Posts by amberfox7

ruggedjackal46 said: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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

ruggedjackal46 said: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.

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

While there are a few powerful, emotional beats, the movie is plagued by issues—ranging from dialogue that feels mostly dry and uninspired (save for a couple of lucid moments) to lackluster supporting performances. Then there’s Lerotic's "acting"—it teeters between genuine emotion and just reciting lines; unfortunately, his facial expressions don't quite sell the conviction needed. You end up rooting for him throughout, but there's this nagging sense of discomfort because it just doesn't feel entirely authentic.

Secondly, why take a minimalist film that's already somewhat stagnant and shoot it so statically? It lacks soul in the close-ups, feeling more like a pre-determined mathematical formula than art. The camera work actually weighs the film down rather than elevating it; it’s overly "textbook neutral" and occasionally reaches for stylizations that feel completely out of place given the script and the overall narrative.

The central characters—the brother and the mother—are left hanging. They aren't fleshed out with anything particularly compelling, making it hard to actually connect with them. I get the intention behind the minimalism—the idea of capturing the dullness of everyday life and the struggles of ordinary people—but "ordinary people" can be far more fascinating than what we have here.

Markovic proved he's a solid actor (with plenty of credit going to the director there), whereas Shishkov comes across as an underdeveloped character; her performance is mediocre at best, which I suspect is more a result of the director's character construction than her own fault.

On top of all that, the meta-filmic attempts are far from spectacular—they're just irritating—especially since the structural foundation and direction aren't even cohesive to begin with. This feels like one of the most pretentious directorial attempts in recent years, masquerading as a "small indie film about a simple story." As a viewer, it feels condescending and frankly, annoying.

The film reminds me a bit of *No Country for Old Men*—and that’s not a compliment—in its attempt at dedramatization and how characters react to shocking events. It all feels a bit unnatural. Even if Lerotic and the mother behaved that way in real life, on screen it feels awkward, breaking the immersion and failing to create the emotional intensity a viewer is supposed to feel. Not to mention, *No Country for Old Men* has a much better ending.

To be fair, you can feel the pure love between the brothers; there's a warmth there that's genuinely great. But as a piece of cinema? It failed to land for me.

northerncrane4 said:Is it just me, or is the author the one actually reducing them to those mere attributes?

If a man had framed a young actress like that, he’d be behind bars by now. There isn't a shred of finesse or subtlety here—it feels less like cinema and more like some low-budget softcore flick. The director keeps forcing her physique into the shot for most of the film without any sense of style or artistic intuition... Creepy.

Marilyn has all the artistic merit of a bar of soap—and the director is an endless void of talent who clawed her way to the top through sheer megalomania and stepping on everyone in her path. Honestly, I think she understands and loves cinema about as much as I love the smell of vinegar at ten in the morning.

Now she’s out there giving these wounded interviews, claiming Americans are bullying her and refusing to recognize her greatness, when deep down she knows her movie is just half-baked trash. Anyone with even a shred of common sense or basic film knowledge who watched it reached the exact same conclusion.

The directing and acting in this thing are basically sophomore level at the Academy—it's obvious Brdar probably helped her direct a short film that actually worked once, but here? Nothing functions. The only redeeming qualities are a few pretty shots that any grandpa taking a photography class for seniors could have captured at those locations. It’s honestly hard to mess up a shot when the scenery does all the heavy lifting.

Charles Carter4 said:Exactly. Joe Biden is basically out there playing bodyguard for the Republican Party.🤣
If you just take a quick second to Google some stuff, you’ll find a whole trail of links where he’s calling out Barack Obama and his entire crew for their corruption scandals. For instance, check this out:

Joe Biden: I called the Republican Party a gang because, honestly, they are one. I actually take it as a compliment that they're boycotting me.

