Uncle (2022)

placidsailor18 said:I get all that.
But I have no clue what actually triggered everything. Did Uncle just pick them at random to work through some of his own trauma? Or did Mom mess up somehow and now he's taking it out on them? The movie isn't bad, it just lacks an explanation. Anyone know more?

Sent from my Galaxy Tab 8.4 using the Reddit app

That’s the whole point—it's left up to you to interpret. That's really what makes the movie work. You can decide he just picked them randomly, or maybe they're even family, but personally, I think the random choice angle fits better.🍿

placidsailor18 said:She figured all of that out.
But I honestly have no clue what the actual motive was. Did uncle just pick them at random to work through some personal trauma? Did mom screw up somehow, and now he’s getting his revenge? The movie isn't bad, per se, but it lacks an explanation. Does anyone know more?

Here is the core concept of the film (and the reason behind why uncle acts the way he does):

He doesn't actually move from his spot; he is essentially frozen in a single moment of his past, trying to conjure up a "perfect Christmas," specifically that era when he was a kid and he would have an uncle visiting from abroad, bringing those high-end gifts every kid dreamed of back then—you know, the classic imported toys and candies.

That is the fundamental idea, and once you lay it out like that, it almost sounds better than the actual execution of the film. Because while the movie isn't terrible, there is a glaring issue: the creators couldn't decide if they were making a psychological thriller or a satire. So, what we end up with is this satire about Americans, but one that lacks any real edge because it relies on such broad generalizations. Plus, it’s never quite clear who these supposed "patriots" are that the Republican Party-style zealots are keeping in line. On the other hand, as a thriller, it fails to be convincing because the plot is far too caricatured to serve the satire. It lacks a genuine "action" element; if we are following a logical plot, the characters should have been able to free themselves from uncle using their own agency. You even see viewers commenting along those lines, asking, "Why didn't they just attack him?" But that is precisely where the failure lies, because these characters don't possess cinematic life; they don't have the freedom to act according to the logic of the situation. They are simply placed in these scenarios purely as functions of the satire.

In my opinion, you can't pull that off. A film needs to know exactly what it wants to be. If the goal is to send a message (and it seems the main aim here is that vague commentary on Americans), then it needs to be much more precise, and they shouldn't bother trying to maintain a traditional "plot" at all. There shouldn't be this half-hearted attempt at maintaining narrative logic when it clearly isn't working.

I’d give the film a 6+, or maybe a 7/10, somewhere in that ballpark.
There are a few decent jokes—for instance, that line at the end about whether your hair has grown back in yet is actually funny; sometimes the simplest lines land best. And finally, the lead isn't one of those famous American actresses with the massive nose. She looks decent enough. The idea, as I said, sounds good when explained; watching the film, not so much.

As for the filler, there are those unnecessary, forced scenes with sexual undertones, and all those sweeping generalizations about patriots. The connection between the uncle's pathology and this brand of patriotism is never made clear—what I mean is, the authors took a protagonist with mental issues and tied him to this imaginary nationalism, where he hits these peaks whenever they sing songs about the Great Plains. There is no link between those two things, but apparently, they thought it was a clever connection. Personally, I think it's nonsense.

Also, a major mistake is the constant tone; whether they are forced to act in front of uncle or he isn't even there, they speak and behave with the exact same inflection, which is totally unconvincing. They should have paid attention to those details; the film would have jumped up a few points if there had been transitions: specific lines uncle demands, changes in vocal color, different behaviors, or perhaps a more natural dialect when he isn't watching.

