Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

KissEnglishPasto .........................................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA., CALI, COLOMBIA....and ORLANDO, FL After my first viewing: Total shock! Upon some reflection, I didn't feel I was ready to write a review, so I watched the Special Features segment on William Greaves (At 1 hour, almost as long as the film) and then watched SYMBIO again. Here's the comment I was going to use after viewing once: "Is it an extremely original concept in film-making? Yes, undoubtedly! Is it enjoyable and watchable? For me, at least, the answer to that is 'Not so much' 7*" Just how stupid am I, anyway? (Rhetorical question, that!)Here I am, nearly 66 years old, yet it wasn't till yesterday that I became aware of William Greaves! Can't remember the last time I could look anyone and everyone in the eye and say the words, with soulful and unabashed conviction: "GENIUS! Pure, Unadulterated GENIUS!" Sitting here at my computer, focusing on authoring this review, the SYMBIO-experience has inspired me to an extent unparalleled by any other film in recent years. My job now: Articulate this in a way that, in turn, will inspire you to watch and perhaps produce a review of your own. Here, perhaps the most challenging aspect of review-writing is to avoid anything resembling a spoiler. Don't read the Blurbs. One definitely contains a spoiler, which could easily deprive you of the joy of "Getting It" all on your own! The two things which stand out most in retrospect? First, the sheer simplicity of the applied concept itself is truly inspirational, in and of itself. Second, that it took a 1/4 of a century, after the fact, for Mr. Greaves to get a decent screening and begin to get some of the recognition he so sorely deserved for this cinematic milestone.Couldn't help but notice that SYMBIO-was shot in August 1968, just a few months after the release of Stanley Kubrick's 2001. What do both films have in common? Well, thematically, not much, really. But it's hard to imagine someone like Greaves not having seen it soon after its release, so...Who knows? We could always ask him!10*.....ENJOY/DISFRUTELA! Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome!

TonyKissCastillo ......................................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA...and ORLANDO, FL After my first viewing: Total shock! Upon some reflection, I didn't feel I was ready to write a review, so I watched the Special Features segment on William Greaves (At 1 hour, almost as long as the film) and then watched SYMBIO again. Here's the comment I was going to use after viewing once: "Is it an extremely original concept in film-making? Yes, undoubtedly! Is it enjoyable and watchable? For me, at least, the answer to that is 'Not so much' 7*" Just how stupid am I, anyway? (Rhetorical question, that!)Here I am, nearly 66 years old, yet it wasn't till yesterday that I became aware of William Greaves! Can't remember the last time I could look anyone and everyone in the eye and say the words, with soulful and unabashed conviction: "GENIUS! Pure, Unadulterated GENIUS!" Sitting here at my computer, focusing on authoring this review, the SYMBIO-experience has inspired me to an extent unparalleled by any other film in recent years. My job now: Articulate this in a way that, in turn, will inspire you to watch and perhaps produce a review of your own. Here, perhaps the most challenging aspect of review-writing is to avoid anything resembling a spoiler. Don't read the Blurbs. One definitely contains a spoiler, which could easily deprive you of the joy of "Getting It" all on your own! The two things which stand out most in retrospect? First, the sheer simplicity of the applied concept itself is truly inspirational, in and of itself. Second, that it took a 1/4 of a century, after the fact, for Mr. Greaves to get a decent screening and begin to get some of the recognition he so sorely deserved for this cinematic milestone.Couldn't help but notice that SYMBIO-was shot in August 1968, just a few months after the release of Stanley Kubrick's 2001. What do both films have in common? Well, thematically, not much, really. But it's hard to imagine someone like Greaves not having seen it soon after its release, so...Who knows? We could always ask him!10*.....ENJOY/DISFRUTELA! Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome!

