Cinema. A perfect example of how a filmmaker loses a movie and, above all, a character. Even if we discount the horrendous and "noisy" video footage, all the supposedly dynamic and unbridled ramblings around the central idea are regrettable. In fact, and respecting the idea of idiomatic difficulties, without a synonymous in English, the most positive aspect of this film is Tom Mercier, who is "uma tusa".
Structure, that's what this film needs. But even without it, talent is there. Lapid has a very distinctive sense of humour, some great scenes in here. Realism + Surrealism + Ironicism. A picturesque film
Honestly not feeling this as much as some other folks. It's messy, off-the-cuff filmmaking in a desperate need of a clearer direction which Lapid - after a couple of good-to-great films - somehow wasn't able to provide. Not as radical as it seems, full of big gestures and seemingly brave imagery, but ultimately pretty shallow.
Strange one really. I think it is quite fantastic but don't exactly know why. So many individual scenes are striking in their sheer brilliance or audacity, but after multiple viewings I struggle to find a satisfyingly coherent overarching narrative. Maybe it doesn't need one. The intensity of it all can be overwhelming, yet this is counteracted by a healthy dose of humour. A really good, very unique film. I think...