Thank you very much for your respond, arsaib! 
I'm glad you maybe took something with you from my review. I don't know if it makes sense - I only know that I would've written a review of the same length but with much more substance and thoughts in it it it were in German - which means: more depth to do the film justice.

I hope, a discussion about this subject is in your interest, I find it quite important:

You already exactly marked what I would call the great disadvantage of modern cinema:

Quote:You may have a point regarding the current shift in the zeitgeist, which will, if it hasn't already, project good, solid films into something else, and in some cases unfortunately so. But then, this occurs just about everytime the "New Wave" mantle gets anointed.

That's the problem. I'm probably not nearly as experienced as you are but in my opinion, It's not a pretentios conclusion to note that there were decades in which there were more different and original, experimental and unusual, daring and artful ways to express certain things in cinema. I think, Arthouse-Cinema (and I'm sad that I feel a need of using this modern word - there were also times in which Arthouse and Mainstream / Entertainment and demand were not separated that strongly - it was just one thing, just cinema then!) nowadays is almost as uniformed as the Mainstream Cinema. The diversity of film languages has increased in a tragic way, I think. It's maybe a bit unfair to discuss this here (because there could be far worse examples than "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days"...). Today, everything depends on the little, subtle differences in Independent / Arthouse-Cinema (whatever you want to call it). The difference between films like Carlos Reygadas "Battle in heaven" and "Climates" (the one by Ceylan) is - or seems to be enormous but my feeling as a viewer was quite similar within both films (though they mostly deal with different subjects). And this happens more often with every film of "this kind" (I know that this sounds even more unfair and stupid - "this kind" - but hopefully, you understand what I want to say by that). Just a - maybe inadequate - example: Two films from 1966, Antonioni's "Blow up" and Vera Chytilov's "Daisies". Both films deal with the same subject (mostly) in my opinion. But they both don't deal with it in any way you would expect and both manage to surprise you by their language which adds a demand for a new and challenging development of new receptions - though they are mainly about the same thing(s)!

I hope you don't judge me for this - but I want to be surprised and challenged by cinema, always, over and over again. the most horrible thing is a film that comes up as exactly what you expected it to be. For example, I knew almost nothing about the film this thread was originally dedicated to - but even the small expectations and suggestions I had were confirmed, all of them. Fortunately, there were more than that, but...
I've given up on talking about "Entertainment". If a movie wakes up my interest, it entertains me, if it doesn't manage to get my attention and my interest, it bores me. I'm not looking for Entertainment, I'm looking for interesting positions and point of views, for interesting and enriching, stimulating ways of expression. Cinema has to force the viewer to reflect on different points of view, about his understanding of art and his openness for that new ways of expression. From this perspective, commercial cinema is even more interesting than the work of an auteur - if there are thoughtful and mind-opening bits in an "Entertainment"-film, it will challenge more people to reflect than an "Arthouse"-Film (note the quotes!) which usually reaches mostly limited audiences. A film does not have to be "useful" but if it is, that's not bad at all. That's one of many reasons why I love Paul Verhoeven and Douglas Sirk - their films deliver thought-provoking impulses in a popular but also subtle as well as striking way and they are pure, honest and artificial cinema at the same time. Michelangelo Antonioni is one of my greates cinema-icons of all time - but his films aren't very popular, so this maybe is a slightly egoistic, individual "joy".Sorry for that excursus which maybe seems a bit egocentric to you but I only try to explain a difficult matter in a language that isn't my mother tongue. 

After all, I hope I could make myself clear without doing anybody a harm - misunderstandings are unfortunately a wide distributed phenomenon of web communication. 

Quote:Some have even suggested that its Golden Palm was in a way for Cannes to level its previous blunder for not having the "superior" The Death of Mr. Lazarescu in competition.

Could be. Such awards unfortunately very often mean nothing as there are many reasons within the jury's decision which shouldn't influence it at all. And to give the Palm d'or to a Romanian film sure is - no matter of intentional or unintenional - a sign of political correctness. Even if there were films which would've deserved it more - they weren't from a "forgotten" country like Romania...
The last film which deserved that award was imo Van Sants amazing "Elephant" while the choice of "The Wind that shakes the Barley" last year was almost... well... at bit disproportional.

Quote:Import/Export is also high on my list of upcoming films.

I'm almost sure you'll like it. Most people (A and Matalo Matango among others;-) thought it was quite unpleasant and hard to get through because of its aggressive display of horrible truths about social catastrophes but if we already know about those catastrophes, a depiction and acknowledge of them mustn't be unpleasant. To me, it was a really comfortable and congenial essay on the whole thing and I'm most anxious to explore more by Seidl. He maybe is the only filmmaker in German language Cinema who manages to combine artificial and metaphorical form with realistic and pragmatic direction.