Jonathan Barnes5 said:But honestly, that response from Nice felt so cringey and patronizing; it wasn't even a direct answer, just a collection of empty platitudes that seemed like they were reading straight from a corporate script.
It reminded me of dealing with a clerk at a local DMV office when you're just trying to get some basic paperwork sorted out.
Look, she doesn't moderate the Sports section, but she stepped in, saw what was happening, took responsibility, and made a fair call. On the flip side, you have six moderators for Sports, and what do we get? Two show up just to say they have no idea what's going on, and one tells us the complaint should have been filed through the official grievance channel instead of here. Honestly, Nice did a fine job.
Bryan Adams6 said:So why are you making such a huge deal out of this on the PDF thread and here? Was it really that hard to just wait for TJ to show up and satisfy your curiosity?
Why are you getting all worked up all of a sudden? I already told you I wasn't the one who banned him, so if that's what you're hinting at, I can't give you a straight answer. What "lessons" am I sharing? That I pointed out this is the actual place to discuss these things, rather than over on the Soccer board?
We asked about the fate of a fellow member in the thread titled "Agreements, Proposals, and PDF Functioning - Soccer," and for ten days, not one of you said a word—except for the new Kal-El, who apparently has to clean up everyone else's mess. And now you, who were silent as a grave over there, swoop in here to lecture us on "where these discussions should take place"? You’re acting surprised that it’s "hard to wait to satisfy our curiosity," all while having absolutely no clue what’s actually going on. Honestly, you probably would have been better off staying quiet.
rustydrifter10 said:Cinque didn't even complain about the ban. Honestly, playing lawyer doesn't mean much if you aren't actually talking to the person involved. When we're deciding whether to lift or shorten a penalty, the most important thing is hearing the user's side of the story and their reasoning.
First off, thanks for a sensible response. The logic here only holds water if this user is a habitual troublemaker. But this was his very first time slipping into an ad hominem argument, and he was hit with the maximum penalty immediately. There’s zero evidence to suggest he’d keep acting like this.
By the way, thanks for the links, but in the future, it would be helpful to include at least one direct link to the subject of the appeal—like a profile or the specific post in question. You spelled his handle three different ways, so I had to play detective just to figure out who we were even talking about. 🙂
His outburst isn't what's being appealed; he earned the punishment and he's serving it. The only issue here is whether the severity of the sentence is justified, given his clean track record until now.
I honestly feel for the moderators. I know you’re stuck dealing with a massive crowd of idiots, all for the sake of some lousy voucher for a drink at an unfinished office tower downtown. But seriously, what is the deal? "Please post your question in the designated area." 🤦
Just ban Cinquea already so we can finally end this charade. ☕
Bryan Adams6 said:It was clearly stated in the very first post of this thread that this topic isn'tmeant for stuff like this, but apparently, some people couldn't care less about the rules in the site guidelines.
🤣 You're a real saint, aren't you? It's touching how much you all care about your colleague—it only took forty-five days for anyone to realize he was gone. Truly, who can say?...
If you're unhappy with how things are run, take it up with the admins. We'll leave the floor to those who actually matter. 🙂
Honestly, give me a break. We asked a straightforward question politely enough, then we asked it a little less politely when nobody bothered to respond, and now, after being ignored for ten days, you show up acting like some kind of hall monitor handing out lectures that you don't even follow yourself. What's your deal? You're just another guy on this forum; having a black username doesn't suddenly make you an outsider or someone superior to the rest of us. Get a grip.
We’re still waiting for a straight answer to a simple question. If this is your version of an "answer," then go ahead and report yourself to the mods.
brightpilot6 said:You guys technically followed the rules for posting in this thread, which is exactly what this specific PDF section is designed for. But clearly, you all couldn't care less about "that location," considering nobody has even bothered to glance at the new registrations for ten whole days. 🙏🙏
He suggested that someone might actually respond, but let's be honest—that usually means they won't. 🙏
hiddenseal4 said:I’m definitely jumping on the bandwagon here—count me in for getting Cinque banned. Honestly, he’s one of those guys you actually look forward to seeing around the forums; his posts are always such a great read. Christmas is all about forgiveness and giving, isn't it? So, honestly, it would be a pretty nice gesture if the mods could take that red card they handed out and just downgrade it to a yellow one for the holidays.
