Mary (2021)

Jack Cook7 said:Sure, you could eat it. But honestly? It's the kind of thing you just... don't. You know it's out there, lurking, so you just give it a wide berth. You really don't need that kind of drama in your life.

The Murina is pretty timid—it’ll spend most of its time hiding in rocky crevices—but don't let that fool you, because it is incredibly dangerous. It won't hesitate to strike or bite, even if it costs the little guy its own life. And those things have teeth everywhere—in their mouths, even in their jaws—plus that nasty venomous slime.😬

amberfox7 said:If a man had framed a young actress like that, he’d be behind bars by now. There's zero finesse or subtlety here—it honestly feels like they're filming some softcore porn. The director just forces her sexy figure into the shot for basically the whole movie without any actual style or feeling... Creepy.

I agree—this whole thing is just exhausting and totally unnecessary. I actually thought the movie would wrap up with her finally putting some clothes on. It would have served as a bit of symbolism, wouldn't it?

amberfox7 said:If a man framed a young actress like that, he’d be behind bars by now. No finesse, no subtlety—just pure softcore porn vibes. The director forces her sexy figure on us for most of the runtime without any actual style or feeling... Creepy.

Spot on.

Then she finds that PVC dress, lays it on the bed, stares silently at those angry faces, and wanders around like some stiff ghost... and nothing.
That's our "misunderstood genius" at work, I suppose. ☕

The movie should just be called Indignation.
Rigor Mortis.

Ashley Brown81 said:The two of them are just condemned to live on that rock.

We seem to be having a misunderstanding.
In my view, the misunderstanding lies with the author herself.

If they are truly "condemned," then why stage a story where you mock a hysterical father who is trying with everything he has to sell that very rock??!?

Hold on—if these people are, as you put it, "condemned," why place them in a position where you ridicule them as unscrupulous, liars, or manipulators?

I’m not sure if it’s sunk in yet, but THAT is precisely the great flaw of this film. Even the creator doesn't seem to know what she wants. Does she want them to escape the rock and head toward a white afterlife, or does she want to devise a way of life on that rock within the Paradise of an American queen?

What you’re saying—that they are "condemned"—is itself part of the confusion, a rather awkward one because it touches on fundamental elements. The scale of this disorientation grows larger because the actors themselves hide their own lostness beneath the threshold of consciousness. They simply act it out without knowing: what is it they actually supposed to do? All of this leads back to what has already been mentioned: this film has no ending, no resolution. We are left with an endless end, but in an inferior sense. Because no one here knows what they want or what they should be doing.

Now, you call this a "slice of life." Patrick Martin likes the idea of it being a fragment too.
Fine, you can like that, but it remains a subpar solution. It is inherently inferior because a true work of art requires a beginning, a middle, and an end.
For comparison, take a "slice of life" like Bergman’s. Wild Strawberry is vastly superior because there is motivated action and development; a fragment of life moves somewhere, and characters grapple with actual difficulties. There must be direction.

Julia saw through her parents a long time ago, which she tells both of them at one point during the film (telling her mother that her reach was limited by her time as Miss Island, and telling her father he’s an opportunist selling off the land where people died). That’s why it’s so strange how naively she looks at Javi.

All of that falls under what I’m talking about. The fundamental confusion. Julia hasn't "seen through" anything, because what right does she have to lecture her father about being a grifter who sells off sacred ground when she herself would run off to Harvard using the very money that same father provides?? All these things are inconsistent, and that is what you should be looking at in the film. Not trivialities like whether she's wearing a swimsuit or something similar.

Every single movie about the coast follows the exact same formula: some hot-headed guy—either the dad or the husband—who spends the whole time yelling because nothing is ever good enough for him. Then you’ve got the wife just playing along, and a daughter who’s stuck in a depressive funk, desperate to escape, only to be held back by her controlling father even if she's already in her 40s.

Justin Richardson7 said:I don't know if everyone caught this yet, but THAT right there is the massive flaw in this movie. It doesn't even know what it wants. Does it want to flee the rock and head into the white void, or does it want to figure out how to live on that rock in some sort of Paradise ruled by an American queen?

