How can the average person describe the Holy Mountain? They can't, It's one of those films that is so bizarre that one has to witness it at least 5 times to fully appreciate it. Alejandro Jodorowsky takes every form of religion and mysticism and puts it into symbolic imagery, that turns into a two hour mind trip. The film is not thrown together, each scene is so chock full of strange imagery, yet each image has a particular meaning. The plot concerns, the thief, who seems to be representational of Christ in modern times. The thief awakens in the desert, almost crucified by children, he is then rescued by an amputee dwarf. After him and the dwarf share a joint, they travel through different scene after scene of surreal images. In one scenario a police state has taken over downtown Mexico. Innocent people are massacred, and birds fly out of their bullet wounds. The conquest of Mexico is reenacted by frogs and iguanas. The Christ character gets drunk with Roman soldiers, and they make a mold of him to produce statues for profit. And this is all in the first twenty minutes. The occult science of alchemy is another factor of the film. The thief finally meets the alchemist, played by Jodorowsky himself, and the alchemist turns his excrement into gold. The black magic of alchemy involves the nine planets of the solar system. We are then introduced to 7 of the most powerful people in the world named after the planets of the solar system. Each person is corrupt and greedy involved in politics, war or mass marketing. Each person who has their own planet, and a weakness is willing to give up their money and be reborn as a Buddhist monk. In a way these people are alchemists also since they have the ability to turn worthless items such as weapons and cosmetics into riches. Since money is just paper, in a way the magic of alchemy in everyday life convinces us that the dollar bill is of value. Many aspects of life are just an illusion, just as in cinema. In the Holy Mountain Jodorowsky proves to be the master of illusion like a magician. Also his character, the Alchemist has the job of spiritual leader to lead all of the 9 people to the Holy Mountain including the Christ character and the women with the Kaballah tattoos. Also the film is indulgent at times in it's Frued like sexuality and nudity. It is both strange and intriguing, both hilarious and horrifying, and one of the weirdest films your most likely to see. Their is so much that happens in this film, that it's almost impossible to describe. People who are looking for deep meaning in films like Donnie Darko need to keep searching, the films of Alejandro Jodorowsky would be a good start. The Holy Mountain is not only a masterpiece, it's a spiritual journey, and it just might very well change the way you look at the world. Not everyone will like it, so sit back and watch with an open mind. The Holy Mountain is one of the most underrated and important films ever made. 10/10
184 Reviews
An Unforgettable Pilgrimage...
Xstal3 August 2020
Are you experienced? Jodorowsky's ambitious Rorschach motion picture tests human's connection to spirituality, and cinema
Quinoa198422 April 2007
How does one start describing writer/director/star/master-of-ceremonies Alejandro Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain? Sensational, outrageous, in-your-face, (the much overused phrase) one-of-a-kind, hilarious, self-indulgent, dangerous, and enlightening could be some words, and there could be more. But these are just symbolic of what one goes into seeing the movie. And what is it to see a movie, to experience it, Jodorowsky, I think anyway, is essentially asking? What about faith, or belief that there can be a way to surpass mortality and live forever? Is there truly any basis to become more than just flesh and bones and organs and love and hate and desire and greed? Perhaps, in the end, it might just be art itself. The Holy Mountain is one (bleeping) crazy art-house picture experience, where the filmmaker asks it's audience to either go on the journey and be open to whatever he's liable to let out of the floodgates of his consciousness, or if to be closed off then to might as well leave. So as it goes, really, with organized religion, which his own character Jodorowsky plays- the Alchemist- could be identifiable as.
As I left the theater I kept on thinking about what it is to put total trust and confidence in a "master", someone who seems to have all the knowledge and experience to take people to higher planes. At the core, is what the Alchemist can do for the nine "planet" representatives any different than what a priest or a rabbi or a monk can promise? There is a level of intellectual stimulation, aside from the obvious emotional connection to the immense level of surrealism, that keeps one from thinking that this becomes all weird for its own sake. Unlike El Topo, however, Jodorowsky this time is much more in control of his own delirious dreamscapes and, in a sense, the genuine consciousness he creates in his Holy Mountain. He gives us, at the start, something a little much akin to El Topo with piling on Christian symbolism and imagery like its got to get into our heads right away. This part, actually, might be somewhat weaker in comparison with the rest of the film, if only because one wonders where the hell this is all going; a Jesus-figure, who comes into a village loaded with circus 'freaks' and gawkers at such 'freaks', and is put into plaster-casting to make more Jesus figures, which he demolishes except for one which he carries with him for a little while.
There's more than just this, but for the first twenty minutes, which is practically silent and without dialog, we get immensely rich but sort of free-form symbolism, some that is great (the scene with the frogs in the representation of the Spanish conquistadors is absolutely uproarious), and some that isn't, like a strange scene in a church. But soon Jodorowsky moves it along to 'Jesus' entering the realm of the Alchemist, and going under his tutelage (and learning how, mayhap, gold can be the end result of literal excrement), learns about who the other members to go on the journey to the holy mountain will be. It's here that Jodorowsky digs deep into the nature of the period he was filming in and how fascinating and perverse human beings can be. These other members are all shown in vignettes to be "manufacturers", for the most part, of weapons, clothing, architecture, political espionage, and as a police force of a sort. More than ever Jodorowsky throws out the outrageousness to eat up, and really it actually never shows (and maybe it's just me as a jaded 21st century guy) to be as shocking as one might expect. Yes, it's extremely violent (watch out for your genitals, by the way, when around these folks), extraordinarily sexually charged (sex machines anyone?), and meant to be in poor taste and so over the top you don't know what is up or down. At first, I thought it couldn't get much better, as far as sheer surrealist entertainment value goes.
Yet as the last section develops, as the Alchemist takes his pupils to the mountain to meet their promised fates, there's more depth than I would have expected, even from all that preceded it as already containing cast quantities of rich socio-political-sexual commentary and prodding knife stabs at correctness. Religion itself, as Bunuel did in the past, is questioned very strongly and seriously, however still in the context of Jodorowsky having his own subjective approach. Of course, the director- who happens to be at the top of his game here stylistically, second only to Santa Sangre as perhaps his most accomplished effort- did become a shaman himself to make this movie, so there is a level of legitimate connection to what religion says to provide us. At the same time, Jodorowsky is, all the same, questioning what it means to submit yourself to indoctrination, to "nothingness" as the Alchemist says to his pupils in their trances. It's not just Christianity that needs to be taken with a grain of salt, although that is very significant in the final section (the 'monster' over the boat, for example, has a lot that can be read into it, ala sin), but that it has to be in the person to understand what immortality REALLY means. The final revelation at the table on the mountain nails it on the head, and suddenly (or not so suddenly) things become clearer; the final lines by the Alchemist (or rather, Jodorowsky himself), make it a very poignant end to what has been a delirious, hilarious trip into consciousness expansion...
In a word, or a few, what it means to 'experience' a film itself, and once it ends, you step back into some kind of reality. The Holy Mountain is a true love it or hate it movie. I loved it, even as I still wonder what the hell it is I just saw/felt/heard/experienced, and of course if it should be believed.