Christmas is also a time for slacking off, apparently, since none of the senior moderators could be bothered to show their faces.
Those of us who have been around the block here at "Primer" have noticed that user Cinque has been handed a permanent ban, likely due to some friction with our friend Patrick Martin. Now, look, being rude definitely warrants a penalty, but given his track record, a lifetime ban seems a bit heavy-handed for Cinque, don't you think? He’s actually one of the few consistent, engaging voices left on this board. And honestly, we should probably take that into account, especially since despite all of Anderlon's hard work trying to get the word out about the forum, we aren't exactly seeing a massive influx of new faces every day. Could you please reconsider the sentence and let Cinque back in?
The topic is actually pretty straightforward—designed specifically for the simpletons on this forum who can only process an "A or B" choice before retreating into their usual repetitive, mindless banter. Still, there's theoretically some room here for actual discussion and gaining real insight if anyone is capable of it.
But fine. Thanks for the feedback letting me know my effort was wasted. I won't bother again. 😍
Feel free to lock this thread as far as I'm concerned, unless these clowns still want to hang around and smirk at themselves.
Don't get mad at me, but honestly, who would rather deal with that when they could be watching classy Spanish football? ☕ Those Premier League types are just looking for some unlucky girl to talk her into stripping so they can finish three times before the ball even hits the grass.
Here it is:
1990 vs 1999 2 1991 vs 1998 1 1992 vs 1997 1 1993 vs 1994 2 1995 vs 1996 1
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. 😵
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.
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. 😁
I honestly don't get the argument that scenes involving the supporting characters slow the movie down. To me, those are actually the only moments where anything feels like it's actually happening. When you strip them away and just focus on the core trio, there’s zero momentum. You’ve got the brother looking lost, the others are equally clueless, and they just end up circling the drain with the same repetitive conversations and frantic panic. Let's be real here: this isn't exactly a high-octane thriller where plot points are flying left and right. There isn't even much internal development happening within the characters themselves; everyone is just slowly, but very obviously, sliding toward a total downward spiral from the opening frame.
amberfox7 said:Aren't you embarrassed to be saying something so blatantly false? You should be.
Sure, it’s a "brilliant" directorial choice—if you don't understand actual art. It's like driving a beat-up old Ford through Miami and just dropping a thousand speed bumps along the way; that's the rhythm of this movie in a nutshell.
But let's be honest—it makes life easier for everyone involved: the actor-director, the production designer, the lighting crew, the colorists. If he had actually framed and shot this film properly, he probably would have needed three months of shooting—which nobody has the budget for—or he'd be buying shots twice as fast. He wouldn't have total control over the footage either, or at least he'd have half as much as he does now, because even here, you can see how they lose track of the mother's character, and occasionally the brother.
It’s exhausting to act, direct others, manage visuals, and review footage all at once. Other people just sit around cooling off while you decide what to buy next. So, I'm certain Brdar and the assistant director had plenty of influence on this film. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. In my opinion, it didn't quite work here.
The film is essentially a pedantic art house piece, leaning heavily on that academic style of American filmmaking where the director obsesses over every tiny detail—because that's what "real" directors do. They spend five years writing the script, six months on rehearsals, and so on.
It's that whole myth regarding the "serious" creative process, you know.
What exactly do you mean when you say he should have "filmed this movie properly"? If we're talking about how this could have actually looked if it were done right, what’s your vision? Are we talking about tighter editing, maybe some more rapid-fire cutting? Or would you lean more into having more shot-reverse-shot sequences to keep the pacing from dragging?
Ashley Grant66 said:Man, what a total depressant of a movie. It wasn't just the subject matter—that dreary, grayish-green vibe of American hospitals was honestly killing me, not to mention how the camera just sits there so anxiously in certain scenes. The first thirty minutes or so were a real struggle to get through, but the film finally starts to breathe once my brother joins me at home, and then we head to Miami... I actually liked the second half much better when the trio is together—it felt more like a tense thriller. Steven Spielberg—well, you know what I mean—his eyes carry such deep pain and weight throughout the entire thing. 😢 It didn't bother me at all that the author plays himself; if anything, I think it added a layer of authenticity—nothing felt forced or fake to me.
