been uber-violent, watch Jodorowsky's "El Topo" and listen to some of the ideas the filmmaker wanted to incorporate into the movie (castration, dismemberment, etc.).

If you love Sci-Fi films, you have to see this. Or no: If you love films you have to see this. Even better: If you love art in general, you absolutely have to see this. This documentary had me grinning at first and drop my jaw soon later; the grinning was induced by the witty, charming narration by Alejandro Jodorwsky himself (a natural born story teller, if there ever was one) – the jaw dropping came by way of hearing the most incredible anecdotes about how one person got some of the most famous and daring pioneers of their respective arts to participate in one single project: Jodorowsky's 'Dune'.

In 1975, Alejandro Jodorowsky got a group of "warriors" together to make the film version of Frank Herbert's 'Dune', and the way he did this (or the way he tells he did this) is so outright unbelievable and entertaining that it simply must be true (actually, there's an amazing story for another film right there). Can you imagine Salvador Dali, Orson Welles and Mick Jagger all starring in a Science-Fiction film scored by Pink Floyd? Watch this Documentary if you want to know how this - nearly - came about. Or did you know that Dan O'Bannon, Moebius, H.R. Giger and Chris Foss all made fantastic designs for a Science-Fiction film that was NOT 'Alien'? Watch this documentary If you like to know more.

Telling the story of arguably the most influential Sci-Fi film never made, this documentary is a pleasure to behold and essential viewing for Sci-Fi geeks, film fans and lovers of art alike. 10 stars out of 10.

Favorite Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054200841/

Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

This is the only movie I watched twice at the True/False film festival in Columbia, Missouri in 2014. I am a fan of Frank Herbert's Dune and was pulled into the epic mythos of this 1970s film that never was.

Although the story of this "failed" project is fascinating, it was Jodorowsky's passion and drive that made me pay to see this movie twice. This is an absolute must-see for sci-fi fans but should also be viewed by artists, writers, film makers, sculptures, dancers, foley artists or anyone who has creative passion.

It is inspiring to see a man, albeit a near lunatic, with such vision, scope and ambition.

"Jodorowsky's Dune" is an engaging documentary about a failed mounting of a major motion picture. However its determination to conclude that, if produced, it certainly would have resulted in a supreme testament to the profound potential of the Cinematic art form -- is not given the credibility such a claim demands. Unfortunately, the total absence of any rational opposing viewpoint (removed from the delusions of grandeur indulged to its star speaker) explaining the practical reasons why such an almost-masterpiece was not ultimately supported, renders this a masturbatory propaganda puff- piece (and forces me to knock the rating down considerably out of sheer sycophantic exhaustion). But go ahead and give it a watch -- especially if you're a confirmed cinephile, genre aficionado, or "Dune" devotee.

But with all the eclectic true talent that had begun to assemble for this project, why do I so flagrantly assert the dismissal that this film wouldn't have lived up to any of their collective potential? -- Eight syllables: Al-lay-han-dro * Joad-doe-row-ski.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the silver tongued snake-oil salesman of highlight here, understands that -- while he may be a great teller of tall tales -- he is not a great storyteller. Not in the least. Would-be auteur Alejandro Jodorowsky comes from the "avant-garde" art scene -- which is just a pretentious way of saying he has a propensity for vacuous kitschy pop perversion, yet is able to hide under a fancy Frog word to validate it. The man is known not for great movies, but for playing to the lowest common denominator of art affectation. Oh so loving odes to the scatological and profane; incoherent posturing strung together through cute little images of blasphemy and vile sadism.

Jodorowsky wants to adorn himself an out-of-time progressive renaissance man of immense enlightenment, but his thoughtless philistinism is like a low-rent tribute to the depraved vapid vulgarity that hallmarked the careers of Andy Warhol, Ken Russell, John Waters, and Pier Paolo Pasolini -- but without even attaining their unmerited impact. It's quite telling that anyone who will indulge with Jodorowsky in substance abuse, cater to his ego, or allow themselves subjugated to his insane whims are distinguished by Jodorowsky as "Spiritual Warriors", while those with more sober senses are "Soulless". And eyes roll toward the darkest recesses of cranial cavitations having to endure the permeation of such blustering nonsense go completely unchallenged.

