Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

there is not a single reason for watching this movie. why to have this experience since nothing is happening for 1 hour and the 2 male characters are running in the woods just fighting and hitting each other?! i couldn't care less if this is art.... the director must wanted to do something only for himself and not for the audience. what are the criteria that this movie won the teddy jury award? Was it the directing? the montage? or the acting of the 2 male actors? for one hour u listen one of them (voice off) telling a story about his lover and how they met. So? the film is based on a book, and i am sure that the power from the book is all lost at the adaption from the big screen.

I saw this "film" recently at the Athens International Film Festival. Ordinarily i wouldn't mind its tediousness, blurriness, pompous post-dogma style of cheapness mixed with half baked structuralist psychological ravings but... But it has received the prestigious Teddy film award at the Berlin Film Festival and i wonder; What exactly did they have in mind when they gave it to a non-film ? what is so poetic or deep about shaken images looking like they were taken with a mobile phone video camera? Should we all go out and make our own mobile videos? i have a great idea about the Blair witch returning to haunt and spank art video directors.