a short, extremely brief criticism.

Rating: 1/10 (22 February 2011)

Honestly, I find it strange how people see the brilliance in such an ignorant, pointless film. I've made attempts to see things from another perspective; to understand where or how people find this film worth watching. (i could only bring myself to watch the film once though. i could never get those 122 minutes back; so i feel obligated to myself and others - in form of warning to express my disdain for this film. I am sorry.)
So, is it perhaps the 'absence' of film conventions that made it what it was? the fact that the film wasn't really a film, it was just a series of pointless, wandering moments comprised together to make people 'question the unquestionable' or to create controversy in the world of art (influencing contrasting reviews such as mine and many others; because it did a good a terrific job at that, and i admire the cast for that achievement....)
Or rather, was the film just an experimental 122 min of every conventional cinematography shot; 'yes, the Mise en Scene was 'dynamic' it consisted of every camera angle; the use of light was tres chic? The inclusion of contrasting characters made the film so fascinating and exhilarating?'..... I really do not know where i am going with this point because the film was so pointless and doesn't influence or evoke any form of interest or comprehension from me.
Yes, it may be interesting to see a film where the absence of key or conventional elements makes it what it is... but this film just didn't quite cut it. Everything that makes a film interesting or worthy of time was absent from this film and i wouldn't recommend it to anyone or anything under the sun.... it just really wasn't good... at all...