Director Gabe Polsky’s documentary The Man Who Saves the World?—with its essential question mark in the title—presents a thoughtful, often amusing exploration of Patrick McCollum, a 75-year-old American peace activist and interfaith minister who claims to have been identified by Indigenous Amazon tribes as the chosen one destined to fulfill an ancient prophecy and save the planet. Released October 17, 2025, this eccentric meditation on messianic destiny, environmental activism, and the nature of belief itself transforms skeptical filmmaker Polsky into an audience surrogate, embodying viewers’ own oscillation between regarding McCollum as either a genuine visionary or an elaborate charlatan. Yet through meticulous investigation—including hiring a private investigator to verify McCollum’s extraordinary claims—Polsky demonstrates that most of McCollum’s seemingly unbelievable stories possess at least some basis of truth, constructing a portrait of a man whose life has encompassed jewelry design, deep-sea diving, demolition expertise, and most improbably, endorsement from the late renowned primatologist Jane Goodall as “probably the most extraordinary person I’ve ever met.”
Polsky’s Skeptical Yet Open Approach as Audience Surrogate
Director Gabe Polsky, known for documentary work including Red Army and In Search of Greatness, positions himself as the film’s implicit skeptical audience surrogate, allowing viewers oscillating between belief and dismissal to feel represented. Rather than adopting a documentarian’s traditional removed perspective or committing to uncritical advocacy, Polsky frequently appears onscreen expressing doubt, confusion, and genuine questioning regarding McCollum’s claims. This approach, described by critics as reminiscent of Werner Herzog’s style (Herzog served as Polsky’s mentor), proves far more effective than purely external narration would provide.
In voiceover, Polsky articulates his fluctuating assessments: “What am I missing?” he questions himself, immediately establishing the tension that drives the film. Later, he admits: “I think there’s a lot of truth there. I’m not sure. We want kind of these black-and-white answers. There’s always a part of me that’s skeptical until I see it and experience it; there’s always going to be that sort of little bit of doubt on that. And then the next thing is whether Patrick has a key role. I go back and forth, to be honest.”
The Hollywood Reporter notes that this approach creates psychological investment precisely because Polsky refuses to provide definitive answers. Viewers are explicitly invited—indeed, encouraged—to draw their own conclusions regarding McCollum’s authenticity. Roger Ebert’s review suggests: “In these chaotic times where people are feeling grim and hopeless, what to make of this old guy talking as though world peace is possible?” This framing generates the film’s central tension without requiring audiences to commit to belief or disbelief.
Patrick McCollum: An Extraordinary Subject Defying Easy Categorization
Patrick McCollum emerges as perhaps the documentary’s greatest asset—a genuinely singular human figure whose life story defies easy characterization. Now 75, McCollum has lived multiple distinct lives simultaneously: jewelry designer whose creations sold through high-end retailers, deep-sea diver, demolition expert, interfaith minister, prison chaplain, and self-constructed desert homeowner with an incomplete tower, non-functional elevator shaft, and stairs leading nowhere near Roswell, New Mexico.
The Film Stage’s review captures McCollum’s peculiar authenticity: “He is, at once, fully aware of the absurdities of his story and unfazed by them.” This self-awareness—his ability to acknowledge his story’s inherent ridiculousness while maintaining unshakeable conviction—generates much of the documentary’s compelling absurdity. McCollum’s casual mention of being struck by lightning twice, building a violin himself, or maintaining his commitment to environmental activism despite persistent knee pain creates a portrait of someone simultaneously unreliable and genuinely committed to his stated causes.
Critics repeatedly emphasize the challenge of assessing McCollum. Next Best Picture’s review notes: “Whether you believe that Patrick McCollum is truly fulfilling an ancient prophecy or merely has his heart in the right place, we sure could use more people like him in the world.” This ambiguity regarding McCollum’s authenticity proves central to the film’s appeal—every time Polsky appears ready to dismiss McCollum as charlatan, some unexpected verification surfaces.
The Prophecy Premise and Indigenous Connection
Central to the film’s premise is McCollum’s claim that leaders from Indigenous Amazon tribes—specifically the Kogi people—have identified him as the chosen one who will fulfill an ancient prophecy uniting disparate Indigenous groups and preserving the Amazon rainforest, potentially rescuing planetary ecosystems. Notably, McCollum emphasizes that he did not proclaim himself the chosen one; rather, the tribes allegedly invited him into this role.