Instead of plausibly translating the grand universe of intricate histories, theology, political intrigue, and power struggles that "Dune" author Frank Herbert scribed so illustriously, Jodorowsky would have desecrated its eminent quality by substituting debased detours catering to the diseased of spirit, in giddy honor of degradation and silly pseudo-philosophic utopianism. Because that's who Alejandro Jodorowsky is -- a man who insist the collaborative nature of film-making and adapting authors' works has to be an act of defilement, and bolsters that claim by analogizing it to a marriage night where the husband must forcefully violate his wife, because to continue to regard her with respect could never produce a child -- so "Rape! RAPE! RAPE!... but with love". That's how this guy's mind works. He only cares about himself, and is perfectly fine to abuse others to get his way -- even though his way holds not one shred of virtue. Of course he would cast his own pre-pubescent young son to scurry about fully nude in his odious "art-films" for no honest reason other than pedophilic pleasure. This is a man who literally films defections for scat enthusiasts. Jodorowsky is not an artist, he's a charlatan of art -- he doesn't express the humanities, only dehumanization -- he's an exploitative sensationalist rather than imperative provocateur.

The most bizarre aspect of this documentary is not even the gonzo eccentric at its heart, but rather the fact that this deviant was ever even considered a viable pillar to hinge a major investment on! Of course his rambling nonsense would be forsaken once money needed milking, but before that reality set in, Jodorowsky had already recruited (most probably exclusively through vice enticement) an incredible array of superstar talent for both ends of the lens. This examination does nevertheless merit attention for the grotesque fascination of learning about an adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel that would have managed to be even more of a corruption than David Lynch's vomit, whilst simultaneously tainting so many bright young talent's careers -- after casting their bests into an abyss of excrement under the abominable shepherding of Alejandro Jodorowsky - - and possibly derailing their destinies in genre film's hall of legends. At least half of the legacy citations it stretches to tie to Jodorowsky's credit as direct lineage progeny are -- to be generous -- highly suspect, and I just don't at all agree with its ridiculous thesis that this was "the greatest movie never made".

Now if proved virtuoso, consummate professional and diligent filmmaker Ridley Scott had realized HIS planned vision for "Dune" -- maybe that truly is one of the great missed opportunities that would have birthed a legitimate masterpiece! Hmm... perhaps a sequel is in order:

"RIDLEY'S DUNE"?!

If you love movies and/or eccentric characters, you simply must see "Jodorowsky's Dune." It's one of the best documentaries about the (un)making of a film I've ever seen. It's a terrific documentary and a thoroughly fascinating character study.

It covers the story of a feature film that Alejandro Jodorowsky never made. He came close to making an adaptation of Frank Herbert's sci-fi novel, Dune, before David Lynch did it in the 1980s. Jodorowsky was a very successful cult film director during the '70s and made films like El Topo, The Holy Mountain, and Santa Sangre. When you listen to Jodorowsky talk for this length of time, you come to understand how he got his films made: he simply hypnotized people! ;-)

Although it was never actually made, Jodorowsky's sci-fi film went on to influence later sci-fi movies like "Alien," "Blade Runner," and even "Star Wars." And it also opened the door for the film careers of people like Dan O'Bannon, Jean Giraud, and H.R. Giger, who later worked on Ridley Scott's "Alien."

"Jodorowsky's Dune" gets a big thumbs up from me! I highly recommend this documentary!

This documentary tells the story of director Alejandro Jodorowsky's unfinished masterpiece: his attempt to produce a film adaptation of Frank Herbert's sprawling science-fiction novel 'Dune' in the mid-1970s -- a project which was never completed, in part because it collapsed under the weight of the director's incredibly ambitious vision for the movie. It was to have been a larger-than-life epic, as grand as Stanley Kubrick's '2001.'

All that survives of Jodorowsky's 'Dune' are the script, storyboards, and concept artwork. Using these, combined with talking-heads interviews of those involved, the documentary tries to show us how the finished film would have looked.

What makes all this so captivating are the interviews with Jodorowsky himself, and his incredible passion as he recounts the tale of an unfinished project from 40 years ago. Entering into Jodorowsky's world is like falling into a visionary dream where anything and everything is possible. And as his vision progresses, it becomes more and more ambitious: Salvador Dalì, Mick Jagger, and Orson Welles agree to star. Dan O'Bannon and H.R. Giger will design the sets and costumes. Pink Floyd will provide the score. It's hard to imagine a more ambitious movie, considering the technical limitations of the time.

