Looking around at the nearly empty showing of "The Science Of Sleep" it is no wonder that art films draw so poorly. It doesn't have to be that way as "The Illusionist" proved this year. But when you make a deliberately claustrophobic, cryptic film like this you really can't complain when no one shows up.<br /><br />The big problem with this entry for me is that not only does it make no sense but it is extremely unattractive to look at. The low budget shows in many ways. It is not that I am narrow minded to the point that I have an issue with cheap effects. The opening shot of Hitchcock 's "The Lady Vanishes is an extremely unconvincing model that even a child could spot, but that film has style and substance. If you have no budget you can at least make it look like you have one unless your goal is to drive away all but the most aspiring critics trying to demonstrate their "hip" credentials. How anyone could sustain interest in such a repetitive and uninteresting nightmare is beyond me. It seems that films have become way too polarized lately. You get either comic book franchises that appeal to the lowest common denominator or you get contrived and pretentious claptrap like this.<br /><br />Small budgets don't have to mean disastrous results. Take for instance "Edmund" which even has to substitute LA for Manhattan and guess what: They get away with it. If I had not read that it was not shot in the Big Apple I wouldn't have guessed.<br /><br />I had a lot of the same frustration with "Being John Malkovich." It is not that I don't like Kauffman ("Adaptation" was a great film) but in both cases it seems as if the intent is to turn off all those viewers that are not already dialed into the exact wavelength. A thought crossed my head that this might be better watched a little bit at a time (like anyone with kids watches DVDs at home) but the the thought of having to suffer through this in installments seemed intolerable