This film is a hideous piece of work that does not deserve the title film. It may be that the oh-so-clever script writers and directors said they were telling a great story about the new development of religion in an early post-atheist society, but that is probably the overconfidence that you need to get European funding. This film cannot be beaten in terms of cheapness and assumes that it will be celebrated by today's ranks of stupid established film critics with the absurd succession of provocations and cobbled-in disgusts. So metaphors are supposed to be present here in abundance? Yes, if you see a slap in the face as a clever metaphor for a facial injury, you can look at it that way. So this film is supposed to be cinematic art? Yes, if performance art expresses itself on the street, for example, when the "artist" kills a passer-by, then this film is the cineastic equivalent. Just stupid and disgusting and repulsive, with no added value or cinematic streak. Of course, the makers can now sit back and bask in their arrogance, while they are happy that the viewer does not understand their film. Should they only. That doesn't save their film either. The movie isn't about anything other than being a big gross nastiness and then selling that as art. Nobody needs that. I'd rather watch a year in an endless loop Transformer Part 57 than this junk. If this director should get European funding again, one thing is certain: The arrogance of filmmakers in Europe can no longer be surpassed and European film is in its last breath. This film does not deserve the name of this art direction. Definitely 0 out of 10 stars, if not -10, or something like that. Unfortunately, you can only give 1 star in the worst case. Oh dear oh dear oh dear ...