Yet, as the documentary shows, the ripples from this never-completed, ahead-of-its-time film spread out in many directions, inspiring different ideas that made their way into later films such as 'Star Wars' and 'Alien' -- and which continue to inspire filmmakers today.

And we never got it. Due to Hollywood being shortsighted. I appreciate the Dune movies we have, but I know they barely scrape the surface. The Jodorowsky treatment would turn the movie world upside down.

The storyboards themselves make Star Wars look like a movie about Leggos.

I am sad that so many SciFi movies blatantly stole from it yet I am happy that portions live on in film.

It is a horrendous crime, though, that this completely planned movie was torn in pieces to make money for many, while leaving this masterpiece raped and torn and left bloody after the studios cannibalized it.

I can only hope, that, within my lifetime, I can see better Dune movies that encompass all the books. I am a Trekkie, but I know the Dune world is more vast and beats both Star Trek and Star Wars hands down.

In 1974, Alejandro Jodorowsky is tasked with directing Dune. He would recruit big names from the past and new talents of the future to form a creative team to produce a giant artistic book. It's too bad that Dan O'Bannon died before the filming of this film. On the other hand, it's great to hear from H. R. Giger. They produced a fascinating book. I kept thinking if it's available for purchase. I doubt it very much since it would probably be covered by the novel's copyright. Stories about great projects getting shelved are a dime a dozen. The most interesting aspect of this Hollywood story is that it brought a few important people together. Most importantly, it brought Giger to Hollywood. Jodorowsky is definitely an outside-the-box thinker and this is very nice look into his mind. Seven for the film but ten for the book.

Alejandro Jodorowsky is a well known charlatan and scammer, a self help guru and a creator of a form of therapy known as "psycho - magic" witch is of course a total fraud.

Having been said that (and you can check it for yourself if you dont believe me), my guess is that he conned a lot of people in the 70s for the making of this movie. All the encounters he described to convince the cast (Dalí, Orson Wells, Mick Jagger) are evidently pure fantasy and there's no a shred of evidence that any of those events happened (except for a few words of one of Dali's muse, who is kind of a fraudster herself). I wont be surprised if that is the way he tricked producers and the visual artist to come abroad this project, that in the end he knew very well that it never would be done, so he could walk away with all of the fame and none of the blame, because is just "Hollywood's fault, not mine".

This documentary is 100% without exception a testimony narrated by of some of the people involved in the process and that's it. No more evidence, investigation or third party testimony.

"Jodorowsky's June" (2013 release from France; 90 min.) brings the background story on what is referred to as possibly the greatest movie never made, the adaptation of the science fiction book "Dune" by "high art" director Alejandro Jodorowsky. As the documentary opens, we get a crash course of Jodorowsky's earlier work, including experimental theatre in Mexico in the early 60s and a couple of cult movie in the early 70s that did surprisingly well in Europe. So Jodorowsky gets the opportunity to assemble a team of "warriors", as he calls them, to make his vision of Dune into a visual reality. To tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: first and foremost, if you are a movie enthusiast, you are in for a finger-lickin' good time! Credit for that goes of course to director Frank Pavich, but let's be honest: he couldn't have had a more enjoyable subject than Alejandro Jodorowsky, who turns out to be a master story teller. The way he convinces people, one after another, to give their cooperation to the movie, is just priceless (one of the best stories involves the movie makers making a trip to London to ask Pink Floyd to provide the soundtrack--just watch!). Jodorowsky is now in his mid-80s but he looks about 20 or 30 years younger, and most importantly, he remains as feisty and as ambitious as ever. There is a nice soundtrack to the movie, by Kurt Stenzel (of the band SpacEKraft).

I had seen the trailer for this movie a number of times in recent weeks, and this was for me once of the most anticipated releases so far in 2014. The movie opened this weekend at my local art-house theatre here in Cincinnati, and I went to see it right away. The early evening screening I saw this at was very well attended, I'm happy to say. If you are in the mood for a top notch documentary that gives the spotlight to a creative genius who could've/should've brought Dune to the big screen the right way, by all means see this. "Jodorowsky's Dune" is HIGHLY, HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

"Visionary" is the most misused term in film circles of late, thrown around by idiots who wouldn't know a D.W. Griffith film from a Warhol. Such is the fate of Alexandro (proper spelling) Jodorowsky, a darling of cultists.

