Jason Friedlander’s review published on Letterboxd:
Of all the shorts so far this one feels like it had the most elaborate and professional production behind it, which is why the disappointment for me hit harder here than on the previous five. Most of the film is spent building up tension for the fate of the protagonist, but when the ball finally drops at the end my reaction was closer to confusion than shock. Or I guess I was shocked that it ended in such a confusing way. And what made it confusing was its lack of shock. Or was it the shock of its ending that made it confusing? Not the shock of its ending but the shock of its ending. I mean that it ends in a confusing way, not in content but in form.
Maybe there’s a way to watch it as a metacommentary on the artistic form and what it requires of actors in terms of emotional/physical/spiritual exploitation (esp. with the Araki reference) through the pretense of making art, but if that were the case I’m unsure if the short as it is successfully stands outside of it or only plays back into it itself.
Anyway sorry for the shitty review, Enrico. Loved a lot of the production and will look forward to seeing whatever you come up with next.