All in all, it’s an interesting attempt, but it remains just that: an attempt. To be a masterpiece, it needs to be clearer, more defined, and more serious.
They really need to break free from these clichés. For example, the "era" uncle is trying to evoke is likely 1989. That was the year the Republican Party was founded, and it feels like they wanted to bridge those two things: individual pathology and the patriotism associated with the GOP. Since the film never clarifies—not just in the movie, but in general—what exactly is wrong or what the problem is with that specific type of Republican patriotism, this kind of "critique" feels like mere rambling. Criticism built on vague tropes isn't top-tier filmmaking. If they are going to talk about Americans in such a messy way, they shouldn't be part of the mess themselves. They should stop these repetitive mantras about the terrifying Republican Party or the awful Americans who supposedly sit on everyone's shoulders... on whose shoulders, exactly??!! The middle-class suburbanites???!!??

ps - they characterized Manojlović as some sort of pathological uncle; if they were actually going to commit, they should have just gone all the way and installed an American who keeps the locals under his thumb... then we’d see them revolt and tear him apart. Or, they could have left things as they are, with an uncle who is a true patriot keeping his own American family in check. That would have been a bit more politically incorrect and much more complicated. As it stands, the whole thing is just incredibly murky.

Nice breakdown, but I’m not following—what part about 1989 and the Republican Party isn't clear to you? Personally, I loved how they blended satire and psychological thriller elements with that caricature vibe. The soundtrack was spot on too, and honestly, the wooden acting worked for me because the whole situation felt totally surreal. Since the whole premise is so trippy, I actually liked it even more on the second viewing. I’m heading back for an eighth watch now; it’s easily my favorite thing we’ve seen in the last twenty years. For their debut feature, these guys absolutely nailed it. Now we just have to see if they have any staying power. I’m rooting for them to stick to psychological thrillers so they don't pivot into boring dramas. 🍿

Justin Richardson7 said:Here’s the core idea behind this movie (which also explains why the uncle acts the way he does):

He (the uncle) is totally stuck; he's frozen in one specific moment of his life, trying to recreate a "perfect Christmas"—that time back when he was just a kid and his uncle would come home from working abroad with all those amazing gifts every kid dreamed of (think high-end toys, imported candy, stuff like that).

That’s the fundamental concept, and honestly, when you explain it like that, it sounds way better than the actual movie. See, even though the film isn't bad, there’s a massive issue: the creators couldn't decide if they wanted to make a psychological thriller or a satire. So, what we end up with is this satire about Americans, but it lacks a sharp edge because it relies on such vague clichés—plus, it's never really clear who these "patriots" actually are, or how they’re being controlled by some Republican Party loyalist. On the flip side, it fails as a thriller because the plot is just too over-the-top for the sake of the satire. It lacks any real "action" element; if we’re looking at it logically, the characters could have easily found a way to break free from the uncle. Some viewers were even left asking, "Wait, why didn't they just fight back?" But that's exactly the problem—the characters don't feel like real people with agency; they’re just puppets moved around to serve the satirical point.

In my book, you can't pull a stunt like that. A movie needs to know what it wants to be. If there's a message to send (and it feels like the main goal is this half-baked story about certain types of Americans), then it needs to be much more precise. You shouldn't even bother trying to force a "plot" if it doesn't fit. They shouldn't try to maintain a sense of logic if it's just going to clash with the rest of the film, yet they still made this half-hearted attempt at it here.

I’d give the film a 6+, or maybe a 7/10, somewhere in that ballpark.

There are a few good bits (for instance, that line at the end about "have your balls grown in yet" actually cracked me up—sometimes the simplest jokes are the best), and finally, we aren't stuck watching one of those famous actresses with the massive nose. This one is actually pretty decent looking. Like I said, the idea sounds great when you talk about it, but it doesn't quite land when you're actually watching it.

As for the junk, there are some totally unnecessary, forced scenes with sexual undertones, and all those generic tropes about patriots. There's no clear link between the uncle's pathology and this whole "patriotism" thing. What I mean is: the creators took a lead character with mental health issues and tried to tie him to this imaginary brand of patriotism, making him peak whenever they play some anthem like "The Star-Spangled Banner." There is zero connection between the two, but hey, they thought it was clever. Personally, I thought it was nonsense.

Also, the tone is incredibly repetitive. Whether they're forced to act in front of the uncle or they're alone, they speak and behave with the exact same energy, which just isn't believable. They should have paid attention to those details; the movie would have jumped up a few points if there had been actual transitions—like using the specific scripted lines the uncle demands, changes in vocal tone, or different behaviors. When he's gone, they should have used a more natural dialect or a different way of speaking.

