I'll be upfront about it - it's not a genre I like. To me, it feels like:

1, Give everyone a motive 2, Make the actual motive, means or opportunity convoluted 3, Reveal it slowly in the last 10% of the film with occasional flashbacks to things which make no sense unless used retrospectively and implied as clues

I don't see anything different in this film. I'd praise it if there was a really clever subtext or it said anything about, well... anything at all. It's just a jigsaw, though. Here are some pieces, bit of a mystery about what the picture is, now we've put it together we can see it's:

1, Sydney Opera House 2, A close-up of Ernest Borgnine's face 3, Some hyenas

Well, great, that was worth two hours. What would have been great is if hyena DNA got mixed with Borgnine and he was scampering about the carapace of the Opera House with tails coming out of his face. At least that would present the possibility that humans have even the slightest imagination, rather than perpetually retelling the most tedious parts of our existence and imagining that it means something.

To be fair, it does mean something. But only to the tedious.