Posts by northerncrane4

placidsailor18 said:She seems to think Uncle just brings back fond childhood memories—that those gifts and visits are the only bright spots in his life and he’ll definitely do it again.

You missed the point entirely. "Bright spots"? The uncle was raping his mom while his dad stood by helplessly. This isn't some cozy Jo Nesb mystery—it's a film about a relentless cycle of abuse.

placidsailor18 said:The movie just feels unfinished to me.

You're just stressing over trivialities.

placidsailor18 said:She's realized all of this.
But the motive remains unclear—did Uncle just pick them at random to work through his own baggage? Or did Mom mess up somehow, leaving him looking for payback?

Why does any of that matter?

Ashley Grant66 said:But as far as being a psychological thriller with actual depth to the characters goes—it didn't quite land for me.

I agree—the movie would have hit harder if you could feel even a shred of empathy for any of the characters. That said, I wouldn't call it a directorial oversight; it feels more like an intentional stylistic choice by the creator. So the film is still solid, and my desire for something different is just my own subjective issue. Still, I maintain that the sequences following the daughter's kidnapping (without spoiling too much—the mother in the tub realizing what she accidentally did) and the aftermath of Heimlich should have been better paced.

By the way, that 80s iconography is so spot-on that the directors themselves look like they walked straight out of a Lolek and Bolek cartoon. 😛

Larry Walker24 said:Why did the media coverage for this movie suck so much?

Because they can't figure out how to categorize it—and that indecision clearly drives them crazy.

Raymond Wood77 said:Why does the Roman army in this movie—set in 35 BC—show up wearing gear that wasn't even standard until 150 AD?

Same question here—why is everyone suddenly twenty inches taller than the actual average back then? Is this some kind of NBA legion, director? Absolute nonsense—basketball didn't even exist! FAIL!

hiddenranger7 said:gracija Filipović won the Oscar for Breakthrough Actor in Gotham

https://twitter.com/FilmUpdates/stat...83387618033664

A history of Corruption in Gotham City.

Joshua Smith5 said:northerncrane4 once made an interesting—and entirely correct—point: you should stop watching Haneke's Speak No Evil the moment the villain "reboots" the plot.

Specifically, when he breaks the fourth wall to offer that bet.

The movie falls apart the second they return home to sleep off the tension—especially after that incident with the child performer. At that point, the characters cease being actual people and just become punctuation marks for the director's thesis.

ruggedjackal46 said:The whole sense of waiting and absurdity is an unavoidable part of this story, though I agree the parts you mentioned are definitely higher tension. Mind you, the film could have leaned harder into the other side of the coin that northerncrane4 is talking about—maybe by making it harder to identify with the main characters. From our perspective, we see an unpleasant doctor; from the other side, we’d probably see a physician dealing with families who think they know better than anyone how to prescribe medication. Every single procedure that confuses the characters likely exists for a reason, and that "coldness" or "detachment" from the officials is pretty much necessary when you deal with these kinds of cases every single day. The movie fails to maintain that distance, and frankly, maybe the director wasn't ready to take that distance either. But hey, it didn't bother me all that much; that entire aspect of the story feels secondary in this particular film.

Except I don't think that "other side" is actually necessary for this film; I'm only pointing it out because the director’s obsession with finding someone to blame really bugs me. There isn't a villain here. Sure, some people involved—including the filmmaker and the mother—might have handled things better, but nobody is coming to save anyone.

Ashley Grant66 said:Lol, wait—did you guys catch that they actually filmed it on that specific street (the one by my brother's apartment at the start of the movie), or did they explicitly mention the street name in the film? I totally missed both!

So, we sat there waiting for the doctor for five minutes, then hung out in the office for a bit longer after—just to find out he’s totally insensitive and apparently it’s not "polite" to question a prescribed treatment plan. Honestly, I don't see the point. Those three have enough crazy chemistry on their own—I much preferred that scene where they all pile into a car to head down to Miami, the brother loses control, and realizes they're hiding scissors from him. Or even when they show up at his place and just send him to bed... I found myself just waiting for the sound of glass shattering at any moment. A grumpy nurse or a cop can be a decent addition to a scene without stalling the plot, but this whole thing with the Austrian doctor felt pretty pointless to me.
That scene with the totally checked-out officer at the Miami station when they go to report a theft was gold—it had this bitter, comedic edge to it. You could really feel that classic bureaucratic attitude: "this is just how things work, hang in there, I'm just doing my job." 😁

Personally, I think he was just trying to capture that feeling of hitting a wall with rude, insensitive staff—you know how it is when you're already down. He wasn't trying to paint them as saints, but since he didn't explicitly say he's suing the hospital, I wouldn't take it too seriously, tbh.
The whole thing with wiping away the blood would feel pretty pointless unless we later got some twisted, touching moment where the brother admits he did it to protect him—even if it actually just landed him in a mess. 😵

You see those actions as rude and insensitive because you’re watching a movie where you already know it’s a suicide attempt within the director's own family. A cop arriving at the scene doesn't know that. To him, it's just as likely that one brother broke into another's house, beat him up, then staged the scene to look like a suicide attempt before calling 911. For example.