Roger Ebert’s review highlights this crucial distinction: “McCollum points out to Polsky that the tribes invited him in. He didn’t declare himself ‘the one’ to fulfill the prophecy.” This clarification attempts to complicate white saviorism narratives—suggesting McCollum functions as responder to Indigenous invitation rather than uninvited intervener.
However, critics remain divided on whether this distinction adequately addresses white saviorism concerns. The Daily Beast notes Polsky’s acknowledgment of the tension: “Polsky probes the question of whether the world really needs a savior. The world is in such bad shape that everyone is wondering what it would take to fix it. Polsky, willing to go along with the experience, still pushes back on the idea of prophecy and white saviorism.” This hesitancy to fully commit to McCollum’s narrative—while simultaneously documenting his genuine efforts toward environmental and Indigenous advocacy—suggests discomfort with cleanly resolving these historical power dynamics.
Critical Examination of White Saviorism and Messianic Mythology
The Man Who Saves the World? deliberately examines the messianic impulse and white saviorism through McCollum’s story—questions implicitly interrogating broader narratives about who possesses authority to “save” marginalized communities or environmental ecosystems. By documenting Polsky’s own oscillation between skepticism and belief, the film implicitly asks whether audiences perpetually seek external saviors rather than confronting systemic problems through collective action.
The Hollywood Reporter’s conclusion emphasizes this thematic complexity: “In the end, how we perceive Patrick, and how we interpret this narrative, reflects everything about our own identities. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps it isn’t. Regardless, The Man Who Saves the World? offers both entertaining and thought-provoking viewing.” This framing suggests the film functions less as documentary confirmation of McCollum’s claims and more as philosophical inquiry into belief, identity, and redemptive mythology in contemporary culture.
Critics note the film’s unusual sensibility—described as reminiscent of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, with Polsky adopting the skeptical squire to McCollum’s visionary knight. Awards Radar’s review observes: “Gabe Polsky knows that Patrick McCollum is an enigma, if a pure-hearted one, so his reactions to the zaniness that he sometimes witnesses is a feature, not a bug.” This approach deliberately prevents easy dismissal while maintaining healthy skepticism.
Documentary Merit and Broader Cultural Relevance
Despite modest critical reception (critics describe it as entertaining yet occasionally uneven), The Man Who Saves the World? has garnered substantial support from unlikely quarters. Peter Farrelly, Oscar-winning filmmaker, serves as executive producer and stated: “I love this movie and I wish everyone could see it because it’s uplifting and relevant.” Danny McBride, David Gordon Green, and Jody Hill of Rough House Pictures similarly endorsed the project, with McBride describing it as “the kind of movie that makes you laugh, reflect, and question everything—including why you suddenly find yourself cheering for a jungle prophet wielding a machete and a vision.”
This remarkable producer support—particularly for an unconventional documentary that received minimal financial backing from major streamers—suggests recognition of the film’s cultural moment relevance. In an era of pervasive hopelessness regarding environmental collapse and social fragmentation, McCollum’s sincere, even if quixotic, commitment to planetary healing resonates across ideological spectrums.
The Film Stage concludes: “Polsky is smart to keep his subject in the frame as much as possible and capture all of what he’s saying. At a brisk runtime of just over 80 minutes before credits, one wonders how many stories editor Philip Owens had to abandon on the cutting room floor. There are so many tragedies and so many joys packed in here.” This suggests Polsky could have expanded the documentary substantially—numerous stories remain untold, indicating McCollum’s life contains more material than even this lengthy documentary encompasses.
Film Information
Title: The Man Who Saves the World?
Release Date: October 17, 2025
Director/Writer: Gabe Polsky
Runtime: 87 minutes
Subject: Patrick McCollum (Age 75)
Key Participants: Jane Goodall (Zoom interview), Indigenous Kogi leaders, Mairead Maguire (Nobel Peace Prize winner)
Executive Producers: Peter Farrelly, Danny McBride, David Gordon Green, Jody Hill (Rough House Pictures)
Mentors/Influences: Werner Herzog (Polsky’s mentor)
Production Companies: Gabriel Polsky Productions, Rough House Pictures
US Box Office: $25,437 (Limited release)
Sources: The Hollywood Reporter, Roger Ebert, The Film Stage, Next Best Picture, Awards Radar, Daily Beast, Fandango, Yahoo Entertainment, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, IGN, The Hoya, Battle Royale with Cheese, Metacritic, The Guardian, Screen Rant, The TV Cave