As I left the theater I kept on thinking about what it is to put total trust and confidence in a "master", someone who seems to have all the knowledge and experience to take people to higher planes. At the core, is what the Alchemist can do for the nine "planet" representatives any different than what a priest or a rabbi or a monk can promise? There is a level of intellectual stimulation, aside from the obvious emotional connection to the immense level of surrealism, that keeps one from thinking that this becomes all weird for its own sake. Unlike El Topo, however, Jodorowsky this time is much more in control of his own delirious dreamscapes and, in a sense, the genuine consciousness he creates in his Holy Mountain. He gives us, at the start, something a little much akin to El Topo with piling on Christian symbolism and imagery like its got to get into our heads right away. This part, actually, might be somewhat weaker in comparison with the rest of the film, if only because one wonders where the hell this is all going; a Jesus-figure, who comes into a village loaded with circus 'freaks' and gawkers at such 'freaks', and is put into plaster-casting to make more Jesus figures, which he demolishes except for one which he carries with him for a little while.
There's more than just this, but for the first twenty minutes, which is practically silent and without dialog, we get immensely rich but sort of free-form symbolism, some that is great (the scene with the frogs in the representation of the Spanish conquistadors is absolutely uproarious), and some that isn't, like a strange scene in a church. But soon Jodorowsky moves it along to 'Jesus' entering the realm of the Alchemist, and going under his tutelage (and learning how, mayhap, gold can be the end result of literal excrement), learns about who the other members to go on the journey to the holy mountain will be. It's here that Jodorowsky digs deep into the nature of the period he was filming in and how fascinating and perverse human beings can be. These other members are all shown in vignettes to be "manufacturers", for the most part, of weapons, clothing, architecture, political espionage, and as a police force of a sort. More than ever Jodorowsky throws out the outrageousness to eat up, and really it actually never shows (and maybe it's just me as a jaded 21st century guy) to be as shocking as one might expect. Yes, it's extremely violent (watch out for your genitals, by the way, when around these folks), extraordinarily sexually charged (sex machines anyone?), and meant to be in poor taste and so over the top you don't know what is up or down. At first, I thought it couldn't get much better, as far as sheer surrealist entertainment value goes.
Yet as the last section develops, as the Alchemist takes his pupils to the mountain to meet their promised fates, there's more depth than I would have expected, even from all that preceded it as already containing cast quantities of rich socio-political-sexual commentary and prodding knife stabs at correctness. Religion itself, as Bunuel did in the past, is questioned very strongly and seriously, however still in the context of Jodorowsky having his own subjective approach. Of course, the director- who happens to be at the top of his game here stylistically, second only to Santa Sangre as perhaps his most accomplished effort- did become a shaman himself to make this movie, so there is a level of legitimate connection to what religion says to provide us. At the same time, Jodorowsky is, all the same, questioning what it means to submit yourself to indoctrination, to "nothingness" as the Alchemist says to his pupils in their trances. It's not just Christianity that needs to be taken with a grain of salt, although that is very significant in the final section (the 'monster' over the boat, for example, has a lot that can be read into it, ala sin), but that it has to be in the person to understand what immortality REALLY means. The final revelation at the table on the mountain nails it on the head, and suddenly (or not so suddenly) things become clearer; the final lines by the Alchemist (or rather, Jodorowsky himself), make it a very poignant end to what has been a delirious, hilarious trip into consciousness expansion...
In a word, or a few, what it means to 'experience' a film itself, and once it ends, you step back into some kind of reality. The Holy Mountain is a true love it or hate it movie. I loved it, even as I still wonder what the hell it is I just saw/felt/heard/experienced, and of course if it should be believed.
Art - Don't Blame the Messenger!!!!
mstomaso22 August 2007
Alejandro Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain is worth seeing once in a while. Not because it's difficult to figure out (it really isn't, unless you insist on figuring ALL of it out at once). But because you will be seeing a different movie each time, as your own perspective, mood and life changes.
Holy Mountain is a meticulously made work of cinematic art. It is simultaneously a brilliant absurdist farce, a cynical satire which lampoons religion and capitalism, an affirmation of faith, an indictment of humanity for its cruelty, ignorance and greed and a celebration of life and the human spirit. Who and where you are will determine your interpretation, so don't blame Jodorowsky! He's just the messenger.
Ostensibly, the film is about a fantastic spiritual journey undertaken by an apparently psychologically disturbed young man who looks a bit like what many Christians believe Jesus to have looked like. This young man begins his journey with insects swarming his face. He is either dead or passed out. Some naked children find him and decide to crucify him for fun. He yells at them (incoherently) and they run away. He then meets an amputee with just a couple half-limbs who becomes his friend for the beginning of the film.
This describes the first five or so minutes of the film's plot. Although the film remains somewhat linear and simply plotted from this point to it end, it also draws deep on all manners of symbolism, mercilessly pokes fun at Christianity, its exploitation and its commercialization, and even throws in some pop-Buddhist concepts accompanied by a prophet with a talent for Jiu Jitsu. The entire crucifixion story is repeatedly portrayed, but with levels of absurdity that would probably have some Americans calling for its censorship today.
Later, our protagonist will embark upon an apparently meaningless quest to climb the Holy Mountain with ten powerful companions. Though likable enough, the hero of the film is neither a hero nor a clearly developed character. His (at least) neurotic behavior, his uncertain sense of justice and sometimes animalistic approach to events make him a difficult character to like, but you will feel compelled to follow-through simply to discover what bizarre reality he will encounter next.
Holy Mountain has some of the most impressive sets and surreal to psychedelic imagery I have seen in films of its vintage. Its soundscaping and soundtrack is also very impressive. The amount of dialog is refreshingly minimal, which also helps the director keep his audience focused on what the film does with sound and vision.
Although the film is gorgeous, sensitive viewers should be aware that there is some fairly disturbing imagery in this film. It is meant to be watched while wide-awake and receptive, but strong.
You can find all sorts of meanings in this film. You can label the film many different things. And you can understand it in whatever way works for you. But please do not make the mistake of thinking you've got it right or that your interpretation is anything but your interpretation. Holy Mountain, like many works of film art, does not work that way.
Highly recommended for intellectuals, connoisseurs of film art, and those who enjoy cult films. Definitely not recommended for those who approach film solely as a means for entertainment, and not recommended for a first date (unless the couple has a strong intellectual bent and an interest in film).
Holy Mountain is a meticulously made work of cinematic art. It is simultaneously a brilliant absurdist farce, a cynical satire which lampoons religion and capitalism, an affirmation of faith, an indictment of humanity for its cruelty, ignorance and greed and a celebration of life and the human spirit. Who and where you are will determine your interpretation, so don't blame Jodorowsky! He's just the messenger.
Ostensibly, the film is about a fantastic spiritual journey undertaken by an apparently psychologically disturbed young man who looks a bit like what many Christians believe Jesus to have looked like. This young man begins his journey with insects swarming his face. He is either dead or passed out. Some naked children find him and decide to crucify him for fun. He yells at them (incoherently) and they run away. He then meets an amputee with just a couple half-limbs who becomes his friend for the beginning of the film.
This describes the first five or so minutes of the film's plot. Although the film remains somewhat linear and simply plotted from this point to it end, it also draws deep on all manners of symbolism, mercilessly pokes fun at Christianity, its exploitation and its commercialization, and even throws in some pop-Buddhist concepts accompanied by a prophet with a talent for Jiu Jitsu. The entire crucifixion story is repeatedly portrayed, but with levels of absurdity that would probably have some Americans calling for its censorship today.
Later, our protagonist will embark upon an apparently meaningless quest to climb the Holy Mountain with ten powerful companions. Though likable enough, the hero of the film is neither a hero nor a clearly developed character. His (at least) neurotic behavior, his uncertain sense of justice and sometimes animalistic approach to events make him a difficult character to like, but you will feel compelled to follow-through simply to discover what bizarre reality he will encounter next.