Unlike the particularly lame set of experts rounded up here (fan boys as film critics and untalented film directors Richard Stanley and Nicolas Winding Refn), I was a film buff in the '60s and '70s and properly placed Alexandro's work ("El Topo", "Fando & Lis", "The Holy Mountain") in the context of his betters: Glauber Rocha from Brazil and the fabulous European surrealist Arrabal.

Frank Pavich who directed this documentary fails to mention even in passing that "Fando and Lis" was adapted by AJ from a play by Arrabal. "Viva la Muerte!" by Arrabal was just as influential a midnight movie at the outset of the '70s as AJ's "El Topo", and all the art-house directors of that era owed plenty to the innovations of Rocha in a series of films from which "Antonio das Mortes" stood out, and would still be a reference point if folks did their homework.

In covering AJ's work this documentary is incomplete and misleading. The most famous anecdote regarding "The Holy Mountain" concerns star Dennis Hopper going crazy during filming and leaving the set, forcing AJ to replace him. Nowhere is that level of historical research encountered here.

Instead we have AJ pontificating, gesticulating, and basically acting the part of "the mad genius" for Pavich's camera. This routine, favored by Werner Herzog in recent decades gets old in a hurry and made watching "J's 'Dune" a real chore. I interviewed Terry Gilliam in 1981 in Manhattan on his promo junket for the release of "The Time Bandits" and he behaved in person one-on-one quite similar to the way Jodo acts here. Both men are so full of enthusiasm and passion concerning making movies that they literally seem about to blow a gasket at any moment.

Both Jodorowsky and Gilliam have become famous over the years for the outlandishness (and scale) of their projects, and their becoming folk heroes by going Don Quixote-like up against the windmills/giants of the Film Establishment, i.e., the guys who hold the purse-strings.

Much is made here of Hollywood's inability to see the power of AJ's meticulously (and permanently) enshrined shooting script that is bound in hardback the size of an unexpurgated Webster's dictionary. Both he and Gilliam seem to have a mental block against recognizing the difference between making a large-scale, say mature David Lean- scale, movie and writing the Great American Novel or crafting the ultimate Broadway Play. Self-appointed "visionaries" need not apply - only fools like Bob Guccione and his "most expensive porn film of all time" Caligula can do that. Artists like these should sensibly follow in the footsteps of avant-garde filmmakers, Maya Deren, Ed Emshwiller, Stan Brakhage and Stan Vanderbeek: create independent, no-budget, uncompromising underground cinema. Leave the $200,000,000 projects to hacks like Michael Bay.

It was Dino De Laurentiis (along with Joseph E. Levine and Alexander Salkind) who initiated the era of big-budgets we currently live with: back when Dune by AJ was being worked on and shopped the entire film industry was functioning under very tight budgetary restrictions following the near-collapse of the studios in 1969: no film in the '70s was being green-lighted with a budget as high as $15,000,000, which Dune would entail.

For the record, it was 1976 when Levine's "A Bridge Too Far", Dino's "King Kong" and Salkind's "Superman" were independently produced at much higher budgets, opening the floodgates. And not coincidentally it was Dino, through his daughter, who ended up producing the David Lynch flop of "Dune".

So the doc's argument about AJ's war with stupid studio execs is completely off- base and ignorantly presented -their hands were tied at that time.

Worse than that, the movie's implication about the power and influence of AJ's Dune, even without it being made, is 180 degrees off the mark. Sure, we see trotted out a who's who of ultra-creative talent that was working on preparing the movie: Giger, Moebius, O'Bannon, even hangers-on like Welles and Dali. Ridley Scott is rightly shown to be the chief recipient of the fruits of their labors -going from the promising art-house director of "The Duellists" to fame and fortune (via hiring AJ's technicians) with increasingly bigger- canvas epics like "Alien", "Blade Runner" and ultimately "Gladiator" and many others all of which not coincidentally resemble the '60s epics that sank Hollywood's fortunes and led to that moratorium on big-budget projects in the first place.

The legacy of this unfinished film is not launching top technical and creative talent in a host of blockbusters but rather the industry's ongoing fascination with flashy, mindless crap, currently emblazoned by the application of 3-D (a tarnished medium from the early '50s) to so many pictures as well as fake IMAX (not using the IMAX photographic system) to market the junk.

