My two cents..

Rating: 6/10 (20 September 2016)

I am late to this particular message board/thread because tonight was the first time I have watched this movie.
I initially was a bit nervous when I saw all the name stars (and who those particular stars were) in the opening credits, although I love these actors and many of the films I previously have seen them in.
But, it's been my experience that when you get this many talented folks of this caliber, unique styles, and given the types of projects/genres you usually see them in, together for an ensemble piece like this that takes on the ideas that it does, that there could be a higher probability that the film will devolve into being more of an artist's project for the artists' sakes, and that the script, the direction -- the acting, the emoting -- are going to be more intensive than may be needed at times, and that the story may risk feeling a need to be 'profound' or 'profound-like' in place of finer distinctions and cleverly-placed subtlety that would perhaps ensure a better overall film and viewing experience.
Woody Allen has managed to pull off this type of ensemble casting well in some of his films (although he often doesn't care to interject profundity or subtlety), but he also has a somewhat rigid direction style and he doesn't give many of his actors much time to mull over their roles, frequently giving them their scripts, or skeletal scripts to allow some ad lib, the very day of a shoot.
I thought Malkovich was suited for his role.
Pitt was miscast to the point that someone on this board thought that he was gay.
Jenkins was good but did not say much.
Frances McDormand was good but still miscast. Clooney despite being outshined by the other cast member was not miscast and thus fun to watch.
I almost expected Phillip Seymour Hoffman to do a five min cameo due to the cast heavy approach by the director.
I don't want to sound unkind by pointing out the high rates of narcissism that can be found in the acting profession because I have some dear friends who are actors, narcissistic traits aren't necessarily a bad thing when in this particular profession, and any 'downside' from this can often be ameliorated if there is good strong direction to help support when it can be of value to a project, but also to reel it in when it can be a deficit.
I just feel that you put too many of these types of folks -- folks who often play quirky or standout/standalone, and often unforgettable, characters in film -- together in a project like this, that there will be expectations, however tacit those expectations may be, of each one having their own unique, quirky, and/or profound character to play and lines to deliver, and after awhile this amalgam can morph into a 'herding cats' situation -- it can become crowded and non-cohesive.
Then, if you add layer upon layer of several intertwining metaphors (some very obvious while others were more subjective/projective 'Rorschach test' metaphors), drama-esque exchange relationships, stark punctuating events, the characters milling about in their foggy and/or distorted views of life and love and death, and most not being able to truly attach, or for any length of time, against the backdrop of an underlying message that 'everyone lives and dies alone', while simultaneously being the star in their own life drama AND while being an 'every man/woman', that you risk ending up with overly spiced mud soup. More is not always better.
As I said, there *were* parts of this movie that I did like, but the further I got into the movie, the more out of control the structure and direction seemed to be -- the more the characters came together the more disjointed they seemed to become, and not for any redeeming value that I could ascertain and I'm not sure that it was all that intentional. I suppose it could be yet another metaphor for something like the inevitable entropy of the life process along multiple dimensions, but that would be stretching it a bit thin.
A clever idea overall, but one I feel that had too many cooks and too many customers in the kitchen without enough structure, without enough reinforcing of 'less can be more' when needed, and I must say that it did come off a bit pretentious here and there.
I had a similar experience with 'Angels in America' – I absolutely loved the first half or so of that series and there were certainly bizarre, unsettling, and 'swervy' scenes in the first parts, but the latter part just seemed to wander off and then over a cliff.
So.some people absolutely love this film while others don't think so highly of it.
I say: Enjoy a film if you like it!
Just my two cents.
Peace Out :)