I'm giving this 4 out of 10 because while agree with the other posters that the film lacked any sort of clarity or even a reason for being, there were a few moments in there that were sort of interesting.<br /><br />The main sense I get of the man after watching this movie is that he basically didn't like being filmed and seemed uncomfortable doing the project. I don't mean that, as a philosopher, he had philosophical reasons for objecting to seeing himself as a subject, but simply that he was just the kind of person who felt a little weird being filmed. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but it does make him a poor subject for a documentary of this kind.<br /><br />To me, the scene that captures the ineptitude of the movie the best is a scene in which an Australian (I think) interviewer asks Derrida whether the TV show Seinfeld got at all at deconstructionism, with its emphasis on the mundane. In theory this could be an interesting question, to see how he talks about popular culture. Except that Derrida hadn't even heard of Seinfeld and didn't really have anything interesting to say about it. I don't fault Derrida for not having heard of Seinfeld, but I do fault the filmmakers for putting such an inconsequential exchange in their movie.<br /><br />As others have noted, we also get a lot of faux-deep scenes of Derrida going about his daily business (walking down the street, getting a haircut, making his breakfast, etc.). which don't add up to a whole lot.<br /><br />Still, I have to admit I did find a few scenes interesting here and there. The guy does have a legion of followers, for instance, and watching him interact with them at lectures and other places was interesting.