Honestly, for a moment, I wondered if it would’ve worked better with a more dynamic, frantic tone—maybe having the camera constantly shifting to mimic how the main character feels like the ground is slipping out from under him. You'd get that sense of constant movement while they search for a safe haven, even though they know deep down it doesn't exist. I had a hard time with the stillness at first—it felt more suited to his brother, who is basically a shell of a person, rather than the protagonist, who is constantly on the move, frantically running from place to place. I get that they needed to portray the rigidity of the whole system—the endless waiting and the sluggishness when things are urgent—but this felt a bit too much like a typical, gloomy American social drama. I think the point was to make us feel his internal scream, that chaos in his heart and head, even while he tries to stay composed.
It touched me, and fundamentally I think it's good, but I honestly have no clue who I’d recommend it to. I find myself wanting to warn people *not* to watch it because I worry it might just crush them—I'm not sure if anyone would actually find it "therapeutic." It broke my heart to see people crying after the credits rolled; they looked genuinely shaken.
But then, what about that scene with the doctor from Austria? Okay, I get it, the guy is a weirdo and the actor did a great job portraying that type of physician, but that scene—and the one where the Lawrences are standing at the door being told he's been waiting for a week—seem purely intended to show how insensitive those doctors can be. In moments like that, the film loses its intimacy—that focus on raw emotion—and turns into a sort of indictment of the system, especially alongside that almost darkly comedic scene with the cop in Miami...
Yeah. Sometimes it’s tough to tell if you actually ~love~ a piece of work—like, if it hits you right in the gut emotionally—or if you just respect the hustle it took to live through it all and put it on paper.
But that isn't really my main point; it's just a piece of the larger puzzle. The characters are terrified and lost, and that feeling is amplified by negligent doctors and a healthcare system that's basically falling apart at the seams. We could certainly have a long debate about how much weight that carries or what the underlying causes are, but honestly, it doesn't interest me all that much within the context of the film. Maybe it's just me, but I find the interpersonal relationships between the characters far more compelling than any potential critique of the American medical system.
amberfox7 said:That’s precisely where the issue lies—the reason the film fails to truly land is that it functions more like a stylized essay manifesto about brotherly love rather than a narrative wrapped in docufiction. It stems from this semi-artificial affectation in Lerotic's acting and dialogue; it isn't natural enough, constantly striving for deep emotional impact and tragedy. There's also this persistent directorial urge to dampen everything down—as if there's some belief that you can make a film without the drama, the crowds, the heightened emotions, or the spontaneity... Why is there this perpetual American fear that the screen can't handle anything raw or wild, so everything must be muted and understated?
It would have been far better if the director had used a voiceover, similar to his short film, or simply shot a documentary and recreated a few scripted scenes. In my view, the fundamental mistake was casting himself.
What I'm getting at is that the film gets stuck in this limbo—it doesn't quite work as a "pure" feature nor as effective docufiction because the formula is flawed. You can't achieve genuine rawness through stylized direction and acting, and putting himself in the lead feels like nothing more than an alibi for the parts that didn't quite click.
He aimed for a minimalist, poetic art film that felt larger than life, which is fine—but even the great masters struggle with that. Here in the States, people tend to value a "brave attempt" or a novelty over the actual substance or quality of the film. We love it when someone tries something different or production-heavy; nobody here has ever attempted to pour a day and a half of their private life into a feature film, so it's an instant win for the average moviegoer.
Then there's the matter of suicide—a universal theme that almost everyone has some connection to. Because of that, the refusal to acknowledge the film's glaring flaws is even more pronounced. It’s difficult, on a purely human level, to go against this film or criticize it when you know the man is still living through that trauma. But look, he put himself up for judgment, so it's a bit petty to stay silent about the obvious shortcomings.