Holy Mountain has some of the most impressive sets and surreal to psychedelic imagery I have seen in films of its vintage. Its soundscaping and soundtrack is also very impressive. The amount of dialog is refreshingly minimal, which also helps the director keep his audience focused on what the film does with sound and vision.
Although the film is gorgeous, sensitive viewers should be aware that there is some fairly disturbing imagery in this film. It is meant to be watched while wide-awake and receptive, but strong.
You can find all sorts of meanings in this film. You can label the film many different things. And you can understand it in whatever way works for you. But please do not make the mistake of thinking you've got it right or that your interpretation is anything but your interpretation. Holy Mountain, like many works of film art, does not work that way.
Highly recommended for intellectuals, connoisseurs of film art, and those who enjoy cult films. Definitely not recommended for those who approach film solely as a means for entertainment, and not recommended for a first date (unless the couple has a strong intellectual bent and an interest in film).
Astonishingly beautiful, bloody and strange
angelynx-26 February 2000
Astonishingly beautiful, bloody and strange surrealist film. Roughly, about a spiritual quest for enlightenment, truth and immortality; but that doesn't begin to describe Jodorowsky's Fellini-like flood of imagery and symbolism. Jodorowsky himself plays "The Master", an occult adept who assembles a group of people representing the planets of our solar system (a Christ figure for Earth) to ascend the Holy Mountain and gain the secret of eternal life. The qualities of the individual planetary cultures are both based on, and distorted from, their classic meanings in astrology and alchemy - you really need to have some basic reading in occultism to follow this movie - and the stunning ending shot takes the theme of illusion vs. truth to a completely different plane.
Come prepared to chuckle
abronaim18 June 2003
If you liked "The Wall" (you know, the Pink Floyd movie), but thought it was a bit of a downer and suffered from the lack of a fat woman humping an excitable, legless, animatronic horse, this movie could be for you.
Despite what you may have heard, "The Holy Mountain" is more absurd than surreal, more funny than disturbing. Don't worry if your tarot cards are gathering dust and you can't remember the difference between wands and swords--such occult knowledge might help you achieve a few "Oh I get that!" moments during the middle of the film, but the heaps of blatant symbolism aren't really the point. In fact, it may just be that the point is: there is no point. When you see a fat man dressed as the Virgin Mary handing out crucifixes under a sign that says "Christs For Sale", you can rack your brain trying to figure out what kind of statement that makes about society--or you can laugh. When you witness "The Government" indoctrinating children with a hatred for the nation of Peru by printing up comic books called "Captain Captain Against The Peruvian Monster", you can lament the plight of innocents being manipulated for selfish ends--or you can laugh! This film bombards the viewer with outlandish images and juxtapositions like these in rapid fire throughout, so it's easy to get bogged down or confused or numb. The secret to appreciating it all is to come prepared to chuckle--some things you'll "get", some things you won't, but most everything is twisted and absurd and, in some way, funny. Now when you get to the end and Jodorowsky winks at you, you can wink right back.
Basically, if you can appreciate absurdity and profundity and the absurdity of profundity (not to mention enormous, colorful sets), you'll find a lot to like here.
PS: If you do like "The Holy Mountain", head down to your local comics shop (or browse over to your favorite book/graphic novel e-tailer) and pick up a couple of volumes of "The Incal" or "The Metabarons", both of which were also written by Jodorowsky. They're like this movie--every bit as garish and violent and thought-provoking and funny--but they have actual plots (epic space-opera plots, no less).
Despite what you may have heard, "The Holy Mountain" is more absurd than surreal, more funny than disturbing. Don't worry if your tarot cards are gathering dust and you can't remember the difference between wands and swords--such occult knowledge might help you achieve a few "Oh I get that!" moments during the middle of the film, but the heaps of blatant symbolism aren't really the point. In fact, it may just be that the point is: there is no point. When you see a fat man dressed as the Virgin Mary handing out crucifixes under a sign that says "Christs For Sale", you can rack your brain trying to figure out what kind of statement that makes about society--or you can laugh. When you witness "The Government" indoctrinating children with a hatred for the nation of Peru by printing up comic books called "Captain Captain Against The Peruvian Monster", you can lament the plight of innocents being manipulated for selfish ends--or you can laugh! This film bombards the viewer with outlandish images and juxtapositions like these in rapid fire throughout, so it's easy to get bogged down or confused or numb. The secret to appreciating it all is to come prepared to chuckle--some things you'll "get", some things you won't, but most everything is twisted and absurd and, in some way, funny. Now when you get to the end and Jodorowsky winks at you, you can wink right back.
Basically, if you can appreciate absurdity and profundity and the absurdity of profundity (not to mention enormous, colorful sets), you'll find a lot to like here.
PS: If you do like "The Holy Mountain", head down to your local comics shop (or browse over to your favorite book/graphic novel e-tailer) and pick up a couple of volumes of "The Incal" or "The Metabarons", both of which were also written by Jodorowsky. They're like this movie--every bit as garish and violent and thought-provoking and funny--but they have actual plots (epic space-opera plots, no less).
Not amused, to say the least
Polaris_DiB18 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Following Jodorowsky's 1970 movie "El Topo", "Holy Mountain" presents more of the same: a post-modern reworking of reworking, a continually tangential relationship of story and aesthetics, a musing upon the nature of symbols religious, political, social, and economic, and a carnivalesque drama featuring dead or dying animals, freaks, tarot-cards, mysticism, and just about anything else he wants to shove in there for good measure. It's a lot more structured than "El Topo", but it's still the same idea... allow a character to travel through many different spiritual contexts to come to some ultimate understanding--wait, no ultimate understanding, and no ultimate "coming to", because as soon as it seems like the movie might actually be concluding, well, there's another whole continuation to take into account.
Once again I find myself caught up with my own desire to see more pretentious art-house style experimental movies and the inability to appreciate Jodorowsky's film. In this case, his "ah, but this is actually just a movie after all" ending, which fits perfectly with his post-modern intentions, is still an almost insulting let down to an audience that has been following this guy for TWO HOURS! To have the sum of all the individual parts add up to, "But this is just a movie and it can't answer the questions we have about the nature of the universe" is not only a let-down, but obnoxious... we know it's a movie, and frankly we're here to see what Jodorowsky thinks about it. Tellingly, he doesn't come to any conclusion at all... it's just a play of images and motifs, restructured symbols and deconstructed signs, with a few tongue-in-cheek flippant disregards for commercial value.
So sure. He can have his fun. But if I'm going to watch something that goes nowhere, I prefer it not actually go anywhere instead of literally leading me on a pilgrimage to do it.
--PolarisDiB
Once again I find myself caught up with my own desire to see more pretentious art-house style experimental movies and the inability to appreciate Jodorowsky's film. In this case, his "ah, but this is actually just a movie after all" ending, which fits perfectly with his post-modern intentions, is still an almost insulting let down to an audience that has been following this guy for TWO HOURS! To have the sum of all the individual parts add up to, "But this is just a movie and it can't answer the questions we have about the nature of the universe" is not only a let-down, but obnoxious... we know it's a movie, and frankly we're here to see what Jodorowsky thinks about it. Tellingly, he doesn't come to any conclusion at all... it's just a play of images and motifs, restructured symbols and deconstructed signs, with a few tongue-in-cheek flippant disregards for commercial value.
So sure. He can have his fun. But if I'm going to watch something that goes nowhere, I prefer it not actually go anywhere instead of literally leading me on a pilgrimage to do it.
