The other review I just read, tracing the roots of this film, is just utter nonsense. This was obviously written by someone who has no idea of aesthetics, art/film history or social theory. I won't comment on the film, myself, because, frankly, it's late at night and I'm not up to the task. Read Susan Sontag's take on it. She was always brilliant at tying together the above-listed disciplines. I would also recommend a review of the Vienna Aktionists' work, and particularly that of Kurt Kren. This is a strange, enigmatic and elliptical film, but one of the greatest of its kind... and critical review shouldn't be about applying some rigid set of universal standards but about answering some simple questions: A. "Did the film achieve its objectives? Was it fully realized or half-baked?"; B. "Could it have been better, and, if so, how?"; C. "How and what did it mean?" (from a semiotics and social theory standpoint); D. "How does it relate to other films similar to it, and did it have something unique to say?" "Did I like it?" is a valid question. It's irrelevant, however, to me as a reader of criticism unless I'm quite sure that I share similar taste with the critic.