What Pavich presents as AJ's strengths are in fact his fatal flaws. Rounding up the top talent - it seems like he has the Midas touch in finding the best in each field, does not disguise the obvious fact that had he actually been able to make "Dune", AJ would be calling all the shots, like a Robert Rodriguez (writer/director/cameraman/editor). Evidence of this creeps into the doc with the segment dealing with Doug Trumbull, who is sloughed off as arrogant or not a team player when AJ rejects his participation out of hand, when in fact it is obvious that AJ is the arrogant s.o.b., not Doug.

AJ would have a firmer and more legitimate place in film history had he remained independent and tackled smaller-scale films that expressed exactly what he wanted to say, a la the models of Jim Jarmusch or Woody Allen.

Long before Frank Herbert's 'Dune' was adapted into a movie in 1984 and a miniseries in 2000, 'Santa Sangre' director Alejandro Jodorowsky originally attempted to bring the novel to screen and this documentary details how his ambitious project failed. The film consists of interviews with Jodorowsky and his former collaborators, as well as archive footage of those no longer alive. Through these interviews, it becomes clear that the project was always doomed from the start, but that it may have been a surefire interesting movie had it gotten off the ground. Obstacles to production are revealed to include cautious financiers, unwilling to fund a sci-fi film that would run for more than 90 minutes, and egotistical actors (Salvador Dalí apparently wanted $100,000 per minute for the privilege of appearing). As the documentary progresses though, it starts to veer off the deep end with its repeated wild claims (not suggestions) that 'Dune' would have been the new 'Star Wars' and the greatest science fiction film of all time had it gone ahead. Even wilder though is the conspiracy theory presented towards the end, with the filmmakers suggesting that everything from 'The Matrix' to 'Prometheus' took inspiration from Jodorowsky's storyboards for 'Dune' that (they reckon) were passed around all the big studios. While the film goes a little overboard in this regard, it is still fascinating viewing throughout. Animation is used particularly well to bring some of Jodorowsky's storyboards to life and to add extra detail to a record interview with Dan O'Bannon.

Before watching Jodorowsky's Dune I have seen only 2 movies from the director however instead of a feeling of lack I appreciated the other movie footage and background on Jodorowsky's life and works. It isn't mostly what about but how Jodorowsky talks during the movie that shows the ways of how a great mind functions. The movie's settings remind of a play with minimalist theater as mostly characters are seen and heard speaking with no special effects or visuals but one can catch a glimpse of a circle of masters of several fields who need to come together for a masterpiece to be created. So much laughter and applause I have never heard during a documentary played in a cinema as this time. While the "Jodorowsky Marathon" was one of my first film festivals to visit in Budapest and was one of my first times in an art cinema, I plan to continue visiting such festivals and cinemas.

What I knew about Jodorowsky himself prior to this was very little. I have seen The Holy Mountain, Santa Sangre, and El Topo. Judging by those, the idea of him creating Dune with people like Dali attached seemed pretty incredible. I don't hate Lynch's Dune but this sounded like it could've been a pretty sweet improvement. After watching this, I don't really think so anymore.

He had a lot of big names on board or at least made it sound that way - Dali, HR Giger, Orson Welles, among others. It seemed though, that many of those who were interviewed were less than enthused while describing the project. The title of this doc is spot on - "Jodorowsky's Dune". He was taking so many liberties with the story that it was now "based on Herbert's Dune". Even Jodorowsky's son came off as relatively apathetic when speaking of it.

Jodorowsky is very passionate about what he does and was very much so about this movie in particular and I always appreciate creators expressing those feelings to an audience. He is obviously quite sure of his capabilities and believes himself to be a *very* capable storyteller. But this effort, for me, was overblown. I really wish he had shared more of his actual vision and what we would have seen, not just spoken about how it would have come to life. With Giger and Dali, I would have expected more visual representation in the doc.

Should his movie be made? It would be cool to see it realized on the screen, yeah. But should it have been *the* Dune? Definitely not. Anyway, I cut this one short after he spoke about raping Frank Herbert's novel as one would rape the bride on the wedding night. I tried for another 10 minutes or so but I could not get past that euphemism.

