I found the opposite. to me it felt like retracing the same two - admittedly interesting and valuable - meta points over and over*, while refusing to describe what the film was actually like to watch. I assume it did actually get to that point, but I stopped reading after the nth paragraph that I didn’t feel provided any new information.

this isn’t to say you’re wrong to enjoy it, or that my impressions were correct, just that I felt differently. I’m also extremely aware of the irony of complaining about the length of an article about the experience of watching an 857 hour film, but c’est la, as they say

*i.e. how it is an art piece about capitalism compressing time and space into innocuous objects; and how much of a time and schedule commitment it was for him