Interesting look at the band that eschews the talking heads to show lots of archival stuff and some weird home movies that make Morrison out to be less of an icon and more of just a dude who happened to be a rock star. I don't think this is definitive because it lacks the perspective that having people talk about their influence can bring, but it certainly gives you a good sense of the band, even with Depp's monotonous delivery and overly dramatic narration.

Before I watched this documentary, I knew almost nothing about The Doors. I listened sometimes to a few songs like 'Break on Through' or 'Light My Fire'. After listening to some more songs I became interested about the background story of this band. That's how I found about this documentary.I'm sure that this documentary is probably the best way to start for any new fans of The Doors. It tells the whole story from the beginning till the end (with the end I mean the death of band member Jim Morrison). Although you might think this docu is all about The Doors, the real focus is on the singer Jim Morrison. Understandable, but I think the other band members were sometimes totally out the story.The greatest thing about this documentary is that like 95% is real footage, taken between 1966-1971. No reenact things, which I don't like.The only thing I didn't like was sometimes the editing. A few things didn't make any sense, or were weird edited, totally unnecessary.In short, if you are "new" to the The Doors you probably will enjoy this trip back to the 1960s.

Well, being a huge fan, knowing quite a lot of people in the Doors (full) circle and having been everywhere from Pere Lachaise to Rothdell Trail to Fairhaven Memorial... I have to say I did turn this on with a slight sense of anxiousness as to whether it would be another destruction of James Douglas Morrison's entire character as both the Oliver Stone horrorshow and the numerous vacuous "rockumentataries" have done.However, I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised in the main. If you're a hardcore Doors fan then despite the claims of previously unseen footage, you will have seen most of this, few people have been to Paris without bumping into the likes of Rainer Moddeman and other well connected superfans and blagging bootleg stuff and HWY and Feast of Friends have been pretty easy to secure for a long time now as have tapes of Critique etc. But, I was quite impressed with what Tom Dicillo did with the footage, not only was he sympathetic and judicious with it but he accented the narrative with it almost as good as Densmore accented anything Jim did. Clearly, for the eagle eyed, he used footage from other events to underscore a point on an entirely different event but that's just me being picky - ultimately, there is a finite amount of footage that could be trawled. He avoided a lot of the glaring pitfalls one could easily make in such a documentary - for example he didn't get too caught in the trap of juxtaposing events in the 60's with the events of the Doors (there was some of this but it was measured and relevant) and I thought Depp was okay with his voice-over although he was a little dour and the script was at times a little prescriptive and compartmentalised. I do however appreciate that the film has to be appeal to more than the hardcore afficianados and that a balance has to be struck so I think the film really does work well both for those who only have a loose interest in The Doors (or even those just interested in the era) and those more fanatical about The Doors.I know that Ray (at least) backed this film vocally which gives it credibility from the get go and I you have to give the guy credit for using only original footage. That said, this probably reduces the "filmmaking" to that of an editor so I don't want to be too gushing but still, give the guy his due, the end product is enjoyable, reasonably balanced, it maintained interest and it definitely had some nice touches in it which as I said derived from clever use of the stock material. It wasn't just the choice of footage; it was the more the way it was deployed and paced.Maybe if budget (or sensibilities) had allowed, the film could have encompassed some other original footage (or other stock footage even) for those Doors fans who want to learn more about the Doors landmarks - be it shots of Venice beach or Rue Beautreillis but what I am glad of is the fact that they stayed well away from including interviews with the usual crowd like Grace Slick etc. which I think would have corrupted the output.I'll watch it (and review it) sober again and see whether I feel the same but all in all, to quote the Velvet Menace himself, "pretty good, pretty good, pretty neat, pretty neat".

As an avid Doors fan for more than 40 years, and with the vast growth of the DVD/Video market and the enormous reservoir for footage that the Internet and YouTube have, I have seen almost all there is to see of The Doors. That includes Jim Morrison's own films "A Feast of Friends" and "HWY," footage from which is contained in "When You're Strange." And most everyone has seen some things on "When You're Strange," such as the scene of The Doors descending from the stairs of an airplane on their European tour, and the bright-eyed look when Jim turns and identifies himself as "Jim." But setting that aside, this documentary film contains considerable behind-the-scenes and archival footage that I have never seen. The tone is set early with scenes of Jim driving a car through a desert. His own home movie, Doors-like atmosphere, and dialogue. And yes, there are a lot of scenes with the group together, on the road, and interacting, as well as context shots, of locations and other things. The Miami Incident? I must confess, while some people writing about this movie say it gives you a definite answer of what happened, that is not true of this viewer; actually, I don't think anyone will ever know for sure. Still, it has a good presentation.But the narrative, the commentary? Sorry, it leaves something to be desired. It was very superficial. To have something new and insightful for a hard core fan like myself would be challenging, but still viable. However, I believe it is accurate to say that even for casual fans who know just the basics, there are no revelations. There is certainly nothing on the songwriting process, which some of the more recently released DVDs have some discussion on. Narrator Johnny Depp's words are just the same old story.It is time for Ray Manzarek to take it upon himself to conceptualize a film containing the very elements whose absence from the Oliver Stone film he used as a basis for criticizing it: namely, Jim's fascination with various French and other literary and theatrical figures. We know many of those names: Rimbaud, Nietzsche, Blake, Artaud, Baudelaire, beat writer Jack Kerouac, and of course Celine: "Take a Highway to the End of the Night." Fans of Jim know, from the many books about him and The Doors, that he memorized many passages of his favorite authors and would challenge visitors to his dorm room to read him the passages so he could cite the page numbers, which could make for a great scene. He was really absorbed. The film could convey how those influences shaped Jim and contributed to his writing of the great songs from The Doors powerful first two albums, The Doors and Strange Days; a few songs on later albums; and his poetry. This could be combined with other elements, including Jim's acid trips in the days when he was sleeping on the Venice rooftops and seeing "television skies." I am surprised that Director Tom DiCillo did not try to find a way to include some of this in his film, whose audience would be looking for something new.