It seems the in thing now-a-days to laud the incompetent, the amateurish and the arty, especially in films. If the acting deserves quotation marks around it and consists of people aimlessly moving about the screen, it is subtly intelligent! If the dialog (script?) (delivered in such a way that trucks could be run through it)is puerile and flat with an irritatingly improvised quality, it is brilliant. The more soporific the pace, the deeper (or loftier) the film. The more long and needless tracking shots(which take up most of the running time), the more enduring the masterpiece. The artier the editing, the more original the movie. The more inept and slipshod the direction,the more profound the director.
I really cannot believe the praise heaped on this dilettantish piece of trash by a disquieting number of IMDb's commentators who seem to be so gaga over the subject that they ignore its treatment and do not seem to mind being put to sleep or tortured. One of IMDb's commentators states that the film is fine, but difficult to watch! If it is difficult to watch, how can it be a fine film? And speaking of subject matter and to make matters worse, several IMDb commentators indicate that pregnant women should not watch this film (or this is not a film for the pregnant), a generality (i.e., all pregnant women are alike) on an intelligence level with this movie.
I really cannot believe the praise heaped on this dilettantish piece of trash by a disquieting number of IMDb's commentators who seem to be so gaga over the subject that they ignore its treatment and do not seem to mind being put to sleep or tortured. One of IMDb's commentators states that the film is fine, but difficult to watch! If it is difficult to watch, how can it be a fine film? And speaking of subject matter and to make matters worse, several IMDb commentators indicate that pregnant women should not watch this film (or this is not a film for the pregnant), a generality (i.e., all pregnant women are alike) on an intelligence level with this movie.