14 posts shown.
northerncrane4 said:The placement of the scene doesn't bother me—it’s fine—but what I can't get past is how they tell us (and we assume it's true, since why else mention it?) that the family sued the hospital for malpractice, yet the director keeps the doctors' actual names in the script. Without that detail, I could let it slide to avoid dragging institutions through the mud, but with it? Not happening. 🤷
If nothing could be done about it long-term, then that's indisputable.
I don't actually recall them filing a lawsuit; I just remember him using the real names.
On some level, I wouldn't even argue that the intention was there, because Lerotić himself said: My mother views this film as a form of civic engagement, a way to channel several important issues that usually go unaddressed. I didn't make this film solely out of that impulse, and I tried to avoid the pitfalls of that kind of approach. However, I didn't want to remain completely apolitical either. The film, among other things, reflects the flaws in the system.
But look, there is a massive gap between what an author claims they are doing and whether the film actually achieves it, or if it even articulates a real problem in any meaningful way. This supposed "reflection" of institutional failures is so narrow-minded and obvious that it’s easy to see why some people would want to skip over the whole topic entirely; they just don't see any substance in looking at a film through that lens.
Look, I don't want to feel like I paid for a ticket and spent ninety minutes watching someone vent their grievances just because some hospital failed to do its job properly.
So, I managed to catch one of those last screenings down in Washington, D.C., and honestly, I’ve been sitting here just letting my thoughts drift around the implications of it all...
Breaking the fourth wall is such a fascinating, albeit dangerous, gamble, especially when you're dealing with a film that’s this brutally realistic. Honestly, after that hospital sequence, I found myself struggling to trust the movie for a while. Specifically, when the brother showed up at the apartment, I spent the next five minutes sitting there thinking, "Wait, is this just another fabricated moment?" I couldn't shake the feeling that the writer was just pulling a fast one on us—trying to manufacture some sort of redemption arc for the brother within the script just to smooth things over. I don't know if I'm the only one who felt that skepticism creeping in. Look, if you break the fourth wall at the very end of a movie, sure, maybe it works. But doing it early on, while the audience is still trying to wrap their heads around the established rules of the world, feels suspicious to me—even if the scene itself ended up being one of the best moments in the entire film.
I stumbled upon this review that flat-out denies the movie is actually a critique of our institutions. It reminded me of something Jergović wrote once—something along those same lines: Look, calling "S. Place" some kind of critique of the healthcare system—or any other institutional structure for that matter—is just wrong. To suggest that would be an insult to what this movie actually is, or if you really think that, it’s a clear sign you completely missed the point. It’s like looking at "Anna Karenina" and claiming it was written as a scathing indictment of the safety protocols on the Russian imperial railway system. You're missing the forest for the trees. If you actually take a second to look at what’s happening on screen, who is even responsible for the mess? It feels like the movie spends an eternity dwelling on these snapshots of pure laziness, arrogance, and the sheer inhumanity of our institutions, yet it never really offers even a shred of a systemic critique. Instead, it just shows us individuals trying to navigate that broken machine while attempting to be decent human beings. It sounds trivial when you say it out loud, I know, but in a film this relentlessly bleak, that one small, warm gesture from the local cop in Split toward that family... man, it hits you differently. I honestly don't even know where to start with this one, but let's just dive straight into the mess that is Marendu. It’s funny how certain things just stick in your mind, isn't it? I was sitting there the other day, thinking about how much everything changes, yet some things stay stubbornly, frustratingly the same. It reminds me of those long, winding drives through the outskirts of Chicago where you feel like you're stuck in a loop, just circling the same old ideas without ever actually getting anywhere. Anyway, back to the point—Marendu. There's something about the way people talk about it, or rather, the way they *don't* talk about it, that feels off. It's like we're all collectively pretending that the nuances aren't there, which is just lazy, if you ask me. I remember telling an old friend of mine—actually, he's more of an acquaintance now, lives out in Seattle—that if you can't look at something directly, you aren't really seeing it. You're just looking at a shadow. And that's exactly what this feels like. We're squinting at a shadow and calling it reality. It's blunt, it's messy, and frankly, it's exhausting to keep up with the pretense. If we're going to have a conversation about this, let's at least be honest about how ridiculous the whole situation is. No sense in dancing around it. While they’re busy drowning in all that mindless paperwork.
Look, if we’re being honest about where everything fell apart, there are really only two massive, systemic failures that stand out to me. First, they completely botched my brother's diagnosis, and second, the hospital staff was so incredibly negligent that they actually let him wander right out the door. Everything else people want to nitpick—the slow, rude clerks at the front desk, some open window in his room—that's just noise. Those are trivialities, little coincidences that don't change the big picture. And honestly, regarding that misdiagnosis? We might not even be able to prove it was wrong yet. They were barely even halfway through the evaluation process; it was his literal first day on the ward, and he had hardly spoken a word to anyone.