Personally, I think the whole point is that the parents want to leave, but they just can't—they're essentially stuck fighting themselves. That's why they're still where they are. And honestly? Not knowing what you want is fine; plenty of people spend their entire lives that way. There isn't some neat cinematic resolution for them, though maybe there is one for Julia.
The kid heads out toward the open water at the end, assuming you can even make sense of that closing bit—which, if you ask me, is one of the weaker ways to wrap things up.

Look, I have no idea how we ended up comparing this to Wild Strawberry. I’m not trying to defend the film's brilliance here—I don't actually think it's *that* good. But for me, it's a decent little slice-of-life piece that touches on some heavier themes. For an American indie flick—it's solid (and let's be real, the bar is pretty low).

It actually feels like a lot of us who watched this projected way more meaning onto it than the director intended, judging by her interviews.

Ashley Brown81 said:It’s perfectly fine not knowing what you want; plenty of people drift through life that way.

There are certainly confused people out there, but claiming it's acceptable to lack any sense of direction is a stretch. Not really. Those who wander around in a state of aimlessness generally struggle to break free from it. There is a distinction between being unable to know and simply choosing not to. If they actually had the agency to choose, I doubt anyone would opt for perpetual lostness; they would surely choose clarity, purpose, and contentment.

You can absolutely make a film about lost souls. That isn't the issue; the success of the work rests entirely on how the director conceptualizes that void. An auteur has to take a stance, one way or the other. In this case, the characters are lost, but the very core of the narrative feels lost as well.
What is the film trying to convey regarding the father? Or the mother? What about Julia? Or the stranger? Everything remains frustratingly underspecified.

So, those are the flaws. Though, I suppose we can agree it isn't so scattered that it completely falls apart. Let's call it decent—that seems to be the consensus we're hovering around.

Justin Richardson7 said:We’re talking about two different things here.

Exactly, we are totally misinterpreting each other.

I honestly don't know if we even watched the same movie, but from what I gathered, the old man basically nuked his career as some kind of sea captain because he wrecked a boat—or maybe a whole fleet, who cares. Now he’s stuck catching fish, specifically Murina, I guess. His daughter helps him out, though he’s clearly pissed at her—probably because he’d rather have had a son in her place or something. They aren't exactly the "happily ever after" type. But everyone else around them seems to be having a blast.

They’ve got this land, a potential buyer is circling, and for the old guy, selling is the only way out—his one shot at actually making a move. Everyone is on edge, while the kid is just messing around because she clearly doesn't grasp how serious things are; she's living in her own little bubble.

Look, it’s just a classic, universal life situation. It’s got nothing to do with nationality, or some country, or Virgin Paradise, or any of that other nonsense. Why do we have to drag those heavy themes back into it?

And the scenery—the beach bodies, the tanning, the Camel Toe vibes, the sun, diving, swimming, the afternoon naps, etc., etc.—that stuff is there to show us the prettier side of the story. It gives us a balance. We get the gritty problems, but we also get that famous "slice of life" feeling that builds up to the climax

Honestly, the fact that I didn't see the ending coming is a win in my book. 🤷

Besides, I don't even need to know the details. What I saw was enough. I’ve got plenty of my own crap to deal with in real life.

Justin Richardson7 said:Look, you're saying the characters are lost, but honestly, you're acting like the whole damn concept is missing too.

Man, there are plenty of families out there living through absolute chaos—it’s just life.

Why on earth does everything in this movie have to be perfectly lined up and organized like some corporate spreadsheet?

The "lack of cohesion" isn't a mistake; it's actually what cranks up the intensity for the audience. 🤷

It's just one director making a totally valid artistic choice, nothing more, nothing less.

I’m no film critic, but since this is a forum, I'll keep my thoughts brief...