My issue now is that after all these years, the director and screenwriter still choose to present only their own skewed perspective—which, subtly, is an accusation against everyone else.

Ashley Grant66 said:So, what happened was, we waited five minutes for the doctor and then sat in the office for a few more. What did we actually gain from that scene besides learning the doctor is insensitive and apparently it's not "polite" to question a prescribed treatment?

Personally, I got a glimpse of how much it must grate on that doctor when every casual acquaintance or old colleague calls him up asking to jump the queue for their relative. But I doubt that was the director's intention.

Ashley Grant66 said:I’m actually pretty curious about that too—but honestly, those kinds of scenes just kind of kill the vibe for me. I totally get what he was going for—nobody needs to deal with obnoxious cops or medics in a moment like that, and he's right to call it out—but those long, static shots felt like they just dragged the whole movie down and made the atmosphere feel heavy. Personally, I much prefer the scenes where it’s just the three of them and everyone else stays in the background rather than taking over the screen.

Remember when we were talking on that other thread about Lerotić's short film? There was this theory that he used the photo strip method because it helped save mediocre footage. Now I'm wondering if he chose this filming style because it's just easier for him when he's directing himself—or maybe it's some brilliant, deeply thought-out directorial move that's totally flying over my head. 😁

Well—"rightly so." To him, in the heat of the moment, the police badgering him about who was bleeding might seem stupid or misplaced. But eventually, our author should realize that those questions aren't "stupid"—they’re standard procedure for officers dealing with situations they see far more often than he does. For Lerotić, this tragedy is a once-in-a-lifetime nightmare; for those cops and paramedics, it’s just damn routine. And even within that routine, I still don't see why he feels the need to quietly—yet legally—accuse them of being incompetent.

One might think these gripes have nothing to do with the film's quality, but for me, it matters—especially in a movie that asks you to buy into the director's specific perspective. I don't care much about his stylistic choices, provided his core message is clear and his conclusions actually hold water. 🤷

Nancy Fox89 said:It doesn't make sense—they don't even have them. No one in the family. If they did—which would be expected since everyone does—they could actually react, call someone, or report the abuse they're enduring.☕ ... Still, I'll watch the movie again just to catch anything I might have missed the first time.

A cell phone isn't a kidney. It seems to me you didn't catch much during your first viewing. 😵

Nancy Fox89 said:I didn't quite get why only uncle (Manojlović) has a phone while the others don't...🤷

😕 Because their uncle won't let them have one.

A few moments in "Uncle" could have been edited with more precision—though it’s hard to call the directing inconsistent. On the contrary—it's all quite deliberate, even using specific framing to make the viewer feel uneasy. It captures the pathology of this culture perfectly—making it far more conceptually striking than, say, those Jordan Peele gimmicks that local and global hipsters obsess over. Plus, considering this is his first feature, he avoids the typical trap most directors fall into—obsessing over their own trauma—and instead casts a much wider net. Kudos.

Back to "Snow White"...

Ashley Grant66 said:Did that actually happen at the end, or was it just her imagination for symbolic effect?
Are those people partying just random neighbors? What's the point of that scene?

I'd say it actually happened.
My take? We're seeing her happiness when people eagerly accept whatever she puts on the table.

Raymond Anderson4 said:The movie felt a bit disjointed; the middle section lost its way, filled with too many jumping events where George was constantly being pulled into different situations.
Personally, I think the film would have landed much better if it hadn't tried to pack so many life events into just an hour and 40 minutes... everything seemed to happen so fast from start to finish.
The acting is top-notch, and Steven Spielberg is truly outstanding. As time goes on, I find myself appreciating his performance even more—I actually went back and watched it again just to see his work.
Those random bits of humor didn't really sit right with me, especially since half the theater was laughing at them. To be honest, it felt out of place for a movie this heavy; it should have stayed serious until the very end. Don't throw jokes at me when I'm trying to engage with something profound.

The story feels somewhat stereotypical, though it isn't just a critique of the healthcare system; it touches on the police and offers a broader look at how systemic failures prevent people from getting help. It might even be a critique of society as a whole, considering we heard George mention twice that none of his friends suspected anything was wrong or gave him any warning...

Right—everyone is to blame except for the brother and mother who take a suicidal, paranoid schizophrenic off his meds, hide him from the police and the hospital, and then get sued for negligence at the end—all while the filmmakers supposedly keep their real names in the credits while changing everyone else's. 🙄

amberfox7 said:There is top-tier direction, mediocre direction, and bad direction. There are countless films that have tackled mental illness brilliantly. Think of someone like Terrence Malick with Love Streams or even Betty Blue—not to mention Mommy or woman under influence. The subject matter isn't the issue here; Schizophrenia and suicide are pretty much the generic hallmarks of the mental health genre. I might be caricaturing, but it would have felt more grounded if the mother and older brother had taken the kid to a concert by someone like Bruce Springsteen or a party in downtown San Francisco, for instance.