By the way, I was just sitting there recently, catching up on some Nolin. Every single time we drift apart, I find myself spiraling back into these same old patterns, staring at the ceiling and wondering how we always end up right back here. It’s like this recurring loop that I can't seem to break, no matter how hard I try to convince myself that things have actually changed. You know, it reminds me of that one summer I spent stuck in Chicago, just waiting for something—anything—to shift, feeling that same heavy sense of inevitability hanging over my head. We go through these cycles where everything feels fine for a while, and then suddenly, the distance starts creeping in again, quiet and persistent, until we're basically strangers sharing the same space. It’s exhausting, honestly. I sit here thinking about all the arguments we've had and all the silences that followed, and it just feels like we're walking in circles, chasing a version of us that doesn't even exist anymore. Every time we part ways, there's this lingering question of whether we're actually moving forward or if we're just stalling for time before the next inevitable crash. Even back in 1994, we were already seeing this casual, almost incidental critique of how our institutions fail the people they’re supposed to protect. Here’s the gist of it: you have this single father who fought early on in the war, but because he wasn't properly logged in the official records, the system basically forgets his sacrifice. So, when he shows up in Washington, D.C., with his young daughter, the bureaucracy treats him like he’s still just a draft eligible recruit. They try to drag him back to the front lines while his little girl is left to fend for herself in the city. What's frustrating is that the movie doesn't even bother to address the fallout of that later on. I keep looking for these patterns because this theme—this systemic negligence—has been baked into the DNA of independent American cinema since the very beginning, yet the depth of the analysis hasn't actually moved an inch forward. It feels stuck. Unless, of course, I’ve somehow missed a film that actually manages to tackle the weight of this problem with any real substance.
It feels like the blame is shifting, isn't it? We used to point fingers at the institutions, but lately, it seems like the weight of responsibility is falling squarely on the family unit instead. It’s a heavy thing to wrap your head around. In this case, they knew exactly what they were dealing with—they knew his skepticism was completely irrational, bordering on the delusional—but instead of standing their ground, they just folded. They swallowed his paranoia about psychiatrists and medical diagnoses whole, letting his fears dictate their actions. And then, because they chose to believe him over the professionals, they deliberately bypassed legal protocols just to haul him off somewhere else. It was a conscious choice to break the law, and in doing so, they basically handed him back the opportunity to attempt suicide all over again. It’s a tragic cycle when the people who are supposed to protect you are the ones who enable the very thing that's destroying you.
You know, that specific brand of blatant indifference you see from the receptionists in these movies? It’s not just a cinematic trope; it actually bleeds into the way the author and his mother behave. I remember reading about them waiting for a psychiatrist out in Washington, D.C., sitting there chatting with this woman who had been waiting an entire week just to be seen. Then, when the doctor finally shows up, Lerotić and his mother just cut right to the front of the line, completely bypassing the woman who had been stuck in that waiting room for seven days straight. At first glance, you might find the audacity a little funny, but if you sit with it for a second... it gets a bit darker.
I can't say I'm actually blaming them, honestly. When you're suffocating under that kind of pure panic and desperation—and you haven't even had a second to catch your breath or step back to look at the big picture—it’s hard to wonder why people act the way they do. It doesn't surprise me one bit. At the end of the day, it’s just this intense, probably short-sighted, desperate need to protect a brother or a son. And if there's any silver lining to be found here, that's probably it: the core issue isn't some failure of our institutions, but rather just raw, unfiltered care and love. (Though, God help me, I might actually be agreeing with Jergović on that point.)
In the end, maybe there wasn't anything that could have been done at all. There’s this crushing sense of helplessness woven through the whole film. It feels like it was built around that old-school, ritualistic obsession with the number three—you know, the kind of stuff you see in everything from *The Three Little Pigs* to the structure of the *Divine Comedy*, or even that old saying about how God helps on the third attempt. The movie functions like this rigid, predetermined framework where we just watch the protagonist cycle through three suicide attempts until the third one finally sticks. It’s like fate has already made up its mind, and the characters are just helplessly running in circles until they hit that inevitable finish line.