All in all, it’s an interesting attempt, but it stays right where it is: just an attempt. To make something top-tier, you have to be clearer, more defined, and more serious.

They really need to move past these tired clichés. For example, the era the uncle is trying to evoke feels like 1989. That was basically the turning point for the modern Republican Party, and it seems they wanted to link those two things: his pathology and the version of patriotism tied to the party. Since the film never makes it clear—not just in the movie, but in general—what exactly is wrong with that ideology or what the real problem is, this kind of "critique" just feels like rambling. Criticizing things through vague generalizations isn't high art. And if they're going to talk about these types of Americans in such a messy way, they shouldn't be part of the same group! They need to ditch these clunky mantras about scary Republicans or the "bad Americans" sitting on everyone's backs... sitting on whose backs??!! The middle-class suburbanites???!!??

ps - They cast that Mexican guy (Manojlović) as this totally pathological uncle; they could have just gone all the way and cast a Mexican who keeps Americans under his thumb... then we'd see them rebel and tear him apart. Or, they could've left it as is, where the uncle is this patriotic American who keeps the Mexicans (his family) in line. Now *that* would've been a bit more politically incorrect and way messier! As it stands, everything feels a little muddled.

Hmm, chronologically it should probably be set in the early eighties, but whatever. I realized that Uncle clearly evokes his own childhood and his actual uncle; those gifts and visits are obviously the only bright spots in his life, and he wants to relive them. But I still don't get why it's *that* specific family. At first, I thought maybe they were paid to do it, then I figured he was blackmailing them, and I was watching the whole thing like, "Okay, where's the thriller element?" That's why I feel like the ending is missing—someone needs to dig through the aftermath to find the root cause. I'm not trying to drag modern politics into this, though. But hey, thanks for sharing your take on the movie. At least it gives us something to chew on!

Sent from my Galaxy Tab 8.4 using the Reddit app

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.

There honestly isn't a single bright spot to be found there. placidsailor18, take another look at it. 😉

placidsailor18 said:If we’re talking about the timeline, we’d likely be looking at something just before the start of the eighties.

It couldn't possibly be the start of the eighties, because my uncle's absolute favorite song is "Fragrant Quince," which didn't actually come out until 1989. That was the moment it clicked for me—I started wondering if there was some deeper connection between that specific year and when the Republican Party was founded. So, I went to check, and sure enough, that’s exactly when it happened.

The film leans heavily on those tired, sweeping tropes about patriotism. My uncle keeps harping on the same old narrative—that Americans aren't truly free, but at least we still have our songs and our heritage to cling to. It’s that typical, small-minded brand of nationalism you see all the time.

So, anyway,
It’s pretty clear that the author is aiming to take a critical look at that specific brand of patriotism.

But look, Grace Sanders24, I just don't see where that equals sign comes from; there is absolutely no logical reason to suggest that patriotism is synonymous with being caricature-driven or petty. Sure, they might be capable of producing a single piece of satire like that, but my point remains exactly the same: there is no actual equivalence here. They haven't provided any proof to suggest that patriotism is nothing more than those trivial things.

I find it perfectly reasonable, logical, and entirely convincing that someone could sing about the majesty of the great mountain ranges, cheer on the success of the national soccer team, and still not be a hypocrite, a fraud, or some calculated phony.
Based on how the movie was put together, it seems like singing "Vila Velebit" or actually feeling any sense of national pride is treated as something inherently negative. This approach keeps the film completely stagnant and one-dimensional, built entirely on a foundation of criticism that doesn't actually qualify as such. Real critique requires assigning actual meaning to things—you have to clearly articulate why things are the way you say they are. Instead, this stays at the level of petty finger-pointing, essentially arguing that because the Republican Party has taken over the political landscape, patriotism itself must be flawed. To me, that isn't a serious argument. For a thesis like that to hold any weight, you’d actually have to demonstrate what exactly is wrong, how we arrived at this point, and what the specific consequences are for every possible scenario.

