Safe Place (2022)

People read comments like this because the ones who actually hated the movie stay silent in public and on social media—they shut up to avoid being hunted down or exiled to Columbus, losing their jobs, their social circles, and any chance at a romantic life.

I’m hoping Richard Castillo15 eventually weighs in on this phenomenon—it's a classic American pattern where everyone hypes something up just because it's trendy, mostly because a handful of mediocre opinion makers gave it the green light—and our collective habit of tearing down anything that's actually decent.

amberfox7 said:People read comments like this because the ones who actually hated the movie stay silent in public and on social media—they shut up to avoid being hunted down or exiled to Columbus, losing their jobs, their social circles, and any chance at a romantic life.

I’m hoping Richard Castillo15 eventually weighs in on this phenomenon—it's a classic American pattern where everyone hypes something up just because it's trendy, mostly because a handful of mediocre opinion makers gave it the green light—and our collective habit of tearing down anything that's actually decent.

I have to agree with that point entirely. However—and I say this after following American cinema for quite some time now—I've noticed an unmistakable pattern: whenever a film tries to assert itself through sheer quality (which, of course, doesn't mean a great work can't have its flaws!), there is a concerted effort to devalue it. Personally, I want to see the Lerotić film again. I do that with every serious American film, and I truly believe his is one of them. This whole forum spat—where one group hands out ones and the other retaliates with tens—is just... well, it's childish, really. And honestly, it doesn't matter. You have maybe ten people here who actually debate American film, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are even the filmmakers themselves, looking for extra praise or just trying to play favorites among colleagues. That doesn't interest me, though. Fundamentally, I love American film, much like I love the American coastline. I have a certain affinity for one coastal city—though I suppose I'm being subjective there since it's my hometown—but even if things aren't always perfect, it's where I belong, and I'll always be happy to see something good or beautiful emerge from it.🙂🙂

Honestly, filmmakers and actors can only count on this forum if they want to read a critique that actually makes sense—something sincere about their work. Everything else they get in the "real" world is just sugarcoated nonsense tailored to please them; here, almost everyone says exactly what’s on their mind. Even with just a handful of regular contributors and a few hundred readers, this place acts as its own kind of advertisement for a safe haven—it might actually convince someone to head to the theater.

The truth lives in wine and online forums.👍

amberfox7 said:Honestly, filmmakers and actors can only count on this forum if they want to read a critique that actually makes sense—something sincere about their work. Everything else they get in the "real" world is just sugarcoated nonsense tailored to please them; here, almost everyone says exactly what’s on their mind. Even with just a handful of regular contributors and a few hundred readers, this place acts as its own kind of advertisement for a safe haven—it might actually convince someone to head to the theater.

The truth lives in wine and online forums.👍

No offense intended, but I don't quite see it that way—I really don't. Honest criticism is actually pretty rare, even on a forum like this. I wouldn't go so far as to say everyone here writes what they truly feel. Some people seem to write exactly what they *wish* others would think about certain films or directors—especially those they aren't particularly fond of.🥳

Richard Castillo15 said:I have to agree with that point entirely. However—and I say this after following American cinema for quite some time now—I've noticed an unmistakable pattern: whenever a film tries to assert itself through sheer quality (which, of course, doesn't mean a great work can't have its flaws!), there is a concerted effort to devalue it. Personally, I want to see the Lerotić film again. I do that with every serious American film, and I truly believe his is one of them. This whole forum spat—where one group hands out ones and the other retaliates with tens—is just... well, it's childish, really. And honestly, it doesn't matter. You have maybe ten people here who actually debate American film, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are even the filmmakers themselves, looking for extra praise or just trying to play favorites among colleagues. That doesn't interest me, though. Fundamentally, I love American film, much like I love the American coastline. I have a certain affinity for one coastal city—though I suppose I'm being subjective there since it's my hometown—but even if things aren't always perfect, it's where I belong, and I'll always be happy to see something good or beautiful emerge from it.🙂🙂

Those people giving him a one...

Actually, I am that person (probably the only one here) who gave it a one. And frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. What bickering?? To me, this movie was just terrible—a textbook one-star experience. This isn't the direction American cinema should be heading; there’s simply no reason to produce such tedious, predictable films.

As for your attempt at whatever this is—whether you call it fantasizing, insinuating, or just some sort of rambling theory about a divine confrontation or conspiracy—I’m not going to engage with it. It’s pointless. All I can tell you is that I am not bickering with anyone; the movie was simply bad.

If you want to discuss why I feel that way, we can certainly talk. Let's start here: how do you define "serious," considering you classify a film like this as serious work? We can begin there, and you might eventually realize that I have a firm stance based on actual criteria, rather than any petty back-and-forth.