Joe Biden didn't hold back against the administration today: Taking aim at the ministers and the Republican Party.

https://hr.n1info.com/vijesti/uzivo-...na-milanovica/

Look, Biden isn't some guardian for the Republicans—not really—but he is the caretaker of the very system that benefits them most. By being selective about who he attacks, he unifies their voter base while simultaneously profiting from the friction. It effectively dismantles any opposition's image. He is essentially the best President Donald Trump could ever hope for, and vice versa.

All you have to do is recall his comments regarding the FBI and the judiciary—suggesting they shouldn't be making arrests over the weekend or that nobody should be standing up to the Administration. Biden is the ultimate Republican, even while he's busy trampling them.

It’s complicated, sure. But it's classic behavior for a man with his particular neuroses. He never actually intended to uproot the Republican Party from the country or purge Republicanism from every level of our institutions; he just wanted to become a more sophisticated version of them. And he succeeded. That’s why he remains such a disgraceful figure in the modern history of our little nation.

I’m calling him out because he shows way more passion when he's ranting about the Russians—acting like nobody could ever get one over on him regarding that unnamed US official—than he does when it comes to pointing out the massive fraud and systemic corruption being fueled by his dear frenemy, that unnamed US person.

And don't even get me started on his total lack of empathy—a void that the entire right wing seems to find incredibly attractive, since they view coldness as the ultimate mark of a leader and a patriot.

The fact that he talks absolute nonsense is actually the least of his problems.

Dennis Hall41 said:I’ve got this one simple rule of thumb I live by—basically, whenever I’m dealing with something or someone that everyone seems to adore, it’s almost a guaranteed sign that the whole thing is just mediocre or totally worthless.

It’s even more obvious when people start pushing those high-and-mighty arguments about why you "shouldn't" have a different opinion. To me, that kind of rhetoric is usually nothing more than a stinking, desperate fear of authority and social trends.

You’re just not ready for this film yet. Maybe you will be by the time you're 70—just take your time driving your car. This is the work of a man whom even the harshest critics claimed created the only modern masterpiece (the Decalogue).

Blue is the kind of film every pretentious European arthouse director tries—and fails—to replicate as the pinnacle of their career. It has nothing to do with whether anyone "likes" him, or your claim that "everyone" does; it’s about admiring the sheer craft. By your logic, Lennon and Mozart would be considered mediocre too.

Dennis Hall41 said:I'm here. Haven't watched it yet—but I will when the mood strikes. Sounds a bit less mindless than those Midwest types who think they're high-class just because they discovered expensive wine and "prestige" cinema.

"That thing he said..."? Cccc, kid, using pronouns to refer to someone else like that is just tacky; you should be thanking me for even talking to you. Unless, of course, you were making some subtle nod to Dennis Martin6's lecture on honorary suffixes.

That’s a bold thing to say—calling what might be the best piece of European arthouse cinema from the last thirty years just "average." It’s a heavy statement to make; you really have to watch your step with claims like that.

We're just waiting on his critique regarding that comment about how Kieslowski's Blue is an overrated festival piece. I’m dying to see what he has to say about this one.

Dennis Martin6 said:you're such a Zrinka Pavlić.

Hah.

If only I could stab someone in the eye with a fountain pen and recite some šišak Menčetić line at the moment of climax.

electriccanyon26 said:What are you even complaining about? This is still your own doing. If someone is being accused of chauvinism, that’s the whole point.

Look, I’m just as fed up with these Murakami-esque male leads—the ones who are handsome, kind, endlessly patient, and ready to forgive everyone, yet somehow "tough" at work. They have sex without ever breaking a sweat or smelling bad; they just look even more beautiful afterward, because apparently, sex is the only thing that matters in the universe.

But this particular critic—one of the last ten I've seen—is absolutely embarrassing herself while remaining utterly convinced she actually understands something about films or series.

The core "philosophy" of the film: no matter how you treat a woman, she’ll eventually betray you, but that's when she loves you most—because that’s what a woman *is*. How deep. How mystical. How gorgeous. It's all about love. You had to tap into your deepest emotions just to understand her, but you never will, because you simply lack the depth required to grasp something as complex and mysterious as a woman. Whose fault is it that you foolishly believed she was noble and good?

