This is a movie-festival film I would say. "Movie buffs" will woo Hopkins for his great artistry, while regular people will hate it, or at least won't "get it". In general, I like movies of any kind. I've seen very good and very bad ones. If Hopkins isn't insane then this film is just too artsy for me. Didn't like it at all; the first 20 minutes were chaotic. In the end the story gets some closure, but it's too random or unstructured as a whole in my opinion. On IMDb the genres are comedy, drama, fantasy. Drama and fantasy okay but I didn't even chuckle once. While watching (at increased speed) I found myself doing other things, which implicates the story wasn't very catchy. Would not recommend.

"You see, Willard, in this world, things get... confused out there. Power, ideals, the old morality, practical filmmaking necessity. But out there in Hollywood with these actors, it must be a temptation to... be a director. Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and irrational, between good filmmaking and pointless, artsy-fartsy crap. And good movies do NOT always triumph. Sometimes, the dark side of the screen overcomes what Lewis called, "your best entertainment."And as you can see, by watching just 30 seconds of this rubbish, Sir Anthony has obviously gone insane.""Yes, sir. Absolutely. Obviously insane."

I really love movies, for me is the best form of ART, combining living images, music and words. And this movie is the best i've ever seen, it really accomplish to drag you into it real/surreal worlds of subliming imagery, it uses all the editing techniques and effects, and it make the simplest effects looks great and provoke the exact feeling that Sir Anthony Hopkins wants to. Seeing this movie is a roller-coaster ride with extremely intense feelings of all kind : Horror, Drama, Suspense, Fantasy, etc. I think it comes from a mind suffocated by the complex and stressful lifestyle of a movie superstar. There's no meaning of telling you something about the plot or explaining what this movie is about, especially because everyone has to find his own meaning, i only invite you to dive into the experience of seeing and living an ART MASTERPIECE, and i strongly recommend to see it all alone, in total darkness and with headphones, to really FEEL the experience of the best movie ever made, with the best acting, music and plot.

I simply do not like Hopkins. I think he is simply dull and lazy, conditions that talent and experience cannot overcome.We've seen him in projects where his personal inadequacies support the role ("Remains of the day"). And we've seen him deliberately pushed to the point of embarrassment and declaring that he would quit acting. Recently, it has been one tiresome disaster after another. Shucks, if Michael Caine can find himself again, why can't this guy?Well, here is his shot at doing something that matters, and I have to give him credit for knowing that he is in trouble. This is an incredibly risky endeavor. It deserves a close look. He has decided to place it somewhere among "Naked Lunch," "8 1/2" and "Singing Detective." He has — apparently without much control — turned over the editing job to a guy that is a B-lister but who has worked with the Cohens.I am convinced that a better editor could have made up for the fact that Hopkins simply does not understand those three films I note. The composition here is juvenile. I saw this with "The Tracey Fragments," which has less but competent narrative structure and more masterful cinema. I assume that Hopkins thought that frenzy would cover the emptiness.I wish he would have looked at Jodorowsky or even Hopper's inverted experiment instead. Then his confusion would be an asset, and we would be better off. Failure is honorable; cheating is not.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.