First off, I only sat down to watch this because of some posts on this thread. I tend to fall into that camp where I think the phrase "a good American film" is basically an oxymoron😁. Sadly, this movie just reinforced that belief for me🤦

Regarding the acting, Lucev is pretty standard... the mother feels unfinished, the daughter is cute but lacks any real depth, and the wealthy guy isn't worth mentioning

The characters are totally confused, poorly developed, and just... unclear. For instance, the father is portrayed through this predictable stereotype of a stubborn, old-school guy from the South who's just looking for an easy way to make a buck without working for it. Of course, because he's so stubborn, the director thought adding violence would fit perfectly too. But once we saw those first two shots, she really should have stopped there. Instead, I spent most of the film sitting there in this uneasy dread🙄 that eventually, a scene was coming where the father—probably drunk and under the influence of a high ABV in some dive bar—would raise his hand to the little girl. In a way, that's exactly what happened when he isolated her in that cell. It makes you question the logic of his character and the contradictions involved. I mean, how likely is it that someone like him—a pragmatic, hard-nosed guy who's willing to sink everything into a deal just to secure an inheritance—would punch a wealthy man and ruin all his life plans just because of something the girl did? In the real world, that's a huge stretch...

Furthermore, I don't get why the director felt the need to artificially force this non-existent sex appeal onto the daughter, who, realistically, could only be seen as "sexy" by some kid her own age. Setting aside the fact that she isn't even particularly attractive, especially in the face, despite having a decent figure... the girl is angry from the start and pushes back against everything, yet the film tries to portray her as this childish, gullible, naive teenager, which is just what a teen is. So, where's the sex appeal?? Even if she were much more physically beautiful, sex appeal should be about so much more than that

To wrap up that point regarding the director's baffling intentions—and I'm certainly no puritan—that scene where they almost zoom in on her camel toe was just unnecessary, over the top, and tasteless

Finally, the thing that really pushed me over the edge was seeing the main soap mogul, Milan Štrljić, appearing in that shot during the land negotiations. Haven't they made enough money off soaps already??

In conclusion, the only good part for me was the final scene, or rather, the message the director intended to send, provided I didn't misinterpret it

Specifically, I took the daughter showing up at the pier the next morning, during the usual daylight hours, as a sign that after a sleepless night, she finally realized that family is all you really have. Also, if I caught correctly what Lucev was saying in their final dialogue, he was trying to let her know that everything except family is deceptive and fleeting. To me, it felt like a clear allusion to, on one hand, the wealthy families who come and go, and on the other, the family that stays put

Anyway, to sum it all up, it was all too poorly done for me, even by the standards of low-budget American cinema. But hey, like I said, I'm just a layman when it comes to movies...

Anthony Lewis79 said:He was trying to make the point to her that everything outside of family is deceptive and fleeting. To me, it’s a clear allusion to the wealthy, entitled types who drift in and out of existence versus the family that actually remains.

If things worked the way you're describing, we would actually have a definitive conclusion. The movie would possess some sort of "point," a coherent arc where characters move predictably from point A to point B.

But that isn't what happens here.
They don't end up peaceful or settled; they're still just as pissed off as they were at the start. There is a specific kind of aimless, unmotivated frustration found in Americans living along the coast that deserves its own dedicated symposium—one could spend hours dissecting films like Haloa, Alexi, Pijat, Two Sunny Days, Theresa, Mar, Kaja, I'll Kill You, and so on. It is a classic inversion of expectations: people travel to these places seeking meaning and tranquility, much like the themes explored in Rossellini's Viaggio in Italia, or classics like Zorba the Greek and the Mediterranean.

Patrick Martin,
I can't really help you if you refuse to accept that her choice is legitimate. You can argue she's just focusing on those hollow, insignificant families that are everywhere, but a work becomes objectively better or more sophisticated when it possesses a cohesive structure. In this instance, for example, the father, the daughter, and the mother should ideally realize that their issues aren't rooted in money or transactions; rather, it is that very instability and obsession with material deals that prevents them from finding themselves. Making a film that follows that trajectory would provide the story with actual substance. From there, it is up to the director to weave that meaning through the narrative layers so clearly that the audience isn't left guessing about the intended message.

The reason we see such conflicting interpretations here is because the message isn't clear. One viewer sees the film as Julia's liberation, while another sees it as an allusion to the primacy of family. These contradictions arise precisely because the film is muddled, and it feels as though even the director isn't entirely certain of what she's trying to say with this piece.

Watch out, the interpretation police have arrived on this thread. 🥱

Justin Richardson7 said:If things worked the way you claim, we’d actually have a coherent ending. The movie would have a "point," a clear progression where characters move from point A to point B.

