While I appreciated "Attenberg" - which was the somewhat complementary study of women behaviour as "Chevalier" does for men - this film left me wondering.
Entertaining it wasn't and even at 1,5x speed it felt like a slow chore to get to the end. A reviewer suggested this might be how women see men, and that might explain why I didn't enjoy watching it, nor understood its purpose.
It's therefore simply my male fault. Furthermore I may find women more interesting than men and honestly IRL I would have immediately avoided these men as soon as I got their attitudes figured out (making me the true best one? ^^). Attitudes which are an inconsistent mess of illusionary beliefs, kindergarten competitiveness and theatrical exibitionism while searching for examples, allies and subjects, bestowing piety for the weak and no mercy for the adversaries.
Are women really that different? I'm not sure; still the writer-director here thinks so and focuses on this side of maledom.
An opinable, well produced ethological "study" but not really my idea of a good movie.
Entertaining it wasn't and even at 1,5x speed it felt like a slow chore to get to the end. A reviewer suggested this might be how women see men, and that might explain why I didn't enjoy watching it, nor understood its purpose.
It's therefore simply my male fault. Furthermore I may find women more interesting than men and honestly IRL I would have immediately avoided these men as soon as I got their attitudes figured out (making me the true best one? ^^). Attitudes which are an inconsistent mess of illusionary beliefs, kindergarten competitiveness and theatrical exibitionism while searching for examples, allies and subjects, bestowing piety for the weak and no mercy for the adversaries.
Are women really that different? I'm not sure; still the writer-director here thinks so and focuses on this side of maledom.
An opinable, well produced ethological "study" but not really my idea of a good movie.