I don't have a short attention span, and I love movies that reveal their story slowly. That said, this film was like watching grass grow. It was well photographed.I'll give it that.but very poorly executed. Wexler is a great cimematographer, but he is no director. When you have a film that has a good central cast (Robert Forster, Verna Bloom, Marianne Hill, Peter Bonerz) and they are all giving performances that elicit eye rolling, then you know the problem is not with the actors.
It has some interest as a time capsule of a past time, but the interest pretty much ends there.

I too agree with the OP. I didn't finish watching it because I felt like I was looking at somebody who was filming a film all the time. . . . .boring.
As far as the 1960s are concerned. .. .. been there done that.

You could always articulate what about the film you liked. But I guess it's a lot easier to dismiss the OP as some troglodyte with ADD.

"C'mon guys, the OP has a point."
the OP shouldn't have watched this film in the first place.
"This film has great archival value,"
well, i'd rather watch it than put it in a safe somewhere.
"but the fictional part of this film is simply lousy."
no,it really isn't.

C'mon guys, the OP has a point. This film has great archival value, but the fictional part of this film is simply lousy.

People who surf the internet or play on their phones during smart, character driven movies are always the ones who say the films are boring and pointless.
WATCH and PAY ATTENTION to the film and you might understand it.
But, then again, limited attention spans are all the rage now. If something's not blowing up in CGI every five seconds, the film is boring.
But, oh, those Batman movies, now THERE'S art! Greatest movies in history, there

Don't worry. I'm sure there's an Adam Sandler movie on somewhere.