--PolarisDiB
I'll be damned
Robert_9010 April 2008
A few months ago, I finally got to see El Topo, Jodorowsky's legendary western-on-acid. Quite simply, it blew me away. It was just so strange, so weird, so utterly crazy...I don't know, seeing El Topo on one viewing doesn't mean you'll be able to comprehend it well enough to describe it properly. I'll give it a second view some other time.
Anyway....why I mentioned El Topo was because it raised the bar for what I could expect from The Holy Mountain, which promised to be even more of a mind-bending surrealist work than El Topo. For this is how, on the basis of a single viewing, I was prepared to judge The Holy Mountain - on just how bizarre it would get.
This may sound a little shallow, but The Holy Mountain is one of those films that requires several viewings to properly comprehend pretty much everything that goes on. On one viewing, all you can do is try and keep your eyes on screen and try to take in as much of the film as possible. Even if you don't fully understand what's going on, take in the experience. That's what I did when I watched The Holy Mountain.
The Holy Mountain begins by following a man who's best described as Christlike as he engages in his own journey from dying in the desert to a tall tower, where he meets a mysterious figure known as the Alchemist. The Alchemist recruits the man for his own plan, which involves bringing together several "thieves" from around the world so that they can embark on a quest for immortality atop the eponymous mountain.
All this is a loose framework for Jodorowsky's trademark elaborate set-pieces - they're big and they're utterly loony. I don't think I'll bother spoiling any of them, but take any scene from the movie and it'll likely have a large, weird-looking set and at least one or two freaky-looking people drawing your attention. One thing that kept preying on my mind the whole time was just how unbelievable the whole idea of The Holy Mountain was. Like El Topo, it was an epic without a wider appeal, and that jarred me for some reason. It just keeps getting stranger and stranger until the end, which I will have to say was utterly unpredictable.
The Holy Mountain is truly one-of-a-kind. It'd be pretty easy to say this film isn't for everyone, but it isn't. If you're into movies that don't make sense on the first time (or even the 10th time), I'd recommend this. Or if you're just looking for one intense filmic experience, it doesn't get much more intense than the imagery of The Holy Mountain.
I'll end this review now - I've run out of synonyms for crazy.
8/10 - this is after one viewing, it'll probably go up after about 7.
Anyway....why I mentioned El Topo was because it raised the bar for what I could expect from The Holy Mountain, which promised to be even more of a mind-bending surrealist work than El Topo. For this is how, on the basis of a single viewing, I was prepared to judge The Holy Mountain - on just how bizarre it would get.
This may sound a little shallow, but The Holy Mountain is one of those films that requires several viewings to properly comprehend pretty much everything that goes on. On one viewing, all you can do is try and keep your eyes on screen and try to take in as much of the film as possible. Even if you don't fully understand what's going on, take in the experience. That's what I did when I watched The Holy Mountain.
The Holy Mountain begins by following a man who's best described as Christlike as he engages in his own journey from dying in the desert to a tall tower, where he meets a mysterious figure known as the Alchemist. The Alchemist recruits the man for his own plan, which involves bringing together several "thieves" from around the world so that they can embark on a quest for immortality atop the eponymous mountain.
All this is a loose framework for Jodorowsky's trademark elaborate set-pieces - they're big and they're utterly loony. I don't think I'll bother spoiling any of them, but take any scene from the movie and it'll likely have a large, weird-looking set and at least one or two freaky-looking people drawing your attention. One thing that kept preying on my mind the whole time was just how unbelievable the whole idea of The Holy Mountain was. Like El Topo, it was an epic without a wider appeal, and that jarred me for some reason. It just keeps getting stranger and stranger until the end, which I will have to say was utterly unpredictable.
The Holy Mountain is truly one-of-a-kind. It'd be pretty easy to say this film isn't for everyone, but it isn't. If you're into movies that don't make sense on the first time (or even the 10th time), I'd recommend this. Or if you're just looking for one intense filmic experience, it doesn't get much more intense than the imagery of The Holy Mountain.
I'll end this review now - I've run out of synonyms for crazy.
8/10 - this is after one viewing, it'll probably go up after about 7.
A Spiritual Journey Into the Absurd
gavin694224 March 2008
"The Holy Mountain" is an unusual tale, deep in philosophical symbolism and imagery. On the surface, it tells the tale of a thief who enters the tower of an alchemist and is taught that he can turn his worthless life into one more meaningful. But then we get the symbolism: religious imagery, Tarot-inspired imagery and other oddities.
There is a scene early on where the lead character, the thief, is thought to look like Jesus. His unconscious body was used by local merchants (including a cross-dressing nun) to make Christ statues. He is also followed by a teenage prostitute and a chimpanzee... and another part where he "eats the body of Christ" by devouring one of the statues. Just to give you a sense of the possible sacrilegious nature.
We also have toads and chameleons dressed as Spanish conquistadors, a scene where the alchemist turns excrement to gold (the most blatant metaphor in the film), a gun made from a menorah, and a one-handed, one-footed dwarf. And this is just the beginning.
Those who don't like excessive nudity should avoid the movie. There is an endless supply of male and female full frontal nudity, and a close-up of man's nether region being washed. Apparently, this movie was supposed to star George Harrison but he declines because of the nudity and specifically the washing scene. Harrison, along with John Lennon, largely funded this project (which was produced by Allan Klein).
How to describe this film? Well, I'd say it may be the greatest film ever made if you like cult films. It's sort of like Danny Elfman's "The Forbidden Zone" meets Salvador Dali meets the Beatles meets a snuff film. If that sounds inviting, you need to check this out. If that scares you, run away fast.
There is a scene early on where the lead character, the thief, is thought to look like Jesus. His unconscious body was used by local merchants (including a cross-dressing nun) to make Christ statues. He is also followed by a teenage prostitute and a chimpanzee... and another part where he "eats the body of Christ" by devouring one of the statues. Just to give you a sense of the possible sacrilegious nature.
We also have toads and chameleons dressed as Spanish conquistadors, a scene where the alchemist turns excrement to gold (the most blatant metaphor in the film), a gun made from a menorah, and a one-handed, one-footed dwarf. And this is just the beginning.
Those who don't like excessive nudity should avoid the movie. There is an endless supply of male and female full frontal nudity, and a close-up of man's nether region being washed. Apparently, this movie was supposed to star George Harrison but he declines because of the nudity and specifically the washing scene. Harrison, along with John Lennon, largely funded this project (which was produced by Allan Klein).
How to describe this film? Well, I'd say it may be the greatest film ever made if you like cult films. It's sort of like Danny Elfman's "The Forbidden Zone" meets Salvador Dali meets the Beatles meets a snuff film. If that sounds inviting, you need to check this out. If that scares you, run away fast.
John Welsey Harding
tedg21 August 2007
For me, there are a variety of ways to encounter a film or any piece of art and consider it worth existing in my life.
Perhaps the most sought is art that is like a lover: honest, direct, deep, challenging, attuned. Then there are all sorts of seductions that play on these harmonies. Jodorowsky isn't interested in being true; he's interested in the seduction, in a sort of truth lingerie that teases and charms.
I knew this of course. I've seen "Fando," which I considered without merit, in large part because it was uncinematic. I wondered what this man would do once he learned the vocabulary. Now I know. The first part of this project has some of the most creative and effective cinematic stretches I have seen and I've seen a lot. They are weighed down with an adolescent cosmology, but its acceptable because its a proudly Mexican film, and the Mexicans are presented as similarly limited.