To use a basketball analogy: he had three free throws and a sideline shot, but only managed to sink one: he proved he truly loved his brother. The rest wasn't exactly a slam dunk.
Let's be honest: a lot of things contribute to a movie being well-received, and none of them necessarily have anything to do with whether the film is actually any good. On the flip side, I can't help but feel that those same factors cause people to walk into a theater with these rigid expectations of what a movie *should* be, rather than just seeing it for what it truly is. People start nitpicking—saying the acting doesn't feel "natural," or complaining that the emotions aren't intense enough, or arguing that we didn't get enough backstory. It’s almost like there's this unspoken rulebook in everyone's head about how people are supposed to react to certain events, or how movies about specific themes ought to be filmed. Since when did we decide there's only one "correct" way to experience a story?
northerncrane4 said: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?
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.
If I were to say.
Maybe I’m just reading too much into it, but all that chaos with the hospitals and the police felt more like an extension of that loss of control—like a series of panic attacks. It’s as if the characters have accepted from the very start that they're completely on their own. They aren't exactly acting with clarity or reason, either; they practically hijacked their brother themselves, whisked him away to San Francisco, and kept stalling on getting him medical help. Because of that, I didn't really see it as a critique of the system, nor would that even be a topic I'd find particularly interesting in a film.
I wouldn't say that's quite right. It’s just a standard feature film; there isn't really anything documentary about it at all.
Maybe "documentary" isn't exactly the right label here, but the whole thing feels like it’s riding that massive wave of autofiction we see in literature lately. I have the same issue there—that constant emotional blackmail and those narrative hiccups that just get brushed under the rug because "well, that's just how it happened." But look, you can't just ignore it; the film is clearly drawing from real-world events outside the frame, and that's something you simply can't overlook.
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.
The movie is really about that total loss of control—that gut-wrenching moment when you lose someone close to you and realize you’re completely powerless to stop it. If the film had leaned harder into deep character studies, we might have ended up with a different, perhaps more narratively dense experience, but then it would have lost its core theme. We would have been handed some logical, rational explanation for why a character wants to end it all, and that would have missed the point. The whole idea is that sense of absolute disorientation, where the characters don't actually understand what's happening or how to process it; they can only watch helplessly as everything slips through their fingers. For me, the film captured that sensation perfectly.
There’s an extra layer here, too: the fact that the filmmaker is openly attempting to reconstruct those specific days. It acts as this meta-cinematic reminder that we aren't watching a story unfolding in real-time, but rather the director's—or the protagonist's, or even the actor's—attempt to regain some semblance of control over the past. It's an effort to turn a chaotic reality into a stylized narrative, using filmic reconstruction as a way to finally make sense of his brother, his mother, and himself. By the end, I felt more of a strained struggle than a successful breakthrough, but honestly, I don't think that's a flaw in the film.
Stylistically, I'm a fan. I think the editing is handled beautifully and feels intentional most of the time, mostly serving to prevent the situation from veering into pure melodrama. It would have felt far too "in your face" if they had pushed that style any harder.
Does the subject matter justify a full-length feature? Maybe not. There isn't much character growth or evolving ideas; instead, it's just a depiction of one chaotic state of being that steadily spirals downward. In that sense, the film is incredibly simple. But since I found it genuinely engaging and it actually moved me, I didn't mind the simplicity one bit.
I went into this one totally blind. At first, I was genuinely worried I was in for some grueling 2.5-hour family drama about Chinese immigrants, so I was actually pretty stoked when the movie suddenly veered off into a parody of Christopher Nolan's usual nonsense. But then it hit me: it’s going to be a 2.5-hour parody of Christopher Nolan 🤦
Honestly, playing around with the whole parallel universe concept for that long and that intensely would be exhausting even if the writers were the funniest people on the planet—and they definitely aren't. I might have been able to stomach the silliness if it wasn't all wrapped up in the most saccharine family lemonade at the end; we're talking "Full House" levels of cheesiness with Bob Saget, just with minority characters instead 🤦
It isn't a total disaster—there are a few decent jokes in there—but really, this whole thing feels like material for a five-minute sketch. Oh well.