I am quite sure that there's much more to this film than what a foreigner can understand. I say this, because as an Eastern European I did get extra layers, which are probably invisible for viewers who did not have their shares from the Soviet Union. This is often an issue with arts: you understand your own context, probably you understand the dominant American contexts, maybe you even understand your regional contexts, but in every other case you will miss a significant portion of a film. So, Kazakhstan is a Central Asian country with Mongol-Turkic and Islamic roots, dominated by Russia for a few centuries before gaining independence recently; however, the domestic rule is still authoritarian.
The story is autobiographical; the backbone of the plot is that Amir, a film director's private and professional lives are in crisis, when he sets up to visit her ailing mother in the countryside, and in the meantime he dreams, fantasizes and remembers.
And let me now refer back to my first paragraph: I think I am not mistaken to believe that Amir is a parallel to contemporary Kazakh society, who are trying to cope with their past, present and possible future. This is the aspect that is hard to comprehend as a foreigner. It is much easier to resonate with Amir's crisis, his desires, fears, insecurities, standpoints both as an artist and as a family man. Several reviewers noted that the film is also quite funny; I'm afraid I missed most of that unless it was obvious enough even for me.
Visually it is less fun apart from some setups; there are not many noticeable plays with lights, editing, camera movements and other effects. There's little soundtrack and not much room for acting.
Overall I cannot say I enjoyed much the contents and the formalism of the film, but it had some fun parts, and as I mentioned, a movie experience is very dependent on the viewer's taste and understanding, so that's just me.
