Inconsistent

The reason I don't think this movie succeeded (although I found it entertaining) is that it was not consistent to its own logic. In other words, it didn't have a consistent premise. Except for the prologue (which was kind of surreal but was "outside" the rest of the movie), it played as a realistic story. It was seemingly set in the future, or an alternate universe, where tiny cameras captured actors doing things in real life locations. But why were these actors invulnerable? Why did three different people look the same? I guess it means that they were all M. Oscar. But how can he be in several places at the same time? How could the cars talk, for that matter?

In other words, is the plot pure dreamy fantasy, absurd allegory, purely symbolic? Or is it meant to be taken as a real, literal story?
(I'm not talking about the meaning behind the film, just the plot.)

It seems the filmmaker threw disparate elements together, but I don't think the elements fit together. It has to do with the tone too, it was mostly very somber and serious, although there certainly were comedic elements. This made it seem like we should take the story seriously.

And I'm not against these kinds of movies if they succeed. I love most stuff from Lynch and (early) Cronenberg for instance. I recently saw Survive Style 5 Plus, a crazy Japanese movie, which actually was partly realistic and partly fantastic. But I think it worked, because it's in the premise.