But that’s just not happening.
They don't end up happy and peaceful; they're still pissed off. That unmotivated rage of the American spirit in the Mediterranean is its own damn subject—we could hold a whole symposium on it, analyzing everything from Haloa and Alexi to Pijat, Two Sunny Days, Theresa, Mar, Kaja, I'll kill you, and so on. It’s the exact opposite of the classic setup where people come to find meaning or peace. Think Rossellini and Viaggio in Italia, Zorba the Greek, Mediterranean, etc.

Help me out here,
I can't help you if you refuse to see that her choice is legitimate (you claim she can do what she did because the families involved are just trash), but any work is objectively better or superior when it actually has a structure. In this case, for example: the father, daughter, and mother should realize that their problems aren't about money, transactions, or buying and selling. It's that very lack of stability and the obsession with deals that causes the issues and prevents them from finding themselves. Making a film in that direction would provide actual cohesion. Then it's up to the director to develop that meaning through the story and thematic layers so clearly that the audience isn't left guessing what the message is.

Since that isn't clear here, you get these conflicting interpretations: one person thinks the message is about Julia's liberation, while another thinks the subtext is that family is everything. These misinterpretations happen precisely because the film is a mess, and even the director doesn't seem to know what she's trying to say with this piece.

You don't know anything about life, let alone life in the American South. For God's sake, why are you attacking Pijat now?! At least that's an excellent film—personally, the best American film ever (though there isn't much competition).
You only showed up to this thread to act high and mighty and dump your "wisdom" on us, but the real question is what are you actually capable of creating (if anything)?

edit: And what on earth is "unmotivated rage"? How can rage be unmotivated? For crying out loud.

You’re acting like you’re personally part of some elite group of high-strung Americans on the Mediterranean coast.
We are literally just discussing a single movie.

Pijat? Give me a break.
It’s just that little girl of yours who seems unmotivated and unnecessarily aggressive.
But if that’s truly the best film you can find, then perhaps you actually have a few coherent thoughts to share. If so, we can talk.

ps - you really don't need to worry about my capabilities. For instance, I am perfectly capable of writing about the film Murina, so there's no need for you to get this worked up. I was just poking fun at you in a typical Dalmatian way. Don't take it to heart; I'm being friendly, as you can see by how civilly I discuss cinema...

Justin Richardson7 said:If things aren't clear here, it's because they're throwing contradictory views at you: one side thinks the movie is about Julia finding her freedom, while the other sees it as an allusion to family being everything. All this misinterpretation happens precisely because the film is a mess—it feels like even the director isn't quite sure what she’s trying to say with this thing.

But look, my dear friend, you're acting like the director didn't have a script laid out from A to Z, and honestly, I just can't buy that, nor do I want to waste my energy arguing it.

I truly believe her intention was just to show the inner turmoil of a young woman during a specific stage of growing up. And personally? I think she nailed it. I actually managed to get sucked into the movie, which is already a massive win for an American production like this. And frankly, I don't give a damn if the film has a perfect "Point A" and "Point B." Drama is the kind of genre where those famous plot points usually go right out the window.🤷

I went into this totally unbiased and without any preconceived notions (like I do with every movie, really), and I didn't feel any of that stuff you're throwing at it and complaining about, sorry, but whatever.🤷

And it’s just not right to be this hard on a director making her debut.

Besides, I'm just happy I finally saw an American film that promotes our beautiful culture to a foreign audience in such a subtle, non-pretentious way. Especially to the international crowd.

Am I really being cast as the villain here?
Honestly, you people have completely lost the plot.

I’d be willing to put my money on the line if we could actually sit down and have a serious conversation about this one film, but apparently, people just can't help themselves from getting worked up over nothing.
Look, I get it, everything you're saying technically checks out, but you’ve clearly lost yourself in the movie. You’re acting completely unburdened by reality—as if you actually believe other people are coming from a place of pure malice.

You still haven't actually given me a straight answer as to why you avoid American cinema, yet you seem perfectly content to celebrate whenever they start promoting our beautiful homeland.

Justin Richardson7 said:Am I really the bad guy here? Seriously?
Honestly, you guys have completely lost the plot. Seriously.