So I'll recommend that you watch this, for all the bits from the beginning up until roughly the middle act where his new Tarot is presented. These are more well thought out than it appears. Its a strange, polar mix: the general impression is that this is wholly ad-libbed with a deep anarchist philosophy. Yet some elements and particularly his redrawing of the more colorful segment of the Tarot show some similarly deep understanding of what he undercuts. Its a very appealing thing, this bicameral scintillation, and done with cinematic immersion.
Its the third act that drags. This is not a man who understands long form and its demands. Perhaps the Quay brothers are his successors and they suffer from the same problem. Anyway, the effort gets dreary as the social commentary is paraded before us, almost as if he cannot help himself. The lack of restraint is an art in itself, the art of disappointment, but I can get that in daily life, and with as much pride and flourish.
The end isn't novel: the crew is revealed as the "final layer" is peeled off the onion. But it is effective, and underscores the similar, earlier folds.
What's interesting is wondering now how this could be done better if it were done now. Quite apart from the structural flaws, would the ability to use special effects technology and computer reality help? Would Rodriguez, for instance be able to sharpen and deepen this?
And the sexual bits. There is a fair amount of nudity, but it is the "Catholic nation" kind: sterile, even when actual sex is supposed to be shown. For such a committed anarchist, one wonders. Its one thing to be just outside of the bounds of acceptable behavior in a theater setting: simple nudity and confrontation works there. But here, in a cinematic world that dips beyond the theatrical, is it enough to merely pretend you are committed, showing that you are not? Winterbottom? Greenaway?
If you see this on the restored DVD, there's a nice short feature on the Tarot, just the 22 cards. It oddly doesn't show the Jodorowsky version of those cards, which you can see in the film. Those cards are every bit as engaging as the film is, even though to look at them you have to stop and leave the film to see them. They aren't just an interpretation, but a whole new reimagining.
Here's a little known bit of history that I participated in. The Beatles wanted to reinterpret Tarot in an album, and had more success than here. Dylan too, and several other artists in their respective worlds. Jodorowsky was a part of this, a bit later. If you look, you can see that he is not just reinterpreting the Marseilles Tarot, but the Beatle/Dylan/Fowles one as well.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Perhaps the most sought is art that is like a lover: honest, direct, deep, challenging, attuned. Then there are all sorts of seductions that play on these harmonies. Jodorowsky isn't interested in being true; he's interested in the seduction, in a sort of truth lingerie that teases and charms.
I knew this of course. I've seen "Fando," which I considered without merit, in large part because it was uncinematic. I wondered what this man would do once he learned the vocabulary. Now I know. The first part of this project has some of the most creative and effective cinematic stretches I have seen and I've seen a lot. They are weighed down with an adolescent cosmology, but its acceptable because its a proudly Mexican film, and the Mexicans are presented as similarly limited.
So I'll recommend that you watch this, for all the bits from the beginning up until roughly the middle act where his new Tarot is presented. These are more well thought out than it appears. Its a strange, polar mix: the general impression is that this is wholly ad-libbed with a deep anarchist philosophy. Yet some elements and particularly his redrawing of the more colorful segment of the Tarot show some similarly deep understanding of what he undercuts. Its a very appealing thing, this bicameral scintillation, and done with cinematic immersion.
Its the third act that drags. This is not a man who understands long form and its demands. Perhaps the Quay brothers are his successors and they suffer from the same problem. Anyway, the effort gets dreary as the social commentary is paraded before us, almost as if he cannot help himself. The lack of restraint is an art in itself, the art of disappointment, but I can get that in daily life, and with as much pride and flourish.
The end isn't novel: the crew is revealed as the "final layer" is peeled off the onion. But it is effective, and underscores the similar, earlier folds.
What's interesting is wondering now how this could be done better if it were done now. Quite apart from the structural flaws, would the ability to use special effects technology and computer reality help? Would Rodriguez, for instance be able to sharpen and deepen this?
And the sexual bits. There is a fair amount of nudity, but it is the "Catholic nation" kind: sterile, even when actual sex is supposed to be shown. For such a committed anarchist, one wonders. Its one thing to be just outside of the bounds of acceptable behavior in a theater setting: simple nudity and confrontation works there. But here, in a cinematic world that dips beyond the theatrical, is it enough to merely pretend you are committed, showing that you are not? Winterbottom? Greenaway?
If you see this on the restored DVD, there's a nice short feature on the Tarot, just the 22 cards. It oddly doesn't show the Jodorowsky version of those cards, which you can see in the film. Those cards are every bit as engaging as the film is, even though to look at them you have to stop and leave the film to see them. They aren't just an interpretation, but a whole new reimagining.
Here's a little known bit of history that I participated in. The Beatles wanted to reinterpret Tarot in an album, and had more success than here. Dylan too, and several other artists in their respective worlds. Jodorowsky was a part of this, a bit later. If you look, you can see that he is not just reinterpreting the Marseilles Tarot, but the Beatle/Dylan/Fowles one as well.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Dated, pretentious, astonishing
jhb473128 June 2004
I don't think this film can be "reviewed" in the normal sense of the word, only experienced as one would a painting or a piece of music. Having only seen it two nights ago, I'm not even sure I've fully processed it. In any case...
To begin, the images, the images. The first 20 minutes contain some of the most astonishing images I've seen, combining Christian iconography, Latin American history, futurism, mysticism, and political commentary. As if Fellini had a sinister twin working with his leftover film and props. As the film progresses I thought the set pieces became a little dated and, frankly, I experienced sensory overload.
I'm sure a lot of viewers would reject this film as pointless or indulgent. Yeah...so? I can't say I understood exactly what Jodoworsky was getting at (if anything), or if it would even make an impact on my view of the world. But if film is to be defined as image over everything else, then Jodoworsky is certainly some sort of master filmmaker. I'd rather watch something like this, filled with ideas (however pretentious), than a plot-driven movie with nothing more on its mind than wrapping up loose ends for the audience.
Now, off to rent Santa Sangre.
To begin, the images, the images. The first 20 minutes contain some of the most astonishing images I've seen, combining Christian iconography, Latin American history, futurism, mysticism, and political commentary. As if Fellini had a sinister twin working with his leftover film and props. As the film progresses I thought the set pieces became a little dated and, frankly, I experienced sensory overload.
I'm sure a lot of viewers would reject this film as pointless or indulgent. Yeah...so? I can't say I understood exactly what Jodoworsky was getting at (if anything), or if it would even make an impact on my view of the world. But if film is to be defined as image over everything else, then Jodoworsky is certainly some sort of master filmmaker. I'd rather watch something like this, filled with ideas (however pretentious), than a plot-driven movie with nothing more on its mind than wrapping up loose ends for the audience.
Now, off to rent Santa Sangre.
More Like Holy Crap!
Bill35724 March 2009
Forget about the war on drugs and the war on terror! It's about time someone declare a war on pretentiousness!
The emperor has no clothes, people! Some pretentious eggheads shout down from their lofty perches, telling the masses that this is the movie for the "in crowd", for the intellectual, for the enlightened, and you all jump on the bandwagon! Nobody wants to be left behind.
Surrealist imagery without a real plot is but a trick by the untalented to steal your money without having to write a real screenplay or tell a real story. It makes people wonder if they're "too dumb to get it", so they fill in the holes themselves, all so they can be smart too.
In reality Holy Mountain and it's predecessor Fando & Lis are just silly garbage from a silly, so called director. The only thing that separates him from other bad directors is his shamelessness when it comes to using the moving image as a grift.
