I purchased this film on the basis of Terry's name being associated with the film, and what seemed like a story line that I could relate to in some way. I decided to wait before doing a review simply because I suspected that what would happen has happened, that is the reviews do not seem to match up with the film I saw.This is one film that desperately needs a directors commentary, or more to the point, a writer and directors commentary. The film is eminently watchable in my view. As one reviewer noted, the Church of Batman the Redeemer is a great joke, and little elements inserted through the film make a great sub-text.The existential angst is rightly perceived as the pivot of the action and, more to the point, the thought in the film. I really hate to go along with the critics on films, but if you look at other sites, this film is well received. As to why it took 2 years to come to disc, I don't know. What perplexes me even more is how this film that asks so many questions, is criticised as being somehow "nihilistic" since it discusses how some non-believers view things, and how a believer approaches things. The extras specifically disavow a connection to Brazil in that they are specifically trying to not be in that genre. This film is really quite thoughtful, and multiple viewings confirm that for me, at least. Some films really do require some thought, just as some songs do. On what was supposedly a low budget, this film was created in a stunning way. If you want to look at a film that asks questions, then this is for you, if you don't like films that require you to think, then you should avoid this film. In my view, what you say about the film says more about you than what it says about the film.The high points, the people who are happy are not Q( Qohen ), hence he is dressed in black, and no co-incidence Q is a believer.The character representing management is Matt Damon's, melting into the background for most of the time in Chameleon like shades; Delivering his lines in a laconic form, he reminds me of Phillip Seymour Hoffman for some odd reason. I would suggest that some of the more basic elements of the story are drawn from the cubical world that the current world delivers so well. In some form, this struck me as a kind of Sci-Fi version of Dilbert. The other arche-type that struck me is that this story in this remarkably insightful film has similarities to the Book of Job, except that there is no "Meta-Narrative", that is the divine narrative we see in the book of Job is the cosmic overview, and what this film may be attempting to do is to hand over that discursive element, or basically the questions of meaning are given to the watcher of the film to sort out for themselves ( just myopinion/conjecture). I just may change my view later of this film, which does not invalidate the questions in the film, simply changes my conditional answers. If I may suggest, watch the film once for the experience, then put your analytical mind on ( or Hat on, as one Logician stated in one book) and see what you can sort out. If the original TOTAL RECALL can ask deep and meaningful questions , how much more can Terry Gilliam ( and by the way, if you have watched TOTAL RECALL and thought, what deep and meaningful??, just listen to the Commentary track that Verhoeven does on TOTAL RECALL, and it will change your view of that film forever).