By definition, a movie has a story to tell. It does this either by dialogue, or by sequential events.
This one has neither. It's like observing with binoculars something in the distance, and not have any clue about what's really going on. Yes, this is the purpose of the film, to force the viewer into the impossible task of reading the minds of the actors, an open ended story where any interpretation is good.
Why even use such good actors when there's no dialogue or scene that they can show their skill?
Many books were transferred to screen very successfully, but not this one. I suspect the subject is not fitting.
This one has neither. It's like observing with binoculars something in the distance, and not have any clue about what's really going on. Yes, this is the purpose of the film, to force the viewer into the impossible task of reading the minds of the actors, an open ended story where any interpretation is good.
Why even use such good actors when there's no dialogue or scene that they can show their skill?
Many books were transferred to screen very successfully, but not this one. I suspect the subject is not fitting.