In other words, if you try to make a good movie and fail (like Ed Wood), then you're a hack. Sling a bunch of silly "surrealist" images together without trying, then you're considered a genius by a bunch of sheep.
Jodorowsky is a con man who should return the money he stole from unsuspecting movie-watchers.
The emperor has no clothes, people! Some pretentious eggheads shout down from their lofty perches, telling the masses that this is the movie for the "in crowd", for the intellectual, for the enlightened, and you all jump on the bandwagon! Nobody wants to be left behind.
Surrealist imagery without a real plot is but a trick by the untalented to steal your money without having to write a real screenplay or tell a real story. It makes people wonder if they're "too dumb to get it", so they fill in the holes themselves, all so they can be smart too.
In reality Holy Mountain and it's predecessor Fando & Lis are just silly garbage from a silly, so called director. The only thing that separates him from other bad directors is his shamelessness when it comes to using the moving image as a grift.
In other words, if you try to make a good movie and fail (like Ed Wood), then you're a hack. Sling a bunch of silly "surrealist" images together without trying, then you're considered a genius by a bunch of sheep.
Jodorowsky is a con man who should return the money he stole from unsuspecting movie-watchers.
Lush, Hallucinatory, Visionary.
Panar1on18 December 2000
Alejandro Jodorowsky's sprawling, psychedelic opus almost defies interpretation in any conventional sense. Steeped in symbolism and spirituality it is a piece of art that attempts to redefine the psyche and the human condition through a celebration of the surreal, the grotesque and the beautiful. Its inner meaning is deliberately vague, allowing personal interpretation to take the place of empty preaching and contrived moral messaging. Simply breathtaking.
70's art house flick that takes itself too seriously
Sergiodave27 July 2020
The Holy Mountain is at times interesting, but not nearly as good as both the Director and some of the IMDB reviewers think. It tries to shock, and fails miserably. For shock see Ken Russell's "The Devils" made in 1971 which I am sure inspired Alexandro Jodorowsky. I Enjoyed it and will probably watch it again, but it is no visionary landmark piece of art, more a case of the emperors new clothes.
Pretentious, Boring, but not a total waste
thirdi31 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I refuse to be condemned by the art-house snobs for not liking this movie. People read way too much into a lot of different art, and it doesn't make them some special visionary. Sometimes artsy fartsy crap is just that. This movie is not "above" you intellectually or artistically.
The Holy Mountain is essentially a collage of wacky, strange, self-important images and scenes that really don't mean anything. Don't you ever wonder? There's a reason these rare, cult movies have only been seen by a small percentage of the population. It's not because we're better than the "unwashed, uncultured masses". It's because if the movie was actually really good it would be more widely seen. It's because some of us heard about these obscure, cult movies and actually took the time and energy to seek them out. And sometimes we just weren't that impressed. (Okay, and maybe it's because some jerk has held the release rights hostage for entirely too long).
Now having said all of that, I still don't think it is a waste of time to watch. How can I say that? Well, the bottom line is, people forget the notion that at the end of the day, not everything has to mean something. Shouldn't we be allowed to take in interesting or different images, films, etc...without decoding their grand vision? Yes, we should. So there are some pretty weird scenes and visions to behold in this movie. And for nothing more than the novelty of it it isn't a total waste of film. I also liked some of the music. But please spare me the "so far ahead of it's time, magnificent work of artistic expression" crap. You're taking it way too seriously. The Holy Mountain is not a landmark, it's a novelty of bizarre underground cinema. Nothing more.
The Holy Mountain is essentially a collage of wacky, strange, self-important images and scenes that really don't mean anything. Don't you ever wonder? There's a reason these rare, cult movies have only been seen by a small percentage of the population. It's not because we're better than the "unwashed, uncultured masses". It's because if the movie was actually really good it would be more widely seen. It's because some of us heard about these obscure, cult movies and actually took the time and energy to seek them out. And sometimes we just weren't that impressed. (Okay, and maybe it's because some jerk has held the release rights hostage for entirely too long).
Now having said all of that, I still don't think it is a waste of time to watch. How can I say that? Well, the bottom line is, people forget the notion that at the end of the day, not everything has to mean something. Shouldn't we be allowed to take in interesting or different images, films, etc...without decoding their grand vision? Yes, we should. So there are some pretty weird scenes and visions to behold in this movie. And for nothing more than the novelty of it it isn't a total waste of film. I also liked some of the music. But please spare me the "so far ahead of it's time, magnificent work of artistic expression" crap. You're taking it way too seriously. The Holy Mountain is not a landmark, it's a novelty of bizarre underground cinema. Nothing more.
Interesting nonsense.
KaiserBasileus18 July 2019
Good Lord
Samiam37 August 2010
Like David Lynch's Lost Highway, The Holy Mountain is a film I'd be liable to recommend to a species of intelligence superior to man. This film is almost unclassifiable by human standards, except to call it a surrealist film, which is what we label anything that intentionally doesn't make sense.
The film has a few neat sequences here and there, including a cute ending (even though it is a rushed one). What bothers me most about The Holy Mountain is that frankly it is in very bad taste. Its content is irreverent, and vulgar, and whatever the film is trying to say doesn't come out very well.
The middle section I think is the best part. A number of individual sequences experimenting with allegory and art direction bode much better than the film as an entire hundred minute story. Art critics will probably look at The Holy Mountain, and be reminded of Hieronymous Bosh's Garden of Earthly Delights. Among other things both feature copious amounts of over saturated, unnatural colors and frontal nudity. The Holy Mountain can be plushy while at the same time kind of gross. The end result is a mildly interesting art movie, sometimes nice to look at, and yet it's also kind of repulsive, and not very smart.
Might be of interest to art fans.
The film has a few neat sequences here and there, including a cute ending (even though it is a rushed one). What bothers me most about The Holy Mountain is that frankly it is in very bad taste. Its content is irreverent, and vulgar, and whatever the film is trying to say doesn't come out very well.
The middle section I think is the best part. A number of individual sequences experimenting with allegory and art direction bode much better than the film as an entire hundred minute story. Art critics will probably look at The Holy Mountain, and be reminded of Hieronymous Bosh's Garden of Earthly Delights. Among other things both feature copious amounts of over saturated, unnatural colors and frontal nudity. The Holy Mountain can be plushy while at the same time kind of gross. The end result is a mildly interesting art movie, sometimes nice to look at, and yet it's also kind of repulsive, and not very smart.
Might be of interest to art fans.
What did I just watch?
KnightsofNi1127 June 2012
My entire perception of reality and what the medium of cinema means has changed since watching Alejandro Jodorowsky's sacrilegious mind trip The Holy Mountain. It's a bizarre avant-garde film that uses strange and sacrilegious imagery to evoke reactions of fear, disgust, wonder, and mysticism in its viewers. The film begins with a Christ like figure wandering around a destitute city. He then finds his way to an alchemist who forms a band of men and women who will seek immortality and utmost holiness from the Gods who supposedly live atop the Holy Mountain. It's an intense audio visual experience that absolutely blew me a way.
While watching The Holy Mountain I had no idea what was going on and trying to decipher all the images in the film is a near impossible challenge. But what I did know is that I was watching a masterpiece. I could feel it in the grandiose way the film was presented and the profound subject matter at hand. One set after another absolutely floored me in it's innovative design unlike anything I've ever seen before. Jodorowsky's use of color is profound and the simple yet ingenious things he does with the camera are beautifully spectacular.
