Ebert's "review"...

I'm not (a big fan of Ebert).
I have rarely read anything most useful from him. I think he loves himself too much for what he writes, and then, he does what most directors don't like: view everything from a (sometimes pseudo-)academic perspective.

And I think you read too much from Ebert, so that is has beclouded your own rational evaluation. Surely, this film was *not* a comedy satirizing the difficulties of locating a flat in Paris. I agree, that was the setting. But never in my life had that been the purpose.

Try to watch it again, forgetting all that nonsense. Try to spot oppressed sexuality, shyness, evasion, cross-dressing, and handling guilt. And then look for a split personality, think how he had come to know of the flat, why he removed the wardrobe to find a tooth (was that incidental?), why everyone complains about him being noisy (though except of when his colleagues visit him, you see him as quiet as a mouse). Take everything else (finding a Paris apartment, strange behaviour of the community) as ingredients (only) to build up the story.
And then think all along if the camera observes him objectively. Or if eventually the camera shows how he perceives himself. You could begin with the neighbours popping up at his door. Neighbours can be nasty, I agree. Though here, I doubt that you really think that what we see from them made any sense. Doesn't it rather look like he had a flat in an asylum? Did he? Was he unlucky enough to end up in an open asylum?

Just try, and good luck!