The film lacks any semblance of genuine gravity, which isn't necessarily a dealbreaker—not every movie needs to be some grand, sweeping epic. But that’s exactly where things go sideways. My issue is that the production insists on playing this heavy, somber hand, yet fails to actually deliver on it. Because they lean so hard into that tone, the actual action, the plot, and the characters all end up relegated to the background. It leaves you in this restless state of uncertainty, caught between a movie that refuses to be a legitimate thriller and one that can't quite commit to being a proper satire.

And that’s why Smudge is wrong again, because for trauma to actually land with any weight, the character experiencing it has to be a serious one. A viewer would need to be able to take the uncle seriously, whether he’s being portrayed as the villain or the hero. But you can't really talk about taking this guy seriously or expecting an audience to identify with his childhood "trauma." He’s written right on that shaky line between being a real person and just serving a narrative function—that hollow attempt at "social commentary." The uncle is far too caricatured to allow for any actual psychological depth; he doesn't possess a standalone cinematic life that could show a viewer a meaningful evolution from point A to point B.

I don't view my uncle through the lens of trauma—not because there isn't any, but because we can't exactly conduct a serious psychological deep dive into these characters here. Instead, I see him as a narrative device, essentially reduced to a tool used by the authors to drive home their point. Take his version of a "perfect Christmas," for instance. They hit on a very specific social dynamic that actually existed: when those folks working abroad would come back home for the holidays, their relatives and friends would treat them with this distinct, almost patronizing reverence. Of course, the writing is satirical, but the sentiment is spot on. The locals back home would play the part of the humble listeners, looking up to these visitors and hanging on every word about the wonders and luxuries they experienced living in places like Germany. Meanwhile, life back here was just a gray expanse of economic stagnation and nothing more than a pack of cheap gum to get by. So, that little boy’s daydreaming about getting a new rifle and waiting for it under the mistletoe? That captures the reality of that era perfectly.

Uncle is currently dwelling on those exact moments—that specific anticipation of an uncle arriving from abroad, the rifle that would make every other kid on the block jealous, and those delicate European candies that put local hard gingerbread to shame. In his mind, that was the absolute peak of existence. That’s why he wants to evoke that specific feeling, that flawless Christmas when Uncle finally pulls up from his life overseas.

Of course,
it’s a total illusion. A person can't just freeze in time; you can't revert to being a child, and there is no way an adult can stage that same perfect Christmas they experienced at ten years old. If the movie had stayed strictly within those bounds and focused on expressing that singular sentiment, it would have been much stronger. Instead, the scope became too broad. Beyond just touching on the era of workers moving abroad for better lives, the filmmakers tried to tackle everything from national identity to patriotism and whatnot, and in doing so, the focus gets diluted and lost.

Uncle doesn't have trauma; Uncle is just stuck in a developmental loop, living out this infantile, romanticized mythology of a perfect Christmas. Honestly, that’s where they should have stopped—just making a film about that core idea rather than getting lost in all that petty social commentary. The "migrant worker" aspect was hit perfectly; it captures the essence, even if it’s slightly over-the-top. It isn't suggesting the uncle is a monster, but rather that the visiting relative is treated like a deity to whom everyone must cater, to the point where his brother practically hands over his wife to serve him while the father stands by the door, smoking, watching them scramble.

The film's ending is consistent, though it's a hollow sort of consistency. Once Uncle finally gets his perfect Christmas, there's nowhere left to go; it can't get any better than that, so he takes his own life. To him, "perfect" means something that is finished in every sense, which is why he ends it. But it's a meaningless logic, because a human life cannot, and will not, function with that kind of mathematical consistency. You simply cannot reach such a state of total fulfillment.

And so on, the analysis could go on forever... All things considered, it's a solid effort, but it lacks the greatness I mentioned earlier. Among our most recent releases, I found *The Sixth Bus* and *Illyricvm* to be superior (moving them into the top tier), whereas *Rubac Chlení* and *Sure Place of Trash* were complete garbage. This film sits somewhere in the middle. So, out of five new works, we have two masterpieces, two pieces of junk, and one decent one. Judging by how they stack up against the best, it seems American cinema is trending upward. If we could just move past these small-scale chamber dramas made by amateurs and pivot toward more universal themes—like *The Sixth Bus* or, to an extent, *Illyricvm*—we'd be back on top. Oh, I also caught *The Marginals*. I usually can't stand those unserious movies, so I dismissed it immediately, but even that was passable. At least it's funny, which is better than the pretentious nonsense we usually see.