When you watch a movie, you expect it to be good—to have decent pacing, to keep you hooked, to feature great acting, unique characters, and to leave you feeling like you actually got something out of it. Some movies pull it off, others don't. Let's not overmystify the situation.

BTW, I found myself counting up to 20 just to stay engaged—which, by my standards, is painfully slow. A dog ran into the frame right at 20. If I’d kept counting, the protagonist probably wouldn't have appeared until 33. My internal metronome clearly isn't synced with the director's.😁

Alex Thomas10 said:Does anyone know where I can stream this movie?

There will be another screening at the Sundance Film Festival—plus it's hitting theaters soon, maybe even next week.

ruggedjackal46 said:I generally agree that the whole "but this actually happened to me" argument shouldn't be the ultimate litmus test for whether a movie works. On the flip side, Lerotic explicitly leans into that in the film—it’s pretty clear we aren't just watching a scripted story, but rather the director's attempt to process his own personal trauma through the lens of those events. The line between fiction and documentary gets blurry here, and honestly, I think it would be a mistake to watch it strictly as a standard drama. That doesn't mean criticisms regarding the style, the acting, or the pacing aren't valid, though.

By the way, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Diary is a much worse film.

I've got a bit of a personal issue here—maybe even a trauma. 😁I think an author needs to offer more than just raw, personal trauma—that’s not enough on its own. Plus, blaming hospital negligence for the outcome while using "love" as an excuse for his actions suggests he isn't even honest with himself—so how can I expect him to be honest with me?

ruggedjackal46 said:I generally agree that the whole "but this actually happened to me" argument shouldn't be the ultimate litmus test for whether a movie works. On the flip side, Lerotic explicitly leans into that in the film—it’s pretty clear we aren't just watching a scripted story, but rather the director's attempt to process his own personal trauma through the lens of those events. The line between fiction and documentary gets blurry here, and honestly, I think it would be a mistake to watch it strictly as a standard drama. That doesn't mean criticisms regarding the style, the acting, or the pacing aren't valid, though.

By the way, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Diary is a much worse film.

I wouldn't go that far—this is strictly a scripted feature, nothing more. There isn't a single documentary element to be found in it.

ruggedjackal46 said:I generally agree that the whole "but this actually happened to me" argument shouldn't be the ultimate litmus test for whether a movie works. On the flip side, Lerotic explicitly leans into that in the film—it’s pretty clear we aren't just watching a scripted story, but rather the director's attempt to process his own personal trauma through the lens of those events. The line between fiction and documentary gets blurry here, and honestly, I think it would be a mistake to watch it strictly as a standard drama. That doesn't mean criticisms regarding the style, the acting, or the pacing aren't valid, though.

By the way, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Diary is a much worse film.

If I were to say.

amberfox7 said:Unfortunately, having a solid concept and nailing down every tiny detail from those two days doesn't guarantee anything will actually work on screen. Personally, I'd take better direction and acting over an author's meta-cinematic commentary or dense script breakdowns any day. There’s a massive difference between preparation—just blindly following a template—and what actually happens when you start assembling scenes in the editing room.

Even in the synopsis, the filmmakers are basically asking for a free pass on potential directorial flaws just because it's based on a true story. What is that supposed to mean? How many films are "based on personal experience" that don't lead with that disclaimer? When I sit down to watch something, I want a cinematic experience first—I can always go research the author's life and intentions afterward if I actually enjoy the movie.

Pros: courage, attention to detail, emotional impact, Markovic's acting

Cons: lackluster dialogue, mediocre acting overall, subpar direction, misguided filming style

Exactly—this kind of emotional blackmail and "director's safety net" really rubs me the wrong way. It implies the audience isn't allowed to have an opinion since "it actually happened." We saw the exact same thing with that recent American film, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Diary"—you aren't supposed to point out the obvious shortcomings because those children really did die.

A safe place.

I found the way they used those dark frames to compress the image quite interesting—honestly, I wouldn't have minded if they went even more radical, making the frame progressively tighter as the film unfolds. Then again, maybe I’m overthinking it; perhaps the director and cinematographer just liked shooting from another room because they saw someone else doing it. 🤷

As for the rest of the film, it fails to hold my interest entirely. The director's decision to constantly film himself is bizarre—since he's pulling the material from his own life, it would have felt much more "auteur" if he didn't insist on being the center of the story. It gets even stranger as he subtly shifts the responsibility for the events onto "institutions." What we end up with is a film lacking any perceptive depth—just a mere statement on a nothing special case of paranoid schizophrenia. That moment where the fourth wall breaks in the first third is a cute gimmick, but unfortunately, it doesn't work well beyond a superficial level. Plus, the info about the lawsuit against the hospital just makes the author/protagonist even less likable, which I assume wasn't the intention.

Steven Spielberg gave a striking performance; Timothée Chalamet and Anne Hathaway were decent enough.