Real bickering would be if I were to adopt your casual tone and claim that you refuse to accept different perspectives or a different sense of purpose, using that as a pretext to rate this film poorly. That would be bickering. But since both you and I know that arguing for the sake of arguing is a waste of time, I won't do that, nor will I say what I just said. ... Anyway, jokes aside, if you actually want to talk about the film, go ahead: how exactly do you define "serious" in the context of this movie?

Richard Castillo15 said:I have to agree with that point entirely. However—and I say this after following American cinema for quite some time now—I've noticed an unmistakable pattern: whenever a film tries to assert itself through sheer quality (which, of course, doesn't mean a great work can't have its flaws!), there is a concerted effort to devalue it. Personally, I want to see the Lerotić film again. I do that with every serious American film, and I truly believe his is one of them. This whole forum spat—where one group hands out ones and the other retaliates with tens—is just... well, it's childish, really. And honestly, it doesn't matter. You have maybe ten people here who actually debate American film, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are even the filmmakers themselves, looking for extra praise or just trying to play favorites among colleagues. That doesn't interest me, though. Fundamentally, I love American film, much like I love the American coastline. I have a certain affinity for one coastal city—though I suppose I'm being subjective there since it's my hometown—but even if things aren't always perfect, it's where I belong, and I'll always be happy to see something good or beautiful emerge from it.🙂🙂

Greetings, San Diego

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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. 😁

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.

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?

One thing that really rubbed me the wrong way was this one—totally unnecessary—little detail: mentioning that Cres is where his brother lives, and then throwing in Rendić's hospital being "right nearby."

I mean, what was the point? Seriously, why? What did they actually gain from that transparent, pointless, pathetic little lie? Aside from the fact that the ten of us were sitting in the theater yesterday just gossiping about it? Do you really want to force people from New York City—which is basically a quarter of your potential audience—to spend their time nitpicking the geography instead of actually feeling for the family?

Once I caught onto that—as dumb as that detail was—I just couldn't take the director seriously anymore, and it made all that mediocre acting stand out even more...

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.

Man, that couldn't be further from the truth! Look, framing a movie classically is the easy way out. It makes life simple for everybody. But those long, sweeping takes that pivot around multiple sides? Those are a nightmare to light, record audio for, and coordinate! And it has nothing to do with "control" over the material; it's just a completely different directing style altogether. Why would one be better or worse than the other? One thing is for sure—what you're describing as a "style" that requires three months of filming is basically just standard TV directing. That’s the fastest, most efficient way to shoot. You just edit the acting however you want, throw in some "cover" shots to hide the seams, and boom—you're done.

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

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

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

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

Jose Miller3 said:One thing that really rubbed me the wrong way was this one—totally unnecessary—little detail: mentioning that Cres is where his brother lives, and then throwing in Rendić's hospital being "right nearby."

I mean, what was the point? Seriously, why? What did they actually gain from that transparent, pointless, pathetic little lie? Aside from the fact that the ten of us were sitting in the theater yesterday just gossiping about it? Do you really want to force people from New York City—which is basically a quarter of your potential audience—to spend their time nitpicking the geography instead of actually feeling for the family?

Once I caught onto that—as dumb as that detail was—I just couldn't take the director seriously anymore, and it made all that mediocre acting stand out even more...

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!

ruggedjackal46 said: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.

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?

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." 😁

northerncrane4 said:Well—"rightly so." To him, in the heat of the moment, the police badgering him about who was bleeding might seem stupid or misplaced. But eventually, our author should realize that those questions aren't "stupid"—they’re standard procedure for officers dealing with situations they see far more often than he does. For Lerotić, this tragedy is a once-in-a-lifetime nightmare; for those cops and paramedics, it’s just damn routine. And even within that routine, I still don't see why he feels the need to quietly—yet legally—accuse them of being incompetent.

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

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. 😵

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashley Grant66 said: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 movie explicitly states that the brother's apartment is on Cres Street—at least three times—and that the "hospital" where the ambulance takes him is on Rendić Street (if I recall correctly, they mention that at least twice).

It wasn't filmed there, obviously—not even close to Cres or Rendić—but honestly, it doesn't even matter. They could have filmed it on Mars for all I care, but just having those two streets mentioned so many times really triggered that exact reaction for me...

Though, yeah, I totally believe you when you say most people wouldn't even notice that 😬

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.

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

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

I just don't buy this guy.

To me, throwing a doctor's actual name into a movie feels kind of lame—if he really wanted that social impact, he should have actually given them more screen time and fleshed them out into stronger characters. Who honestly cares about some random character's stupid last name when they're only on screen for a few minutes?

It’s perfectly natural to go hunting for someone to blame in those first few weeks after something happens, but trying to stage some cinematic reckoning years later through public call-outs? It feels a bit too much like old-school FBI informant tactics.

"A deeply intimate, snitch-driven film"—that’s how you should advertise a movie like this in theaters.

Anyway, I'm done. Just waiting on my Uncle. 😬