Justin Richardson7 said:And once again, mudfish is off base—because if you actually want to tackle trauma seriously, the person discussing it needs to be serious too.

Your chronic issue with movies is that you can only experience them through a projection of yourself. As soon as a character, a situation, or the plot gains any actual depth, it becomes incomprehensible to you. You present yourself as linear and narrow-minded—though you aren't actually—because it suits your self-image. You define your surroundings and the world entirely through your own lens; consequently, any complexity involving conflicting layers or counterpoint is something you simply cannot accept.

Look, damn it—people are layered. They’re simultaneously traumatized and at peace, even if they've become caricatures of themselves—whether you want to admit it or not. And you, electriccanyon26.

Justin Richardson7 said:So, anyway—
The author's intent—it’s pretty clear—is to offer a critical look at that specific brand of patriotism.

There’s no such thing as a specific "type" of patriotism. Patriotism is like fire—it all depends on how you choose to handle it.

northerncrane4 said:Your chronic issue with watching movies is

Mudfish, I’m going to break your heart here: there isn’t some fundamental problem with my ability to watch—or understand—movies, or anything else for that matter. You know that, too; you’re just being a little arrogant, acting out because you feel slighted. All I did was draw a line between an uncle, Christmas, and the whole migrant worker phenomenon of the eighties... and you’re actually getting worked up over that??!!

There are plenty of solid American movies that touch on these kinds of themes, like *The Graduate* or *April Fools' Day*.

And instead of awarding me a badge for being so perceptive and convincing that I can always define the world through my own lens (isn't that the whole point, anyway?), you’re just being defensive.
But there’s no need to drift into these massive philosophical topics right now, even if you are someone who could probably benefit from a lesson on what truth actually is, the various types of truth, how they relate to one another, the stages of life, and all those other lovely concepts you haven't quite organized within yourself yet.

Let's set that aside and focus: what exactly is wrong with my take on the movie? Even you have to see my point—this "uncle" isn't some deep, complex figure we can assign a psychological profile or a specific trauma to. If we were meant to attribute trauma to him, the entire situation depicted would have to be structured in a way that makes us actually care about the characters. Everything happening would need to feel authentic. The characters would need to be actively working toward liberating themselves from such a situation.

None of that is present, at least not enough to make it convincing or to truly pull a viewer into the scene.
The reason it fails to land is this constant vacillation between being a thriller and being a satire. It’s neither one nor the other. Honestly, you have to see it for yourself. So I don't get why you're still pushing back. You simply misread the situation, and it's time you admitted it. Besides, I clarified the "assault" aspect by linking it to the mythology of the migrant worker in wonderful Germany, which provided a much more grounded thesis than yours ever could.

But look, man, at the end of the day, this isn't a competition to see who understood the film better. In that regard, you're just like the uncle—if I'm the uncle, then you're also one, driven by this infantile need to measure yourself against others and sulk when things don't go your way, especially when it's all just plain unsightly. Because, of course, my observations are always ultimate, haha... hahaha... well, my dear uncle. Tell me, has your hair started growing on your balls yet?

Justin Richardson7 said:Mudfish, you can't break my heart: there isn't some fundamental issue with how I watch (or understand) movies—or anything else for that matter.

You aren't breaking my heart—it’s just that nothing "wrong" exists within the confines of your own little bubble, which is exactly what I'm pointing out. Your internal ecosystem is rigged to interpret everything in a way that prevents any outside influence—or heaven forbid, a new concept—from ever breaking through.

Look, the idea of using thriller tropes to deliver satire is ancient—older than the movie industry itself. There is nothing weird or revolutionary about it. In fact, that's the point: the satire effectively mocks the very genre it uses as a vehicle.