I guess I’m kind of on the same page as Justin Richardson7. I totally get why the plot itself hit people so hard, but when you lean that heavily into the biographical stuff—that constant sense of emotional emptiness and feeling completely helpless at every single turn—S. Place just isn't enough of a movie for me to treat it like a standalone piece of cinema. If we actually sat down to pick it apart, looking at the technical execution, the emotional beats, or the core ideas minute by minute without constantly leaning on the real-life backstory, the whole thing would just collapse into this incredibly bloated mess of "misery porn." I respect the gesture behind making it, I really do, but beyond that... I don't know. To me, mental illness and suicide are just ugly, senseless, and exhausting things that don't offer much in the way of meaningful commentary. Maybe if the film reflects that exact hollowness, then it’s a success?
I honestly think if you look at it alongside something like a Lanthimos-esque film like "The Canine," you can see exactly why "Uncle" misses the mark. In "The Canine," the characters feel genuinely isolated; the world they inhabit feels detached from history or any external logic, which works. But "Uncle" keeps dragging us back to reality and historical context, and during those interludes, the characters talk just like actual, breathing people. It’s not working because the director fails to build that self-contained universe you see with a filmmaker like Lanthimos; he keeps "breaking character" with the setting, so it’s even harder for the audience to buy into this artificial world when it keeps leaking into the real one. I only went along with the "logic" of "Uncle" out of pure politeness rather than anything being actually convincing.
That said, even though I’m totally on board with most of the other complaints people are throwing at this movie in the thread, I still think "Uncle" is worth a watch.
***
I’d probably be wetting myself if I were sitting on Al Pacino's lap
https://letterboxd.com/grumpykong/film/the-uncle-2022/ 😁
A Jew can spread antisemitic ideas just as easily as anyone else. It’s a reality we have to face—there were even Jews serving in the SS, where some actually helped the Nazis, like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_MauriceAnd look, a woman can be a total chauvinist, believing women are inherently inferior to men and should just stick to the kitchen and raising kids. Or a gay man can be homophobic, looking down on others and thinking their "lifestyle" is something to be despised. You see both types of people all over the internet and in real life every single day (I mean, do we really think someone like Željko Markić is some kind of liberated feminist?
). The bottom line is this: just because someone belongs to a certain group doesn't tell you a damn thing about their actual values. Being part of a demographic doesn't grant them any special—especially not moral—legitimacy when they open their mouths to speak.
Thomas Stewart87 said:Dugina's daughter: Ukrainians aren't even human. They all deserve to die.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WarAgains...31023168987136
This Twitter user is pushing an incredibly dishonest translation here. If you actually watch the video instead of just reading the headline, she’s talking about taking a much harder line against specific Ukrainian war criminals, setting up local tribunals, and saying those particular criminals don't act like human beings. She isn't making some sweeping statement about all Ukrainians, nor is she calling for anyone's death or saying they deserve to die.
The woman was a diplomat, not some hysterical Vladimir Solovyov 2.0
hollowdriver13 said:Look, it wouldn't be the first time Putin bombs something and then points the finger at some "outside influence" to cover his tracks (kind of like how they handled the two Chechen wars). It’s entirely possible Dugin was just picked as an expendable pawn, along with his daughter, just to help drum up support for mobilization among the public.
I honestly don't see any logic in that theory whatsoever. Most people in Russia couldn't care less about Dugin; if anything, most of them probably haven't even heard his name. He’s way more famous out here in the West than he is back home in Russia. And besides, why would the government even need to mobilize the population right now?
Anyway, I've been doing a bit of digging, and his daughter has always been pretty active politically. She’s spent her time pushing Putin's vision of Russia and his policies onto the West, and from what I gather, she’s had some pretty solid connections with the right-wing circles over in France.
Yeah, that number looks pretty spot on to me.
Videos: and (not sure if you can even open those without having the Telegram app installed)
It feels like they were actually aiming for Dugin himself, though I have to say, that strikes me as a bit bizarre. Honestly, the guy is practically irrelevant these days; even if people want to believe he’s pulling Putin's strings, the war is happening right now, and no mystic philosopher is going to calm it down or ramp it up. Maybe this was just meant as a personal vendetta?
I've scrolled through Dugin's posts on his Telegram channel before, and frankly, I'd say there are plenty of people on this forum who are far more philosophically literate than he is.
Casey Bennett said:Look, I might be totally off base here, but honestly? I’d say they probably killed the whole thread just because that opening post was such a complete disaster.
When you look at how they actually go about notifying users whenever their posts get moderated, it all just feels like a massive assumption on their part, honestly.
Look, I’m not even going to argue that what you just said doesn't make sense. Honestly, even if that first thread was a bit of a mess, it’s still better than having nothing at all—which is basically what it felt like before, considering we're stuck using this ancient, prehistoric search engine on this forum. I originally started the thread because I wanted a space to talk about the show in general, though my opening post ended up being pretty specific to my own take on things. And yeah, fine, I'll give you that—the formatting was a total disaster, I won't even try to deny it.