It's just these stunted, male visions of the "femme fatale"—pure, unadulterated misogyny.

And that's why it gets four Oscar nominations.

We might as well shut this thread down now—someone went and quoted the female version of Miljenko Jergović, Zrinka Pavlić. Just when the debate was finally getting interesting, too. There’s always some party pooper, isn't there?

Sure, she wants him to be someone he’s just not—she refuses to accept him for who he is, which gives her all the excuses she needs to cheat. That’s why she stays. It’s comfortable to live with a loyal, steady man who actually has his act together and won't hurt you. She’s the one who’s a coward and a conformist, not him. He’s just the idiot who didn't hold out for a better woman.

electriccanyon26 said:It’s only because you’re feeding into it.

Exactly—he's the one at fault. He's too rigid, shackled by these endless routines and rules in both his life and his directing style. Honestly, he practically deserves to be cheated on. If he wasn't constantly droning on about "their" emotions—what a piece of work—maybe she wouldn't have felt the need to stray.

I don't have an issue with her infidelity, but I do have an issue with how the whole thing is being mystified and romanticized—much like his approach to working with actors. At its core, the film is just pretentiously boring.

The chauvinist in me caught onto the underlying theme here: this movie basically argues that women can be whatever they want, and men just have to stoically endure it if they want to be loved or enjoy their lives.

By the end, he’s even blaming himself—yeah, it’s your fault because she enjoyed using young actors as warm bodies on your couch, and you're the bad guy because you didn't explicitly tell her it bothered you. I guess we live in an era where we just glorify being unfaithful.

Jokes aside.

That whole subplot about the young actor hitting photographers is just cringe—a cheap, lazy writing shortcut. I honestly expected something more Hitchcockian, maybe the protagonist snapping and murdering the kid in a fit of madness; that would've been something. The initial outburst at the photographer worked okay as a character beat, but turning it into this repetitive cycle? Without spoiling too much, it was a massive missed opportunity. It should have gone in a completely different direction.

The car scene where the young actor wraps up her narrative is hands-down the worst acting in the film; you can literally see the kid struggling, just staring blankly into space.

The last thirty minutes are a slog—emotionally hollow and frankly pathetic. And that moment where the driver explains how she, spoiler, killed her mother? Just lame.

It’s like Batman—ninety minutes too long.

That said, there is merit here. The husband's performance, playing the silent actor, is Oscar-worthy; top-tier talent right there. The lead actor is also flawless throughout—he absolutely crushed it. The direction and framing are very polished and soothing; I genuinely enjoyed the shots of the city, the roads, and the landscape. That bit with the tunnels felt like a lovely nod to Tarkovsky.

I have to admit, I'm getting tired of these films that feel like filmed stage plays, but it's alright.

Anyway, it’s a forced experience. Realistically, it’s a 6/10. It falls apart way too much.

p.s. I won't even touch that nonsense about her "pre-orgasmic" ideas for drama; it feels like a solution cooked up by some adolescent playwright obsessed with erotic thrillers. However, the sex scenes with the husband were beautifully directed, so I'll let that slide.

It felt like they were clearly leaning in favor of Sweden a couple of times. Aside from that, it was a solid final—real, gritty play from both sides without all the usual nonsense—so Sweden earned it.

The show holds its own when it comes to charm, depth, and raw emotion—but let’s be honest, the momentum dips the second you aren't following the triangle between Joel - Maurice - Maggie.

Every now and then, Holling and Shelly manage to pull the quality back up. There’s plenty of those funny, naive little sermons too, but you have to remember this was the era when the big hits were The X-Files and Beverly Hills—shows that, if you try watching them today, feel like absolute trash compared to something like Life.

The absolute best parts of the series—true little masterpieces—are Chigliakov's "short films" about Cicely.