Why is the main photo for this movie on Netflix a photo of Al Pacino looking wasted when he's not even credited in the movie? Why is the movie listed as being made in 2013 but just released in 2017? Why are there so many references to Pacino in Alejandro Agrestri's IMDb profile? There are a lot of red herrings surrounding Al Pacino these days, and none of it seems to make sense, much like this movie. But look past the bullshit and maybe you can solve the puzzle. Lucila Sola aka Lucila Polak is Pacino's current girlfriend who claims to have been with him ten years (though there are references to many different lengths of their relationship in various articles online). However, her daughter, Camila Morrone, age 20, has a photo of herself on her Instagram (camimorrone) as a very young child sitting right next to Mr. Pacino on a movie set. Lucila Polak was born in 1976, according to a public records database search, but she has often been referenced as being born in 1979 and was first issued a Social Security number in 1995/1996. Her brother, however, who was a member of the California bar for a period of time starting in 2011, is not listed at all in the same public records database. John Cusack's character in this movie is a known celebrity and wears a black headband like Al Pacino. Look at the multiple Instagram accounts surrounding Cami Morrone and Al Pacino and there are multiple bizarre posts, some that seem to refer to parts of this movie (like sex with a woman that makes her pass out). And last, but definitely not least, there is a wealth of information on a website called ArgentinaPrivate regarding the Argentine escort scene, and one post lists the age of consent as being 13, according to Article 119 of the Argentine Penal Code. Just be warned, if you have even half a soul, this website might make you vomit.Much like that Crazy Days and Nights website (that may or may not even be run by the same person that started it originally) I'm just posting a few known facts and offering readers of this review the opportunity to try to make more sense out of this movie that doesn't seem to make much damn sense at all. Good luck.

I was born on 1989, the year when the Berlin wall went down. The USSR used cinema as a weapon, even before Hitler. Of course, because as a media for propaganda, nothing was, or still is, more effective. Of course, they use us because we tend to believe that any thing shown on a screen is a fact, or at least could happen cause, after all, now it's just happening in our living room.But since I was a kid that I ask myself why the actors don't go to the loo, or why they pretend that I'm not there talking to each other. I know, my problem but this film give me some hope, in a sense. It showed me Donal Duck talking with Mickey, playing cards, being humans, trying to make up a story, showing how Sartre could be right, o wrong, or us. How far we are domesticated by cinema? How far we shout that not? Not so far the last, sometimes we crave for more blood, false love, sex, propaganda, phony identification in order to go on like hamsters.Thanks, John Cusack and Al Pacino. Thanks, the makers of this allegory.

That's why I give it a 10 from Uruguay. As a normal movie it probably would have deserve only a 6 or 7. But this is another kind of "thing". Personally made me feel close to the characters, as never a movie made me feel before. I could call it an ODE to friendship. The "thing" never tried to manipulate me, from the start shows that taste of parody, makes you part of a crazy party, full of contradictions, drinks,different points of view, and space for personal thoughts...Anyway, Cusack shows his best, or a my say himself after so many forgettable films. I wish it could be a serial, with those friends saying what come to their minds. After watching the last Argentine blockbusters designed to be that, like The Clan etc., or the "artistic movies", that are film school pastiches of old classics, overall french, No Somos Animales got my heart. Makes me believe that cinema could be something different that manipulation and money, something more simple, and participatory.

This movie belongs to the "film within a film" genre that opened up half a century ago with Fellini's 8 1/2. It features John Cusack and other American actors summoned to Buenos Aires to make a film that, we are told, experiments with cinematic language. The story is improvised (there is a script but nobody seems to take it seriously) and some scenes (like in Godard's La Chinoise) actually belong to the film within, as the point of view changes and we see the cameras rolling and the booms in place. Sequences are announced with title cards, also in Godard's style. The view of Buenos Aires and its people is that of an average American tourist; there are some comments about Peronism and the 1976-1982 military dictatorship but there is no depth or meaning in them. Everything we see or hear is capricious and at best whimsical, at worst pretentious and at times boring.Al Pacino plays the mysterious (and somewhat devilish) long distance mastermind of the project, He gets the best lines and makes the most of them; the short time he is on screen is the best part of the movie.The movie ends up saying nothing significant. Although some ideas may be interesting, it it difficult to gauge the intentions of the director. All in all, an unsatisfactory film.