A film that will endure the test of time?

Rating: 10/10 (22 October 2013)

I think so - he said, answering his own question.
This seems to be one of the most polemic review sections I've encountered. I just had to drop in...
Apparently that's because we expect different things from a film, like:
How should the characters be constructed? What propels them and to what end?
When do we pick up the main characters and where should we leave them?
How is time suggested in each scene, each shot. Why does this even matter to the "filmic experience"?
What is the function of the soundtrack and the relevance of the "extra diegetic" sound?
Etc,etc...
I don't expect us to agree on "what is cinema" and "what cinema is" (and it's purpouse) nor would I like to go the academic road here, but some of these reviews seem to be frivolously addressed to the shallowest of depths... and it saddens me to read how easily people praise or dismiss films, purely on actor performance, character motivation, good/bad-world... above all, it seems to not make justice to the wholeness I believe was achieved with this particular work.
In my opinion this is a solid unity of cinematic form and content, strongly binded by some "creative choices" that, being far from industry standard (hence most of the visceral reactions, from both sides), are used here for more than just wow or wtf factors.
These choices, when successfully combined, are the magical glue that converts mere entertainment items (technically "perfect" by all dogmas)... into something else, that goes both deeper and beyond.
Bottom line? I truly believe this to be a very bold film (a rare Hollywood bastard) that will surely continue to be a powerful transforming experience for cinephiles of decades to come.