Uncle is clearly a traumatized individual—because when he takes his daughter-in-law into a room, he doesn't assault her the way the previous uncle did to the former daughter-in-law (or maybe he didn't, but let's call him the proto-uncle)—his trauma is the only thing stopping him. He isn't actually acting; he's just performing a superficial imitation to convince himself he's the one pulling the strings, when the reality is that he's completely impotent. The proto-uncle didn't need a gun or a controller to manage the family dynamic. An impotent Uncle does.

northerncrane4 said:You can't break my heart with that logic, because there isn't actually an issue within your own bubble, and I've told you that already. The ecosystem inside your skull always interprets reality in such a way that nothing external is ever allowed to penetrate it.

No, we have a misunderstanding here. But it isn’t just any minor disagreement; it is a fundamental one, the kind that belongs in those sweeping, epic sagas I was talking about earlier. There is really no point in trying to hash this out over a PDF, and since we aren't exactly on friendly terms either, I certainly won't be sitting here giving you a lecture on the meaning of life.

I feel compelled to briefly pivot the conversation toward some specific distinctions regarding your point. There is a fundamental difference between a person being unable to grasp an alternative perspective due to their own level of consciousness, and someone who understands that alternative perfectly well yet refuses to accept it. In the latter case, they are simply constructing themselves in a way that prevents any outside influence from taking root; they have become so singularly focused and self-transparent that they maintain a rigid, unwavering stance of absolute yes or absolute no when it comes to the state of the world.
The fundamental misunderstanding I’m pointing out is this: you view a man who is clearly defined as if he were somehow lacking, whereas the reality is exactly the opposite, and that much is perfectly clear to me. If you really want to look at it through a lens of perfection—in the sense of being better—it’s the thing that is more defined, more complete, the thing that requires as little external interference as possible to function. A man possessing the kind of constitution where very little from the outside can penetrate him is a higher type of individual than the one who drifts aimlessly about, shaped by external forces and constantly swayed by outside influences. But I won't dwell on this for too long; I am merely touching upon it in response to your remark, which is fundamentally flawed, as is your entire outlook on life regarding this matter.

Let’s get back to Uncle.
We seem to be in agreement that my uncle isn't actually committing any crimes, but for me, the issue isn't about "trauma"—honestly, let’s be real, you can't really talk about trauma in this specific genre of movie. It’s more that he fails to function simply because he is utterly paralyzed by a single day from his past. The idea of nostalgia acting as a pathology is a sharp observation, and they hit the mark there, considering how many broken people are stuck living in the rearview mirror. Of course, the film takes that concept and cranks it up to an absurd level, but the underlying direction is spot on.

If you’re insisting on leaning into total symbolism—arguing that the uncle represents some absolute patriarch who owns everything, including the people around him—then there simply isn't any room left for "trauma," because a symbol that heavy doesn't allow for psychological nuance. You can't have it both ways. This uncle figure just doesn't work because he fails to settle into a coherent identity; he isn't a pure symbol, yet he isn't a fleshed-out character either, the kind of literary figure you’d actually follow through the pages of a novel or a movie where the audience can engage with his development. The execution is just fundamentally flawed; the creators wavered between two paths and ended up failing at both. Now, my point isn't meant to contradict what you're saying, because using a thriller to deliver satire isn't some revolutionary concept—it’s perfectly doable. I’m simply stating that in this specific case, they missed the mark, and that is the core of my critique. It has nothing to do with whether mixing genres is a bad idea, and I honestly have no clue why you're misinterpreting my position or trying to frame it that way.

The conversation regarding sexual assault has resurfaced once again.
There isn't any rape happening here. At least, based on how the movie is structured, you simply cannot draw that conclusion. It feels much more plausible—given the underlying connotations—that they are just so subservient to their uncle that he can get away with sleeping with his brother's wife. That is what the entire situation is trying to illustrate. I’d argue it’s a satirical jab at Americans, suggesting a certain type of person who lets anyone walk all over them. However, it remains unclear who exactly these "Americans" are supposed to be. To whom is this critique actually directed?

