barlenon A woman uses a public toilet in a busy city park. She is evidently in great discomfort and must leave her young grandson alone for a few moments. When she returns, she discovers he is gone and for the rest of the film she is frantically looking for him. Ultra realism. The film realistically depicts the panic and then despair of her loss. But that is about the best thing you can say about this film. The super long takes and repetitive action as the woman searches for her grandson create a feeling of agitation, an agitation which soon overwhelms any feelings of empathy toward or even interest in the plight of the main character.This is possibly the worst film I have ever sat through. Excruciatingly dull, watching this film ultimately became a pointless exercise in endurance. It is extraordinary that a movie like this, with a nearly non-existent plot and sub-amateur production values, could ever have been released.

j333 Hi folks,It seems to me that the guy who commented before me either hasn't understood anything about the movie's message or left before the end. I say that because in the very end the until-then rather slow and irritating story suddenly makes sense in a most stunning scene when the lost (dead) grandfather and grandson appear hand in hand outside of the symbolic circle that stands for life or the living. At this point it dawns upon the viewer that the grandmother was looking for her dead grandson all the time because she couldn't accept the loss.A great film for those who get the meaning!RegardsR.F.

vincentywang I agree with my Czech buddy: this is a total waste of time---an inept, pretentious, boring, ugly distortion of life. A wretched exploitation film.What does it exploit? To name a few: (1) the wretchedness of old-age loneliness; (2) our guilt at finding the characters somewhat annoying and ourselves less than full-heartedly sympathetic; (3) the tolerance of art-house audience for inadequate narrative and threadbare characterization.You would think that out of the extraordinary tedium and pointlessness, something unusual may be found; originality of any kind can nevertheless be the last saving-grace. But none is to be found. The bag of tricks is pretty flat: oh yes, Lee did see his Kieslowski alright. There is a scattering of visual clues that re-emerge from time to time, as in "Red", and we may pick up as glue to tie the nondescript narrative together. The painted canvas, the shreds of newspapers, the rear mirror view from a motor cycle, etc. And in case you think Lee is not well-versed in Brunuel, the deliberate voyeurism of the camera placement is supposed to make us roll over and extol the virtue of a new auteur. But art is not the sum of trickery. Punishing one's audience does not warrant worship. Not all of us are masochistic.

sansmerci I just finished watching this movie at the Karlovy Vary film festival in the Czech Republic. Some friends of mine said they had heard good things about it, but then remembered they were thinking of a different film. Still, the film had won awards at three different festivals and also had a decent rating on this site, as well as a favorable review from the one person who commented.What I'm about to say is not something I say lightly: This was the worst film I have ever seen. I think about half of the people in the theater (the theater was almost full) cleared out before the movie ended. It was slower than anything I've ever seen, and I have seen a great deal of foreign films.Everything about this film was just horrible. The plot was thin and nearly non-existent, and about 90% of the film was taken up by the woman running around asking where her grandson was, and people asking her the same questions ("Boy or a girl?" "What was he wearing?" "Did you talk to the police?"). I seriously think this was about an hour of the film, all of it exactly the same.Yet, strangely, I found myself rather intrigued during the entire course of the film. I was intrigued because I was convinced that there is no possible way that anyone could make a film that slow and not be fully aware of what they were doing. I started to think of John Cage's 4'33" and thought that, maybe, it's meant to be the cinematic equivalent of that: just one, huge joke on the film's audience. I'm hoping that's what it was, anyway, or else the director and editor of this film must have been the two most inept human beings in history. There were a few funny moments in the film which captured my interest, but for the most part, the most laughs came at the end of the film as people laughed at the sheer absurdity of the fact that they had just sat through something so unbelievably awful.I fail to see how this film won so many awards. The way I see it, either the juries at these festivals saw it as a joke as well and appreciated it, or else they figured that a film this boring must have some sort of deeper artistic meaning that they're missing. Either way, this movie is not worth seeing, not even for the humor of how bad it is, whether that was intended or not.