The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote: "The representation of spirituality in the cinema is not an insurmountable problem, but it demands either an intensified direction of actors (as in
Dreyer) or a heroically rigorous organisation of visual material (as in
Bresson), or both. In this, it cannot be said that Brook has succeeded. No doubt conditioned by the extent to which wise men, High Lamas and such have been subject to parody on the screen, the spectator rapidly tires of these cross-legged gurus with their invariably sweet-tempered if world-weary formulae on the nature of existence. English actors would seem to be chronically incapable of portraying other nationalties convincingly and when, as here, their greatest asset, voice, is carefully expunged of every trace of detectable accent, the resul can only be flat and, in the case of Terence Stamp, almost visibly ineffectual. As for the film's visual organisation, though not un impressive in its sweep, it comes perilously close to that, say, of
Norman Jewison. Where Brook does succeed, however, is in conveying the young Gurdjieff's single-mindedness, which gradually becomes the dynamic of the film's narrative construction."
Variety wrote: "[Brook] has tried to give a visual reflection of mysticism, which is hard indeed. For here is a film that starts with a narrative flair but then tapers off to a more pedestrian level as the protagonist ends his search for teachers who can give him the balance of religion, science and insight into human nature he is seeking. Pic is based on the memoirs of George Gurdjieff who in the 20s formed a sort of sector school where he tried to pass on his knowledge to people. But pic is mainly concerned with his quest. ... Brook still remains essentially a theatrical talent and here his use of ritual dancing, cursory plot angles and talk are rarely given a truly visual insight and dramatic pitch to keep film from falling into tedious stretches." ==Further reading==