Emperor's new crustacean!

Rating: Null/10 (30 September 2016)

Ohh, did I wrestle with what to put in -if anything - a review on this  is it, brilliant allegory on modern world - by inference, online in particular - impersonal, strained, distant relationships  or utter 'fanciful rot' dressed up (pun intended) as a sort of emperor's new clothes style iconoclastic cinema?
After a lot of thought plus, anyway, loving absurdism, and R. Weisz in almost anything  still, I'm gonna go with the latter = pure unadulterated twaddle.
How so? Well, its deadpan, supposedly absurdist, humour occasionally got me to laugh out loud e.g. "It's no coincidence - (a target) - is shaped like a loner" !, almost to the consternation of the sparsely filled cinema I was in, but which then also occasionally, latterly brought out hesitant sympathetic titters along with me. Coz yes; I love non-sequitur unexpected throwaway lines á la Ionesco and Beckett .. but in travailing through this to the 'er, what was that'?! end, enjoying the 'performances' (quite a few by minor superb dry humour Brit actors, too), and surprisingly, Farell's against type emotionless character, I got the distinct feeling that this was foisted on its audience (and actors for that matter) to test how far an 'out there / wacky / foreign (read different perspective)' director can get away with out and out utter tosh.
And even despite the shades of almost sorta 'O Lucky Man' shock scenes only hinted at off-screen, the (presumably that allegorical?) actual 'results' of animal 'transformation' (from live to dead) shown were disconcerting enough, and y'know, even though I scanned the credits intently in my viewing, I don't recall spotting the standard 'no animals were harmed in the making of' disclaimer appearing, so that for Farell's, er, 'brother' (apparently!) that surely just had to be the case (well, I trust - but who knows with this, ah, 'mess')?!
So, really: this is the sort of effort that those (cinephile dilettantes?!) who think they want to both, know, and prove it to you they know, better (the clever underlying allegories et al), but actually are only hiding they would be terrified to be called out on, like Hans C. Anderson's little innocent, but tell it like it is honest, boy, that this, really, is pure unadulterated b*ll*x!
Or is it ? For, still- it remains an almost MUST SEE to form your own take on it! (by which, I really can't rate this, 2 stars max - or all up to full ten for daft outrageousness!)