Look, I’m telling you, that really doesn't belong in the TV section; it belongs over on OFF, where people go to hunt for random stuff and talk about whatever nonsense they want without cluttering up the rest of the forum.
If I tried asking this on OFF, it would be completely counterproductive because the odds of finding anyone there who actually knows what they're talking about are even lower than the chances of finding an answer on local news. I think I’ll just stick to the thread that Jessica Morris6 linked...
Mark Cruz15 said:The advanced search tool on here is pretty useless; you can really only dig through thread titles if you want to find anything specific.
Your best bet is just to plug this into Google: Howard Stern's Nightmare site:forum.hr
I actually tried using the advanced search already, but it turned up absolutely nothing. Still, thanks for the tip!
What I don't get, though—and this is what's really eating at me—is why the moderator, after wiping out the whole thread, couldn't be bothered to just send a quick message with a link to the original topic, especially since I explicitly told them I couldn't find it. They just delete everything and leave me hanging, left to wonder what the hell is actually going on. 😕
Hey there
So, either late last night or sometime early this morning, I started a new thread over on the TV forum. I was diving into the whole Nightmare with Howard Stern phenomenon. But now I look up, and wouldn't you know it, the entire thread has been nuked.
My biggest gripe here is that I wasn't given any heads-up whatsoever, and honestly, I have zero clue why it was pulled in the first place. I mean, can we get a little transparency around here? It would be incredibly helpful if someone could at least point out what specifically made the content unacceptable, just so I don't make the same mistake down the road.
Now, if the reason was that it was a duplicate—which, let's be real, wouldn't even surprise me—I had no way of knowing. The search function on this forum is pretty useless; it capped me out at 50 results, and I scrolled through all of them without finding any older discussion on the topic.
Anyway, I’m just looking for some clarity. Can someone tell me why my thread was deleted, and what exactly should I do differently next time so I don't end up right back here?
Lawrence Booth2 said:I’ve made it through about 200 pages of this book and I’m honestly scratching my head wondering how they plan to adapt this thing, especially since half the plot feels totally redundant and dull 😁
they should just pick two or three decent chapters and build the whole movie around that
Based on the synopsis, the film seems worlds apart from the novel. Even the title itself gives it away—in the actual book, nobody actually kills the man Who Killed Don Quixote.
Lawrence Booth2 said:my take on the book
it’s really only worth the two or three chapters we had to slog through back in school
the rest of it is basically just for people who have an obsession with Spanish history and linguistics
and want to read it in the original language
Look, I don't particularly care for deep dives into historical trivia or foreign languages, but even so, this novel remains one of my absolute favorites.
dustycanyon5 said:Look, I never said Hitchcock was a bad director, it’s just that there isn't really any "art" in his stuff. He mostly stuck to those psychological thrillers... they're gripping and intense, sure, but they lack that artistic soul. I know dustycanyon5 looks up to him as a mentor, but just because he feels that way doesn't mean I have to agree. And honestly, even with Lynch, I wouldn't call him the greatest director ever, even if he is my absolute favorite...
So, what, art can only exist if you’re tackling deep philosophical themes? That’s a pretty narrow view if you ask me. What about, you know, actual craft—the skill, the technique, the way things are built? Is character development not an art form? What about editing? By that logic, some dense existentialist manifesto would be considered "more artistic" than a beautifully composed song, which just sounds ridiculous to me.
I mean, what we call an "art film" nowadays is such a fuzzy, ill-defined term, and honestly, calling something that doesn't actually say anything about how good the movie is. You look at guys like Hitchcock, Leone, John Ford, De Palma, Fritz Lang, or even Coppola—they were making massive commercial hits, big-budget blockbusters, but those are still absolute masterpieces of cinema. On the flip side, if you actually direct the average audience toward the "art house" scene, you’ll quickly realize there’s just as much garbage there as there is in the mainstream stuff. If you head out to a serious film festival—I'm talking Sundance or SXSW, and I don't mean showing up on the final day when they're handing out awards or screening some untouchable classic, but actually sitting through the competitive selection—you'll find that maybe only one in three films is actually worth your time. But those mediocre ones get filtered out, leaving only the gems behind. That's why people fall into this trap of thinking art films are inherently superior to commercial movies (where, let's be real, they have to advertise the absolute trash just to get people in seats and turn a profit).
As for the hyped-up directors everyone won't shut up about, I was genuinely disappointed by this latest Lanthimos flick, and don't even get me started on Villeneuve; he’s got that whole pseudo-art aesthetic that everyone seems to be obsessed with lately, but frankly, it just makes me roll my eyes. At the end of the day, quality is about the film itself, not whatever pretentious little circle it crawled out of.