Your review gives no indication that The End Of Time is on the nature of time at all. Does it ask whether time itself flows, or does physical space flow throw it, or does time even exist, or is it just a way to describe physical processes? I'm legitimately curious because that would be an interesting movie worth checking out, but if it's just a bunch of "Hey look objects come into and out of existence," as you imply, then it sounds like a waste of, ahem, time.

If you enjoyed the Qaatsi trilogy, or the works of Ron Fricke (Baraka and Samsara) then you owe it to yourself to see Visitors at Cinerama. It is an amazing piece of work, taking the essence of the Qaatsi movies and distilling it even further. And the Cinerama is, as Godfrey Reggio himself suggested at the Q&A opening night, probably the best theater to experience this movie in. The size of the images is truly breathtaking on their gorgeous screen and the experience is truly immersive.

These films are meant to be approached with an open mind and I think the images are best seen cold, but I will say I got a lot more out of it than Charles did. There are some beautiful images and some pedestrian, some parts hark directly back to the Qaatsi movies and others are novel. Like any piece of art the movie requires some effort on the part of the viewer to draw their own conclusions about what the movie means. And I think everyone could draw something different out of it. Hearing the director after there were certainly parts I read completely "wrong", but my interpretation is as valid as any.

I didn't expect much from Visitors and the film met my expectations.

@4, that's what I figured, thanks for the tip.