What a waste of my time!!!

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

This film reminded me of the Dogma film "Hotel" (2001 dir: Mike Figgis) where many American movie stars appear mostly as cameos, or barely as part of the plot. There was, however a plot there, at least. On this film, we have "Kubrick-like" intertitles preceding scenes, all about the planning of the filming of a movie, which is being filmed as this is a movie within a movie anyway. The dialogue for the first half is - as always - about "the evil military that killed people indiscriminately", without a full explanation of WHY and WHAT HAPPENED. This is as if you were learning about World War II and "there was a lot of killing going on" but absolutely no explanation of what happened, just tidbits of talk. Imagine every German film ever made from the end of the war to the present, in which they talk about Nazis. Every film. Or every American movie talking about Vietnam... even it if is a romantic comedy. They try, and fail, to make this some type of artsy film, some very recognizable names are in it, but the dialogue goes nowhere. They try to be "French New Wave" but with less plot, and a lot of scenes about Buenos Aires that serves more as a fantasyland attraction rather than the presentation of a city, or the history of the country, or even some type of plot. A complete waste of time and talent. Go see "Hotel" instead. There is a scene in which a girl tells John Cusack that Argentina is stuck in the past, 35 years back, and cannot move forward. Such is the state of filmmaking in ARG today. Stuck in the 1980s and forever trying to sanitize (but failing in omission) the event s that CAUSED the military coup of 1976. The Argentitnes need at least another 50 years to catch up to the rest of the world. This is a piece of garbage, and frankly, had the coup never occurred, Argentina would have been another Lebanon of the 1980s or the Venezuela of today. Che Guevara and Maoists forever admiring what is unclean only because it is "revolutionary" - conveniently ignoring that ARG, for all its faults, became rich and prosperous thanks to the European immigrants that worked - and di dnot pick the quick fix of a revolution to advance the country. For the lazy and the feeble minded, the Cuban revolution is a thing to be worshipped. These are still dangerous times!

I watched this largely because I love Argentina. What a waste of 90 minutes. I stuck it out and watched the entire thing because I wanted it to be a decent movie. It wasn't. To say this movie is dull and dry is really being generous. There's no plot. Nothing of any significance happens. It's not even funny. This seems like a movie where someone was trying way too hard to be sophisticated and ended up producing garbage as a result.

I'm Argentine, so do not expect good English from me. But for US- AR relations and revisions looking for the true, Agresti's movie is without any doubt a milestone. He laugh about the problems that we ourselves create and keep creating in order to be good clowns, and keep using in order to give pity when things go wrong. For instance, the name of the first who tried to kill this unique, humorous work calling it here "A Miss" is Emiliano Basile, an Argentine mediocre critic, who sign as as being North American, and use the US flag in his comment… Woow!... Contrary to that, Agresti did a face to face between both cultures, showing himself in the film, instead of hiding like that pathetic moron. He performs Mr. Pesto, a wannabe director who admits that doesn't know what cinema is… "The work", i'm not sure to call it "A Film", is like a handkerchief that unfolds, many times looking if still is there a spot free of crap in this society. The subtle investigation between lines is calling to watch it many times. I saw it 4 so far, and I keep discovering juxtapositions between images and discourse that thrills me. Also I admire the participation of actors like JK and Pacino, working for no money, much more preoccupied to embrace the experimental trip of questioning, of which some blind local critics, like that coward ignorant pretending being from the US, are just envious. Once Again Agresti tries to show the Platonic Cavern that became our cultural parody. But like in any Platonic Cavern, Agresti goes back to his country and the ones who are on chains keep killing him, and denigrating him cowardly. They have an agenda with Agresti, and he knows that, but still produces some of the most interesting movies, and books on the Pampas. The most genuine and provocative reflections, without any concern about box office or any kind of conformism. Bravo!

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.