You see, those are the real issues if you actually want to dig deeper into the ambiguous territory this movie plays in. Imagine a generalized setting—one that drifts through the narrative—and then try to pin it down on screen. But who are these Americans being portrayed as so submissive? That remains an enigma. Because, on the other hand, if the one exerting this patriarchal control is an uncle who embodies that specific American archetype, what is the actual goal here? Is the critique aimed at the submissiveness of the people, or is it directed at the patriarchs themselves? These are all legitimate questions if we intend to engage with this particular layer of the film.

The uncle berates the mother. So, who is actually the target of the criticism? Is the mother meant to be the victim? If so, why lean so heavily into caricaturing submissiveness, or adopt this mocking tone? Or is the aim to ridicule this brutal, Hades-like uncle? Yet, the uncle is such a dominant figure that he almost becomes an idol to some. You see, the whole thing feels somewhat muddled even to the creators; they haven't fully thought it through. It feels less like a deliberate statement and more like a collection of cheap gags, a series of "bits." It lacks weight. Consequently, there is no sense of trauma here; the audience can't truly identify with these characters because you just can't root for caricatures. To the viewer, it is perfectly clear that nothing in this staged situation carries any real obligation or weight. It’s obvious that it’s all just performative, reaching a level that is nothing more than a superficial joke. For true trauma to exist, it must be something profound, something that compels the viewer to acknowledge the character's experience. That is how I see it.

Justin Richardson7 said:No, we’re looking at a misunderstanding. Not just any small glitch, but a fundamental disconnect—the kind you find in those deep, sprawling narratives I was talking about. It doesn't make sense to dive into that here on this forum, and since we aren't exactly on friendly terms, I'm not going to sit here and give you a lecture on the meaning of life.

This isn't the fifth day, and you aren't Selak. Or maybe you are. 🤔

Justin Richardson7 doesn't need to defend patriotism. It’s totally unnecessary. The movie just does a great job showing what patriotism meant to certain people during a specific era, and they played with that concept because, honestly, Americans seem to be pretty sensitive about that topic for some reason. For me, that’s another huge plus—this movie is top-tier and easily better than the ones you mentioned. But hey, it all comes down to personal perception and taste, and everyone knows you can argue about taste forever!🍿

northerncrane4 said:The entire ecosystem contained within your own skull.

God, man... hahaha 🙏

I'm with you, Father Martine!

Justin Richardson7 said:Let’s get back to Uncle.
We actually agree that Uncle isn't doing anything wrong—it's just that for me, it isn't about "trauma" (what trauma? please, man, you can't have trauma in this kind of movie!), but rather that Uncle fails simply because he is stuck in one single day of his life. The idea of nostalgia acting as a pathology—that's a solid hit, as there are plenty of people out there just as broken.

“There can't be any misery in this type of movie”—that means absolutely nothing, because clearly, the misery exists here. The only character whose backstory we actually get is Uncle's. And that background is a Christmas trauma he recreates on a loop because his childhood brain is trapped in that specific collision of idyll and violence; he can't break free until he's given exactly what was denied to him. In the film, this is expressed through a mix of genre tropes, caricature, and allegorical symbolism. There's even enough material for a meta-cinematic reading where Miki Manojlović serves as the embodiment of American cinema—specifically the dysfunctional family dynamics seen in US films from the 90s onward—if you bother to dig through the layers.
But, look, I just don't feel like it. I've already explained this to you a few times: you simply cannot step outside your own narrow-minded worldview, and that's that. 👋

northerncrane4 said:The background is essentially a Christmas trauma he keeps playing on a loop because his childhood brain is stuck in that exact moment where domestic bliss crashes into violence.

The only issue with this brilliantly conceived background theory is that there was actually no trauma or violence involved. It was Christmas, sure—you nailed that part perfectly. But as far as trauma goes? Not a trace.

If your definition of violence is watching people patronizingly welcome an uncle, serving him turkey and cookies, flattering him, and letting him sit at the head of the table to lead the Hail Mary, then maybe you should go check in with your own uncle to find out what actual violence looks like.
I mean, what can I say when the movie shows exactly what I’m describing? Go watch it yourself.