Watched that Dune documentary with Alejandro Jodorowsky what a creative man. I really like his motto if you fail its not important try anyway you need to try. Sadly he should have tamed his ego because that became the issue in the end having no compromise, no grey areas just black or white. He loved his concept but he was over passionate and everyday his mind was open. The director of this film achieved the purpose. To engage the audience fully in Jodorowskys world and leaving them with their own debate regarding Jodorowskys proposal for Dune

It attracted my interest even though Jodorowsky was like a wild horse of creativity, ideas let loose and quite rightly so he was against the system but overlooking he was in the system as a film-maker forgetting this and in the end it cost him his opportunities to have his film. That book of great work alongside the incredible talent from all who had supported him that too was his failing he was so involved in his own creation and ideas he forgot to find the importance too in the people and the methods and evaluations of all the others should be inclusive too for things to work in the end. Ultimately he himself was unable to compromise and had to see in the end it failed him. He never got his film although elements from the concept book eventually got made into a comic book

The Hollywood magnate stole his ideas if only he could have calmed his ego He could have compromised and took on board others point of view. What a film that would have been even though it is on the dark side of science fiction. I'm glad he got the documentary made as this led to his reunion with his old friend and he helped influence others most of all. More importantly for him, he got all that creativity out his head as one mans dream needs to be out there physically.

A genius before his time much to be learned from his actions tame the ego but do something anyway life is full of good things you just need to try to focus your energy rationally in areas where you can make things happen

How will your day be today?.......

While this film is a fairly marvellous documentary, how it effects you is largely down to what you already know, and also what you remember of the 70s.

I had heard rumours about an original attempt to create Dune (something similar happened to LotR) but didn't know it was an attempt by a mad Svengali who hired some of the greatest talent available.

As the names were mentioned, my mouth started to drop open - was this a hoax? Why had I never heard of this? Did he really track down Orson Welles by searching for good restaurants in Paris? Was Jodorowsky a fantasist? The interviews they did get were fairly stellar. During which the alarmingly nutty director himself mangled English and reality describing his glorious quest to create the greatest human experience.

This has more than a shade of a mockumentary about it simply because of the grandiose material. And on reflection, we should have seen more. Just seeing Gigers models was astonishing.

Keeping Jodorowsky on screen revealed what the film could have been, as well as why it could never have worked. The moment when he finally saw the trite Dino de Horrendous version of Dune that sank without trace in the 80s was lovely.

(Seen at the London Film Festival)

This film feels like they had enough material for 15 minutes, and so they filmed some other random guys and crammed in as much insulting filler as possible to waste the viewer's time.

The first red flag is the film's opening. Most documentaries start right off with footage of the subject you're here to see, or with thought-provoking voiceover to get the ball rolling. But this one starts with a slow, SLOW, boring credits sequence that's just names on screen intercut with some nondescript folders on a bookshelf. No voiceover, just cheesy "dramatic" music. The first thing this film does is waste your time, and sadly that continues to be its main purpose.

The interviews with Jodorowsky himself are the meatiest part of the documentary, and he basically just fawns over himself and tells you that this movie would've been cool. He doesn't go into detail about the technical aspects or the nuances, he just praises himself and occasionally gives an extremely vague description of a gimmicky scene that he had in mind. He doesn't say anything about the craft of filmmaking or the process of how he would have actually made this movie.

The amount of information this documentary tells you could be summed up in a single-page article. This film is, plain and simple, for easily impressed people who don't know anything about filmmaking or Jodorowsky. One of its interminable filler segments is an incredibly lazy and superficial summary of Jodorowsky's filmography; this sequences would only be useful to someone who's never even heard of the man before. The filmmakers assume you are a complete know-nothing who will be impressed by the barest minimum of work, research and effort on their part.

The most inane time-waster was an absolutely eye-rolling sequence where some guy tells a pathetically dull story about how Jodorowsky gave him some pot laced with hallucinagens. It's the same story every sheltered white guy tells about the first time he took drugs, where he pathetically talks about this entry-level experience like it was something magically unique that never happened to anyone else. And this loser's story is set to a sequence where they just animated his words (like a first-year animation student's project whipped up in one night) because they had absolutely no worthwhile footage to show you.

If you're skeptical about my theory that this film was intended for easily-impressed people who know nothing about the field, a quick glance at the positive reviews validates my assertion. It speaks volumes when reviewers on IMDB call the film "spiritual enlightenment" while admitting they've never seen any of Jodorowsky's other films. If the only movies you ever watch are daytime TV and anything creative or interesting is foreign to you, then you will be impressed by this lazy documentary.