I liked it very much. I saw it in the movie theater and we thought it was wonderful film, and as you say @
ahwell, , unique. I think this is one of those movies that is meant to be seen on the wide screen, in the hushed amphitheater of a movie house. There the visuals, beautiful and compelling , become even more central to the experience of the movie. I understand that some viewers felt it was pretentious or arty, but that was not my experience at all ( however ask me that question about Claire's Knee 🙄 sometime.)
And since the film is slow moving , more like a symphony than a song, the viewer should be prepared to relax and give it a little time and patience to evolve.
I have not seen it since, but here is what I remember taking away from the film. I have rarely ( never?) seen the type of cinematography that pays attention to the minute and overlooked visual beauties of the world. The visuals become a counterpoint to the story, which often is about the frail and flawed human character.
To me, those glorious visuals of small moments - the sun on the water, the acres of clouds in the sky- are a constant reminder that there is something greater and grander in the universe than our daily struggle. The camera looks lovingly at these visual gifts and implies- there is a reason to have faith.
The plot ( and I honestly don't remember all of it) then becomes a subtext to this theme of the beauty of the world. Which is why the film is so different from most movies- what is only nuance in most movies becomes the driving wheel in this one. The plot is not just underlined, but imho subservient to the quiet and constant pulse of the inspiring sights , and, by inference, the vitality of all our senses. Which can sustain us through the darkest twists of fate , even as we question its mystery.
This is my personal reaction of course and need not be anyone else's ( even the film maker 's ) . But I came away feeling validated and affirmed - that there is a reason and a greater hand that created this gloriously beautiful world.