There is enough material here for a meta-cinematic interpretation where Miki Manojlović serves as the personification of Yugoslavian cinema.

But then Miki Manojlović recites the Hail Mary and sings about Mount Velebit, and that whole "personification of Yugoslavian cinema" idea just evaporates. The movie isn't even defined in that direction; no matter which way you turn it, the film feels incomplete. It isn't a polished, finished product, but rather an attempt—an interesting attempt, certainly.

...................

Grace Sanders24 says: "The movie just beautifully portrays what patriotism has done for some people"...
Give me a break. Go to sleep. "Patriotism has done something for some people"—that is more absurd than the mudfish traumas.
Mudfish has trauma because his mother is catering to his uncle. She does it shyly, but she does it. Meanwhile, Grace Sanders24 has trauma caused by patriotism; she probably buys blue recycling bags, sorts her trash, and pays her taxes on time, because Grace Sanders24 isn't a patriot, she's just a typical, soft American.

Though, perhaps you truly are afraid of patriotism, Grace Sanders24. Patriotism really does do things to people. I am a living example. Mudfish gets traumatized just looking at me.

Justin Richardson7 said:The only issue with this brilliantly conceived backdrop—since there was zero trauma or violence—is that it was all Christmas spirit. You hit the nail on the head there. As for actual trauma? Not a trace.

If you consider it "violence" when people welcome an uncle with nothing but respect—serving him turkey, sweets, and letting him lead the Hail Mary at the head of the table—then maybe you should go ask your own uncle what actual violence looks like.
Look, I don't know what else to tell you—the movie literally depicts exactly what I'm talking about. Go watch it.

"Mama screams," says the cat. You've blocked out a chunk of the movie—it just doesn't fit.

Justin Richardson7 said:But then Miki Manojlović starts praying the Hail Mary and singing about Mount Velebit—so much for being the "embodiment of Southern cinema."

Nothing is actually disappearing—far from it. Mickey’s father was even sent on an official business trip acting as a subversive element, and you were already living with your uncle right there in your rebel neighborhood.

northerncrane4 said:“Mom screams”

I see.
Look, that’s exactly why I asked you earlier if you’ve noticed any changes down there. You know how it goes—sometimes women make noise during certain activities. It's just psychological stuff: she's screaming because she loves him, plain and simple.😉

... Hold on, are you actually suggesting that from that one line, the uncle raped the mother???!!!?
And you completely missed the entire setup before that: the way they welcome him so submissively, how they put him on a pedestal, how they fawn over the camera like little assistants while the uncle explains the wonders of Germany... Did all of that really escape you??

If what I'm saying holds water (and you should watch the movie and tell me if it does), then it never occurred to you that the father is the kind of guy who plays the clown, essentially allowing the uncle to do whatever he pleases. For instance, if the uncle feels like giving the mother a hard time, this supposed "innocent" woman just takes it. And the father just steps out for a smoke to keep things running smoothly.

Justin Richardson7 said:Right.
Look, that’s why I asked you—has your hair grown back down there yet? You know, mudfish, sometimes women make noise during the act. Psychomodo pop: she screams that she loves me, man.😉

... Wait, you actually concluded from that line that the uncle raped his mom???!!!?
And before that, you missed how staged everything was: how they welcome him so submissively, how they put him on a pedestal, how they fawn over the camera like sidekicks, while the uncle explains all the wonders of Germany... Did you really miss all of that??

If what I'm saying holds water (and go watch the movie, then tell me if it does), then it never occurred to you that the dad is such a pushover—playing the clown—that the uncle can do whatever he wants. For instance, if he feels like messing with the mom, this supposed "niece" just... goes along with it. And the dad heads out for a smoke, just to keep things smooth.

Yeah, totally normal and zero trauma involved. 👍

What am I supposed to do when they’ve already turned the whole thing into such a caricature?

The point is, there isn't any violence or trauma involved.
It’s just satire.