The Holy Mountain is a beautiful film and a disturbing film at the same time. It has a thick air of mysticism about it that strikes wonder and confusion into the viewer like a knife. If you sit back and allow The Holy Mountain to take you at its will it will invoke intense emotional reactions in you, but you won't even understand why. The very end of the film takes an incredibly bizarre and unforeseen turn that I never could have expected. It ends so abruptly and when the credits began to role I found myself getting a little misty, and I had no idea why. This is a profound film that does unexpected things to the viewer. Watch at your own risk because The Holy Mountain just might change your life
While watching The Holy Mountain I had no idea what was going on and trying to decipher all the images in the film is a near impossible challenge. But what I did know is that I was watching a masterpiece. I could feel it in the grandiose way the film was presented and the profound subject matter at hand. One set after another absolutely floored me in it's innovative design unlike anything I've ever seen before. Jodorowsky's use of color is profound and the simple yet ingenious things he does with the camera are beautifully spectacular.
The Holy Mountain is a beautiful film and a disturbing film at the same time. It has a thick air of mysticism about it that strikes wonder and confusion into the viewer like a knife. If you sit back and allow The Holy Mountain to take you at its will it will invoke intense emotional reactions in you, but you won't even understand why. The very end of the film takes an incredibly bizarre and unforeseen turn that I never could have expected. It ends so abruptly and when the credits began to role I found myself getting a little misty, and I had no idea why. This is a profound film that does unexpected things to the viewer. Watch at your own risk because The Holy Mountain just might change your life
Supernatural hunger, surreal art and a so-so movie...
ThurstonHunger28 April 2004
So people who are crazy about this film, are fun to be around, but probably just plain crazy. People who hold this film in contempt, are not going to be much fun.
I've seen "Fando and Lis" but not yet "El Topo." I'm happily surprised to see that a sequel to "El Topo" is evidently in the offing per IMDB. Or maybe that has been the case for the past 20 years...
If you typically like "experimental" film (and I mean stuff like what the Ann Arbor Film Festival showcases not say Cronenburg's "Spider"), then you should be able to sift enough gold out of this film. But there is plenty of gold's alchemical opposite as well.
Imagination erupts out of this film like birds out of bullet holes. The plot with its quasi-mystical, anti-corporate kaleidoscope of world religions is there just to connect the dots between artistic film. As such, you could call this a fantastic film, but a horrible movie. In fact, the more seeming contradictions you can utter and pretend to understand, the more you will enjoy the spare dialog throughout this.
The fact is you will be lucky to find it, at least for now. The japanese version I came across did have genitalia replaced by white splotches...it did sort of dampen the hippie heresy vibe, but the Don Cherry assisted soundtrack more than made up for that.
A lot of the set design, especially when then set spinning was visually inviting for me. It would be fascinating to know more about this film, what did the extras think as Jodorowsky was guiding them on his very obscure personal vision? How much did this film cost him to make...despite its off-the-cuff vitality, it clearly was not made with spare hubcaps and rubber bands.
The mingling of myth is fun, and while some folks may use this to slake their spiritual thirst, or satisfy their supernatural hunger, I'm not yet ready to buy into the chakra and awe. Who are we? Why are we here?
For me, I just wondered, how did Jodorowsky make this film?
And yes I am glad that he did...
6/10
I've seen "Fando and Lis" but not yet "El Topo." I'm happily surprised to see that a sequel to "El Topo" is evidently in the offing per IMDB. Or maybe that has been the case for the past 20 years...
If you typically like "experimental" film (and I mean stuff like what the Ann Arbor Film Festival showcases not say Cronenburg's "Spider"), then you should be able to sift enough gold out of this film. But there is plenty of gold's alchemical opposite as well.
Imagination erupts out of this film like birds out of bullet holes. The plot with its quasi-mystical, anti-corporate kaleidoscope of world religions is there just to connect the dots between artistic film. As such, you could call this a fantastic film, but a horrible movie. In fact, the more seeming contradictions you can utter and pretend to understand, the more you will enjoy the spare dialog throughout this.
The fact is you will be lucky to find it, at least for now. The japanese version I came across did have genitalia replaced by white splotches...it did sort of dampen the hippie heresy vibe, but the Don Cherry assisted soundtrack more than made up for that.
A lot of the set design, especially when then set spinning was visually inviting for me. It would be fascinating to know more about this film, what did the extras think as Jodorowsky was guiding them on his very obscure personal vision? How much did this film cost him to make...despite its off-the-cuff vitality, it clearly was not made with spare hubcaps and rubber bands.
The mingling of myth is fun, and while some folks may use this to slake their spiritual thirst, or satisfy their supernatural hunger, I'm not yet ready to buy into the chakra and awe. Who are we? Why are we here?
For me, I just wondered, how did Jodorowsky make this film?
And yes I am glad that he did...
6/10
The Hell Did I Just Watch?
MamadNobari9715 January 2021
Yep, this is the first movie that I genuinely don't know wtf I watched to even rate it a score!
And then people say A Clockwork Orange is weird lmao
(not saying it's bad, not saying it's good, just don't what it was to even rate it)
And then people say A Clockwork Orange is weird lmao
(not saying it's bad, not saying it's good, just don't what it was to even rate it)
A boring art house film delivering the wrong message
CommeVousNousEtions9 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
What can you say about such a film? Some liken it to art, but as another reviewer said all film is art so that is not an appropriate justification. There is good and bad art and you'll have to do better than you just don't 'get' it. I hate when people have to justify that they 'got' a film before criticizing it.
This film is on the most tasteless level of film making. I think people have fooled themselves into liking it. I almost did, I really had to think about the rating I would give this for a while. In the end I based my decision on the emotional impact, nil, and the amount of depraved muck I had to watch to 'get' the satire, the satire being the redeeming factor of the film for me until I realised that it wasn't satire at all. It was glorification of debauchery. In films that satire a particular group such as the politicians in Dr. Strangelove we see them as inept fools and know exactly the people in real life they reference. At no point do any of the nine depraved rich come across as fools or can they be referenced to a particular person in reality. Only the Jesus character comes across as a fool. The other fools portrayed in the film are actually the normal people, i.e. you and me, who buy into the nine's images and marketing strategies. The audience. And that sickens me to the core. That he mocks the people of the world while at the same time the film is lauded by those same people buying into it's 'image' even when it is so obviously gross and depraved.
So the evil rich at the end gain enlightenment or truth, while the rest of us wallow in the mire forevermore. A purely evil theme if ever I've seen one and obviously I can't get behind that.
I probably went into this film way too open minded first time around, to the point where I had convinced myself I just needed an open mind to enjoy it. I had a chuckle at the art (satire?) scene where asses paint the new 'masterpieces'. But for a two hour film with only one memorable scene, the scene that is probably an allegory for the film that presented it, that's not good enough.
My conclusion is that unlike real art from the renaissance period where artists tried to capture the real world as perfectly and beautifully as possible, the same can be said of poetry trying to capture emotion or books trying to create fantastic adventures etc, this would be art, however, the advent of 'modern' artists in both the painting world and the cinema world has left an ongoing legacy of pure muck on canvas and film reels parading as art, this film achieves nothing artistically, it is not moving and emotional, it is not epic, it is not beautiful, it's not even entertaining for most of it, it's just a shock to the system for most people and fear of calling down the wrath of the critics or for being called out for not 'getting' it people laud its brilliance. This sort of 'art' is forced and is clearly not made to inspire and invigorate the soul and for all these reasons I'm out.
