Having been described as "brilliant" in my work at senior philosophy studies at a major western university (a comment from the course professor who was the associate chair of the department), I am always up to the job when I have to allow myself the edification of a differing perspective in what there might be in  the way of an argument needing rebuttal and correction (if you will pardon the presumptiveness here - its well intentioned I put it to you). As such I have to tell you that I have only once fallen asleep at a movie theater unable to sit through the entire ordeal without some means of escape. This was the movie and I saw it a couple of decades ago when it first came to town (in 1981).

This is an important movie for discussion among all human beings who want to make a choice to seek  substantive, wholesome real answers and to avoid the flights into inanity and indeed insanity that are the stuff of the script writers here and the obvious preference of the two characters in the play.

Although pitted in discussion at some frivolous and superficial level as seemingly at times even  antagonistic towards each other, rather than showing complete deference to what is being said by the character "Andre", the fact is that fundamentally these two individuals are altogether on the same  wavelength at the most basic levels of relating to other human beings in their midst - despite a major  difference in the level of the facade and style of relating as it were. That said, we see in the movie script  that this difference in style does cause differences to occur and to crop up between them in what they say to each other. What is more worth noting is that the level of conversation they are both engaged in  is certainly the stuff of their own genre in the way of evolutionary development. What I mean to say is that they are not people of the genre who have the intuitive sort of wisdom that one might associate with humanistic philosophy, based on the very obvious statements and manner in the presentation  thereof, and of course in the level of tolerance of such views.

As such the intelligence in their conversation, such as it is, is at all times a contrivance, an attempt to  create a different reality from what it is that involves normal human functioning, and different modes and fantasies of escape into the inane, with admitted schizophrenic like symptoms being experienced along the way as is disclosed by the character in the play named "Andre" played by Andre Gregory himself (the writer in addition). In these flights into the inane, the seeming ability to generate a thought, of any real meaning in terms of having true validity and real value, (in a sane sort of way) seems to
command the entire scope of the movie as a way of suggesting that the level of analysis of issues (of these types of characters), in and of itself, of what is normal, the perversion of it somehow into something  inane, a differing from what is normally intuitive, that this all amounts to wisdom of sorts and even  brilliance. At some point in the conversation, the characters cannot agree to hold to this sort of  ridiculous philosophizing even between themselves, and mainly it becomes clear that they have been  engaged in what Socrates would refer to as the stuff of sophists rather than philosophers in true fashion. 
As such, I beg to differ with the description in a torrent description on the internet that describes the movie  as "brilliant, brilliant' (an obvious reference to the characters in the movie individually, and those that are  cut from the same cloth (who would make such supportive comments to and for each other) no doubt.

Instead, I suggest that all thinking people, should have this movie and make it as widely available to  others as possible, as a way to put others on guard against a form of charlatanism. The perpetration of inanity cloaked and dressed up as intellectual genius because the manner of the person expressing  it seems to suggest that they have that opinion of themselves.  The opinion is invalid as I think anyone  with an intelligent mind listening to this trash would have to agree. In any event, "en guarde" as they say 
in fencing as that is the best way to be in the presence of the inane. I have to agree, I cannot replace my  reality by a resort to a journey to the Himalayas in order to find "in the mountains, a better wisdom than there is in the West". that is a statement made in the movie by the other main actor Wallace Shawn (also  co-writer on the project), and I am on side with the sentiment altogether, although I somehow doubt his veracity in making the comment as I read his views and disposition on things in totality.

Michael Rizzo Chessman
michael@moviesbyrizzo.com