I’d honestly put my money on the line if we could just sit down and actually talk about this one movie, but instead... everyone just loses their minds over nothing. Seriously.
Help me out here—look, everything you’re saying makes sense, really, but man, you are way too deep in this movie. You’ve totally lost touch with reality. It’s like you’re living in some scripted drama where you just assume everyone else is out to get you. You honestly think people are acting out of pure malice? Give me a break.

Look, don't be so literal about it. You’re basically drinking from a firehose when you shouldn't even be touching the tap. I get the feeling you're just dumping every single failure of recent American cinema onto this one movie, and honestly? That's a bit much. 🤷

Look, man, I’m just out here defending my ground. I don't care what anyone says—I honestly think this movie is actually worth watching.

You still haven't actually given me a straight answer as to why you won't sit down and watch American movies... yet you’re all smiles the second they start promoting the good old ways. It's wild.

Look, I don't even bother watching them because, honestly? The quality just isn't there. It’s amateur hour. If you want my take, Comic Sans and that one other font have been the only things worth looking at lately. Everything else is just trash. 🤷

I honestly think we need to start making movies like this specifically for the international market. Seriously, I’m reaching my breaking point with our local crowd—they just don't get it anymore. It's exhausting.

The movie Murina definitely has both motivation and clear direction. Your issue isn't with the film; it's that you don't understand how art—whether it's literature or cinema—works. There are endings designed specifically to leave things unresolved, sometimes even adding layers of complexity rather than providing neat answers. That’s on you.
You haven't even come close to identifying the actual flaws in this film. Some characters are completely one-dimensional—take the father, for instance, as my colleague pointed out—and they feel pretty stereotypical, driven by ambitions and fears we've all seen a thousand times before.

Furthermore, you still haven't explained what you mean by that typical, irrational coastal anger.
Honestly, that’s an incredible statement that sounds more like disguised hatred or jealousy toward people from the coast (and I see that sentiment isn't limited just to the Tourism thread). It's exactly like me claiming that New York City residents are irrationally angry simply because they have access to better social and professional opportunities due to centralization. People are far more complex than just the observation that "they live by the ocean and have money."

Ethan Davis34 said:so basically an incredible statement that’s actually just disguised hatred or envy toward Dalmatians

are you actually losing your mind???
disguised hatred toward Dalmatians, haha. I'll be recovering from this one for a month—my beautiful Dalmos being under siege.

just be serious for a second.
I am simply saying that this specific brand of American irritability found along the Mediterranean is a fascinating subject for some sort of forum symposium. What I mean is: we just need to determine where it all stems from.

It seems like you, much like Patrick Martin, don't really watch American films. I gave you a lineup of irritable Dalmatians in American cinema. I framed it as problematic, not incomprehensible. The fact that the protagonist wanders around with a Walkman strapped to his head listening to Schwarz Hund in Haloa (which, by the way, is a great track) while sulking through his sixteenth year—it's all unmotivated and agitated. The spoiled nature of Alexi, the indulgence of Julia, the sheer pointlessness of that little girl in Pijat, etc. Why is Lucev so wound up in Two Sunny Days? He heads out to Velebit, a stunning American mountain range. You'd think he'd go there to catch some fresh air, rather than acting all high-strung and aggressively pursuing some overly precious doll. If he can't enjoy Velebit or admire her figure, he should at least try to charm her with some actual sovereignty. Instead, he just ends up shooting himself in the foot with his own gun. It is all unmotivated, angry, and lost... and then it falls on us to sit here and have a nice little chat on a forum... instead of you getting worked up like a child and accusing me of having no clue... as if I'm some kind of pure American soul with a heart of gold...

so, take a deep breath, and let's start over.
you'll find you feel much better that way.

I actually have a short story of my own—it won first prize in a contest—that’s pretty much in the style of Murina. Only in my version, the whole thing is set deep in Appalachia, where a traditionalist father takes his daughter out on a wild boar hunt. Even the ending is similar; except in my story, you're left wondering if the carcass on the ground is the father or the beast.
Basically, the idea that a young person can't truly find themselves in the middle of some rural backwater is still incredibly relevant, whether it's my work or the author's. But sure, go ahead and call it "unjustified rage"—what an oxymoron 🤣