Even if this was art, what can we compare it with in our own experience to say that it is beautiful, there is no reference point in reality for something like this, not like a symphony stirring up emotions, or the awe of amazing landscape or portrait paintings or an uplifting or sombre story. This has none of the above, If this is solely an intellectual film, then I say to all these pseudo intellectuals to go out and get a PHD in physics or something and stop convincing us of your great intellect by saying you 'get' this utter nonsense.
This film is on the most tasteless level of film making. I think people have fooled themselves into liking it. I almost did, I really had to think about the rating I would give this for a while. In the end I based my decision on the emotional impact, nil, and the amount of depraved muck I had to watch to 'get' the satire, the satire being the redeeming factor of the film for me until I realised that it wasn't satire at all. It was glorification of debauchery. In films that satire a particular group such as the politicians in Dr. Strangelove we see them as inept fools and know exactly the people in real life they reference. At no point do any of the nine depraved rich come across as fools or can they be referenced to a particular person in reality. Only the Jesus character comes across as a fool. The other fools portrayed in the film are actually the normal people, i.e. you and me, who buy into the nine's images and marketing strategies. The audience. And that sickens me to the core. That he mocks the people of the world while at the same time the film is lauded by those same people buying into it's 'image' even when it is so obviously gross and depraved.
So the evil rich at the end gain enlightenment or truth, while the rest of us wallow in the mire forevermore. A purely evil theme if ever I've seen one and obviously I can't get behind that.
I probably went into this film way too open minded first time around, to the point where I had convinced myself I just needed an open mind to enjoy it. I had a chuckle at the art (satire?) scene where asses paint the new 'masterpieces'. But for a two hour film with only one memorable scene, the scene that is probably an allegory for the film that presented it, that's not good enough.
My conclusion is that unlike real art from the renaissance period where artists tried to capture the real world as perfectly and beautifully as possible, the same can be said of poetry trying to capture emotion or books trying to create fantastic adventures etc, this would be art, however, the advent of 'modern' artists in both the painting world and the cinema world has left an ongoing legacy of pure muck on canvas and film reels parading as art, this film achieves nothing artistically, it is not moving and emotional, it is not epic, it is not beautiful, it's not even entertaining for most of it, it's just a shock to the system for most people and fear of calling down the wrath of the critics or for being called out for not 'getting' it people laud its brilliance. This sort of 'art' is forced and is clearly not made to inspire and invigorate the soul and for all these reasons I'm out.
Even if this was art, what can we compare it with in our own experience to say that it is beautiful, there is no reference point in reality for something like this, not like a symphony stirring up emotions, or the awe of amazing landscape or portrait paintings or an uplifting or sombre story. This has none of the above, If this is solely an intellectual film, then I say to all these pseudo intellectuals to go out and get a PHD in physics or something and stop convincing us of your great intellect by saying you 'get' this utter nonsense.
Fascinating, boring, beautiful, ugly, irritating, pretentious, witty and profoundly original. 'The Holy Mountain' will blow your mind!
Infofreak26 November 2003
'El Topo' is still one of the strangest movies ever made but Alejandro Jodorowsky amazingly managed to top himself with 'The Holy Mountain'. This movie contains some of the most weird and wonderful scenes in the history of movies. It is filled with bizarre images which draw upon many religions and occult philosophies, and seems to be inspired equally by Bunuel and the comic book sci-fi surrealism of William Burroughs. It's a cliche but when I say you have to see it to believe it I'm not lying! The movie is roughly in three sections. The first documents the trials and tribulations of The Thief, a Christ figure. The second introduces The Alchemist (played by Jodorowsky himself) and his seven disciples who are each represented by a planet. The third sees all these odd people (and a chimpanzee) go on a pilgrimage to "The Holy Mountain". I found the third section to be much less interesting than the other two, and that, combined with the sensory overload of the earlier parts of the film, makes it not as successful as 'El Topo' for me. But there's no denying that this is an extraordinary movie and anyone who appreciates strange and challenging films will find this to be the strangest and most challenging of all. Jodorowsky makes David Lynch look like Michael Bay! I can't truthfully say I get 90% of what he's getting at but boy, is it a trip trying to figure it out!
Much of the symbolism was lost with me.
raymond-1527 March 2000
Religion, mysticism, alchemy and astrology set the mood for this art-house movie, one not expected to win universal favour these days. It's an episodic documentary that re-enacts much of the suffering and cruelty of past history and man's unceasing struggle to gain enlightenment and immortality which is said to be found on the top of the holy mountain. The result of Jodorowsky's production is a bizarre mixture indeed. While some scenes are entirely original and imaginative (e.g. toads in uniforms) other scenes concerning the planets go on for too long and become rather boring and pointless. Jodorowsky seems to want to shock his audience at every opportunity, and at first he succeeds, but one tends to become immune as shock follows shock. The version I saw was dubbed in English and frontal nudity severely censored. Both aspects tend to nullify or distract and most of the impact is lost. To appreciate this film one needs to be widely read to appreciate the symbolism which permeates the whole movie. I am still trying to figure out the reason for the presence of the little man without hands and feet, and why one needs to surrender body parts to attain immortality. Man is a most contradictory being. In the days of the alchemists, he sought the magic principle that would turn all matter into gold, and later through the influence of religion, he had to divest himself not only of his gold, but also of all his earthly possessions before he had any chance of enlightenment. I think the film starts well but gets lost in its maze of tangled ideas and symbolism.
Russ Meyer on LSD
bjbeamish23 November 2006
This has to be one of the most disappointing films ever made. The beginning promises well with some low-grade Bunuel rip-offs, but quickly descends into exploitative pseudo-meaningful porn with some deliberately sensationalist sequences that undermine the quality of the stream of random set-pieces with which it begins.
The film takes a massive downturn when the director cops out and introduces speech, which makes it appear that he has run out of ideas and cannot sustain the momentum. The dialogue that ensues is pretentious and insubstantial, which makes it appear as though the director is so unhappy with having had to introduce a narrative that he has attempted to mask the comparatively tedious action with it.
This film is definitely of its time and indebted to the 60s notion of free love that in actual fact meant free love for men who exploited women in the process. The imagery towards the end of the film becomes repetitious and most of the acting is appallingly bad and at times laughable. If this film perhaps did not take itself too seriously then we might have had a half-decent curio, but as it is, it becomes a self-indulgent piece of tawdry exploitation.
Unsophisticated drivel.
The film takes a massive downturn when the director cops out and introduces speech, which makes it appear that he has run out of ideas and cannot sustain the momentum. The dialogue that ensues is pretentious and insubstantial, which makes it appear as though the director is so unhappy with having had to introduce a narrative that he has attempted to mask the comparatively tedious action with it.
This film is definitely of its time and indebted to the 60s notion of free love that in actual fact meant free love for men who exploited women in the process. The imagery towards the end of the film becomes repetitious and most of the acting is appallingly bad and at times laughable. If this film perhaps did not take itself too seriously then we might have had a half-decent curio, but as it is, it becomes a self-indulgent piece of tawdry exploitation.
Unsophisticated drivel.
An absolutely brilliant film both in concept and execution.
Benwar30 October 2001
The Holy Mountain is an epic exploration of religious experience and global socio-political trends. A scathing indictment of the abuse of power by both first and third-world nations, while simultaneously a wonderfully clever fantasy that exposes art and religion as hilarious tools of mass-mind-control. It is a truly sweeping masterpiece full of amazing imagery and even more impressive thought. And it also has one of the best endings you are likely to see -ever. Too bad it is almost impossible to find.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
