Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Lack of good storyline.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

I want to make my review a riff on another review, written by Kurt Winter of New Jersey. He starts off by saying, "If I weren't already a PKD fan ... this docuflick would do absolutely nothing for me." And that is the very heart of the problem here. If I did not know who Phil Dick was, I would not have learned it from this film. When was he born? When did he die? Where did he grow up? These things are never stated.Winter writes, "While it was certainly informative, it could have been edited better, and could have been more broad." I completely agree, especially with the editing. Sometimes the different voices blend together to tell a story, sometimes they seem poorly connected. And the segue from one spot to the next is weak.More charismatic people to interview, or at least an eloquent narrator, would have helped a great deal. Just showing clips from people who knew Dick does not really tell the story. These people should be used to support the story, not be the backbone. The younger guys with websites seem completely out of place and even if their words are true, they come off as amateur.But, hey, if you are a Dick fan and want to hear his friends -- including Robert Anton Wilson and the author of "They Live" -- this is worth checking out.

After watching this "film" i was moved to seek out the fiction ofPhillip K. Dick.So that's a good thing....Dick comes of as an interesting writerworthy of further study.The filmmakers, however, have assembled the material within insuch a fey, self-satisfied and fanboy-esque ineptitude that i foundmyself, after a time, staring out the window and listening, ratherthan watching the amateurishly-assembled and shot interviewfootage or (especially) the amazingly ill-conceived "animated"scene breaks. The people responsible for this have no idea offilm-making or pacing; had they no idea of how the silly, repetitive"animated" scene breaks would grind everything to a halt? Jesus.If you want to learn more about Dick, fine...you can get some ideafrom the material within. But, as film-making, this is an amateurishembarrassment.

The makers of this "gospel" seem to be a sincere bunch, but perhaps they have stumbled on a mystical formula for poor film-making. The documentary is so claustrophobic and with such low production values as to be monumentally distracting. (spoilers, what a laugh) The scenes of a librarian showing their Philip K. Dick archives have a chilling Ed Wood quality, how irrelevant can a film become? The childlike animation is grinding to the point of utter nausea. I knew very little of Mr Dick, I hope I never hear his name again. Also, come on guys , buy another song.

Poor documentary of this sci-fi great explores houses he used to live in here in the bay area (with the webmasters of PKD websites as guides) and other irrelevant details while failing to really explore what makes his writing unique. But then, if I wanted to know that, I guess I'd pick up one of his books (which I often like to do). This film is for people who are not Philip K. Dick fans, but might have seen "Total Recall" or "Blade Runner" or "Minority Report" (the worst one yet.... or wasn't there something with Gary Senise or whatever his name is? Hopefully that got shelved) and they want to know what this guy's about, but they don't know how to read. For those people and no one else, this film is recommended.Not recommended for fans of PKD: you won't find out anything you don't already know.p.s. just reading through my comments from years ago here in 2008 and wanted to point out that I did actually see "Imposter" with Gary Sinise and it was one of the more decent Philip Dick movies relatively speaking. At least Sinise isn't some kind of superman or supermodel, he looks like a "dickian" hero.