the film be not visually stun in the conventional sense . it doesn not present a series of pretty picture . instead it be a visually interesting film . it force the viewer to constantly process or perhaps imagine the context of the various shot . this sort of thing be easy to try but hard to succeed at . the film refuse to use the crutch of a genre to help the less than fully engage viewer get what go on . instead the film touch on and move through a number of different genre . the trick to love the film be be able to enjoy this playfulness . i suspect 99 % of north american viewer will just not get it . if you try to pin down the narrative of this film and or the philosophical message and or the symbolist structure and etc . you will waste your time . there be none of these . the film only feint towards these genre and others at time . the only unifying force in the film be claire denis own sense of what fit together . there be so few feature length film that come close to satisfy kant description of what art be and namely the enjoyment of the power of judgment itself instead of simply subsume experience under concept . film usually take the easy way out and opts for the simple pleasure of understand what happen . most film be not art . most film doesn not come close to art . when a film do and a this one do and and be still enjoyable by a large range of viewer and it something of a miracle . my on negative comment be that at time i find the film too simplistically buy in to the various narrative thread that run through it . the tahiti father son narrative and even though it not exactly conventional and end up make thing a little to clear and simple . it dominate too much .