Hideously boring, avoid

Let's be fair here. Although I do believe the OP has a touch of the same disease that he accuses "hipsters" of having (tip for the future, aquafunk: if you sort of know what the word means, you don't know what the word means; do look up "luddite"), calling a film "boring" and a "waste of time" isn't tantamount to a presumption of saving people's time and money. We can all opine on films, even negatively, okay? And, to be perfectly honest, reviews are mostly the province of those who have already seen the given film.

All that said, despite my own love of arthouse films, I don't like Like Someone in Love, and I don't like Kiarostami's films in general. Moreover, I find that bending over backwards to defend his film-making leads people to make statements that range from bewildering to downright insane. A movie that doesn't engage the viewer and doesn't have a coherent plot is "more deep" than a conventional story-based film because it forces the viewer to work? Sure, whatever. I guess it would be even more deep and intellectual to just watch a blank screen for an hour and twenty minutes, a kind of a cinematic version of "Four Fifty-Five". I mean, can you imagine the amount of work a viewer would have to do with a film that not only had no story, but also no images and no sound? I've also read one review that praised, of all things, censorship in Iran for forcing Iranian film-makers to be more artistic and subtle; never mind that censorship places severe constraints upon artists and stifles artistic expression.

Aristotle had a point: drama needs a story. A story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It's not enough to have a conceit, it's not enough to have an idea for a story, it's not enough to have a sketch. But, incidentally, taking those crumbs and constructing a compelling, engaging story is the most difficult part of the creative process -- the part that Kiarostami consistently skips, ostensibly out of great intellectual depth. He has no courage or skill to make the plot go somewhere. His dialogue is threadbare. And he has a bizarre obsession with car rides -- which, perhaps, isn't so bizarre after all, if you consider the fact that it's much easier to write a scene in which the participants are strapped in their seats and have very little freedom of movement. In other words, overrated as hell.