The formal analysis is strong but the emotional argument is the one that will bring people to the film.

Hard disagree on this one, but I respect the take

The performance in the supporting role is carrying scenes that the lead is still figuring out.

The structural choice you're praising is the choice that most critics at the time objected to.

This thread is the most useful film discussion I've encountered outside of an actual film course.

This needs more upvotes

I've seen this film at three different festivals and the audience reaction was completely different each time.

The cold open is one of the best I've ever seen and you haven't even mentioned it.

I sent this post to three different people with the message 'this is why the film is great'.

I had a physical reaction to the scene you're describing that I've never had in a cinema before.

The Pauline Kael review of this film is wrong in an interesting way that reveals her own limitations.

Bookmarked. This is the kind of content I come here for

Tried this today and it actually works!

The Roman annona — the state grain supply system that fed Rome and Constantinople — is an extraordinary logistical achievement that made possible the existence of cities of a million people in the pre-industrial world.

I think you're exactly right about the form and I want to add one more dimension to the content argument.

Love the detail in this write-up

The casting choice that seemed wrong in the trailer was the most important decision the film made.

I was literally just thinking about this yesterday

I want to add a defense of the film's pacing that nobody else in this thread has offered.