Bolesroor Truth is what remains after we have rejected everything that is untrue.That is how we define our world, ourselves, our very reality. We are- whether we know it or not- constantly questioning, constantly searching for truth in our lives- from the most simplistic and straightforward to the universal eternal questions: the truth about love, and sex, and God, the truth about men and women, and the meaning of life. "Symbiopsychotaxiplasm" is a movie that brilliantly turns the medium of film- and its devices- into the ultimate litmus test of truth. That's all the movie is: the search for truth, experienced in multiple levels of reality and reflecting off itself in a series of mirrors.It's so much more simple than other reviewers make it sound. When critics start dusting off arcane technical descriptions and pretentious French terminology I usually run screaming in the opposite direction. William Greaves uses the simple idea of a film crew shooting a scene in the park as a departure point for a look at what is real. Is the scene real? Is it intentionally terrible? The absurd, stilted dialogue and over-the-top performances seem to suggest it's a smokescreen for something else, and yet there are times when the actors find Truth in the awful scene by transcending the premise and dialogue and reaching an emotional core. This is the very definition of acting, so in a strange way this zero-budget, atrociously-written scene succeeds more than many big-budget "legitimate" Hollywood films. But then Greaves includes footage of the actors as themselves rehearsing and discussing the scene… does seeing their actual personalities and hearing their own opinions enhance or detract from their performances? Or is this aspect of the film scripted as well? We don't know, and it's the absolute ambiguity that makes this movie magnetic and fascinating.The second level of the film is the behind-the-scenes documentary, which in many ways is the most pure form of cinema ever created. The camera captures the struggles and setbacks of the cast and crew on location, including intruding police officers, crowds of excited on-lookers, and even an eccentric homeless man to reveal the reality of what goes on during a shoot. The crew is frustrated, confused and almost mutinous over the director's seemingly careless attitude about the movie. It says a lot about Greaves' open-mindedness as an artist and a man that he's willing to include this footage that openly questions his talents and motivations. Clearly he's as willing to expose himself to scrutiny as his actors and his crew. That's commitment, and the key to the movie for me. The fact that Greaves included scenes that showed him in an unflattering light convinced me that the man is as pure a film artist as there ever was. Boldly, fearlessly, he stands completely vulnerable on screen in his own film and trusts the audience to judge him for themselves.The third level of the film is unprecedented and probably the most fun. Thirty years before the invention of DVD Director's Commentary the crew gathers and gives a running commentary on the movie- while it's still in production- and surprisingly questions whether or not the film has any value at all! Their passion is contagious... these are clearly all talented individuals who genuinely care about the project they're working on, and although they have different opinions they basically all arrive at the same conclusion: the movie is a disorganized mess. They're absolutely right, but few of them had the foresight to see that it's the sprawling, imperfect, fun-house atmosphere that makes it such a rich and rewarding experience.Just watching this movie will make you smarter about movies, if not life in general. It will make you question what you once blindly accepted, it will engage you and challenge you in a way that no other film ever has or probably ever will, and for that alone it is a tremendous success and exceptionally valuable. It is a time capsule of not only an era when artistic pursuits were much more nobly considered, but of a unique cinematic experience in which the audience, cast and crew all switch places like a magical game of musical chairs and in which the truth reveals itself to be just as maddeningly elusive as in real life.The first time I saw the film I was convinced the drunken homeless man who preaches to the crew was an actor playing a part in a staged segment of the behind-the-scenes documentary. The second time I saw it I was sure he was absolutely real.Let me know if you figure it out, won't you?GRADE: A

tedg This was recommended by a reader, and I'm glad to have seen it. But that's only because I'm interested in anything that contributes to the vocabulary of folding or self-reference. But I would not recommend this to you as a film experience. It is a clever idea: film acting students in Central Park doing a screen test. The lines they play with are capriciously malleable. Meanwhile a camera documents the events behind the first camera. There's sometimes a third camera as well, and from time to time that camera focuses on a discussion of the crew. They're discussing — with amazing vacuity — the advanced implications of the film.In other words it is explicitly self-referential in the simplest of ways. There are many more clever folds in the film world, and certainly from that period, so this isn't rare or even novel. It would be something to recommend if all this relatively sophomoric enlightenment had been turned to something that had blood and muscle of some kind.But it hasn't. Its one tool in a collection of several that have to be applied to the real building material of life. It lacks any of that and isn't a particularly sharp tool at that.Perhaps Part 2 1/2 will be worth it.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.