4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days.

...absolutely stunning—it’s been a long time since a movie gripped me quite like this...
Set in 1989, during the final days of the Stalinist era. With perfect, deliberate pacing, Steven Spielberg unspools the narrative, subtly pulling us through the bleak, gray landscapes and suffocating interiors of a decaying America, amidst faces of people with zero options—where "finding a way under the radar" becomes the only way to survive.
I won't spoil the plot...
For those who have seen it, what are your thoughts?

absolutely killer movie :-)

Hands down one of the best movies from last year. It’s a fantastic piece of filmmaking that I think everyone should see.
That's what you call great acting, great writing, and great directing.

A solid five stars! 👍

Just got back from the first screening and a looooong coffee break.

The movie?

It’s excellent.
It keeps the momentum going for that Romanian New Wave tradition that just keeps churning out masterpieces.
My only real gripe—compared to what Nemescu and Puiuu have done—is that "4 Months" takes its usual narrative flow and suddenly spikes it to a massive peak (that abortion scene in the room), but then struggles to keep up that high energy, causing the pace to dip before it climbs back up for a triumphant finish. Nemescu and Puiuu didn't really have those issues; they maintained a consistently high level that actually built toward the end. "4 Months" jumps too high too fast, then settles back down to where it should have stayed all along.
Because of that tiny nitpick, I'm giving it a 9.5/10. It doesn't quite hit the heights of "Lazaresc" or "California Dreamin'," but that doesn't change the fact that, as redowl90 mentioned, it was easily one of the best films of last year. Period.
The acting is superb, and the direction is masterful. We all know long takes are trendy right now, but you've got your Hollywood-style long takes with constant action, and then you've got these types of shots where things are more passive. This direction couldn't be better.

It’s a brilliant film as it stands, but with one little tweak to the dramaturgy, it would be an absolute masterpiece.

Can you walk me through the exact moment when a movie starts to lose its dramatic momentum?

redowl90 said:Can you walk me through the exact moment when a movie starts to lose its dramatic momentum?

It’s right after the lead girl walks out of that "room of evil" where everything finally hits the peak.
Then comes the whole sequence with her riding the subway, getting to the boyfriend's place, and dealing with his parents—well, mostly just eavesdropping on them. They’re just sitting there eating and talking, shoving all their high-and-mighty doctrines down her throat while she’s left totally lost about what happened with her stupid friend.

It’s not that the segment is bad. Honestly, there are some great bits—like when the phone rings "quietly" in the background, or that part where she complains he thinks her parents are idiots compared to his doctors. She ends up sneaking into his old bedroom to bring them some fancy French dessert, even using the actual French name for it.
It isn't terrible, per se, but after that intense, hilarious, and looooong stretch in the room, this stuff feels way too slow. It just drags the whole thing back down to a basic level.

I forgot to mention that I ran into some acquaintances at the screening who claim to be huge cinephiles. We chatted for a bit afterward, and they were blunt: "Slow, boring, dragged out, monotonous, total waste of time. How did this thing even win an award?"

Amanda Nguyen5 said:It’s right after the lead girl walks out of that "room of evil" where everything finally hits the peak.
Then comes the whole sequence with her riding the subway, getting to the boyfriend's place, and dealing with his parents—well, mostly just eavesdropping on them. They’re just sitting there eating and talking, shoving all their high-and-mighty doctrines down her throat while she’s left totally lost about what happened with her stupid friend.

It’s not that the segment is bad. Honestly, there are some great bits—like when the phone rings "quietly" in the background, or that part where she complains he thinks her parents are idiots compared to his doctors. She ends up sneaking into his old bedroom to bring them some fancy French dessert, even using the actual French name for it.
It isn't terrible, per se, but after that intense, hilarious, and looooong stretch in the room, this stuff feels way too slow. It just drags the whole thing back down to a basic level.

I forgot to mention that I ran into some acquaintances at the screening who claim to be huge cinephiles. We chatted for a bit afterward, and they were blunt: "Slow, boring, dragged out, monotonous, total waste of time. How did this thing even win an award?"

Haha, well... depends on how you look at it. Personally, I don't think there's a dip here because we needed to see how the whole subplot with the boyfriend would resolve since he was already part of the story. That bit with the phone ringing in the background while the rest of the family talks endlessly was actually incredibly effective. And their conversation in the guy's room and her abrupt exit? I loved it. I didn't feel the tension slackening at all, mostly because the question of "what happened to the friend" is hanging in the air the entire time; you can practically taste it.
Besides, you can't keep a movie at a constant, breakneck tension from start to finish. But once you realize what the movie is actually about and what might happen next, the tension stays constant.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:It’s right after the lead girl walks out of that "room of evil" where everything finally hits the peak.
Then comes the whole sequence with her riding the subway, getting to the boyfriend's place, and dealing with his parents—well, mostly just eavesdropping on them. They’re just sitting there eating and talking, shoving all their high-and-mighty doctrines down her throat while she’s left totally lost about what happened with her stupid friend.

It’s not that the segment is bad. Honestly, there are some great bits—like when the phone rings "quietly" in the background, or that part where she complains he thinks her parents are idiots compared to his doctors. She ends up sneaking into his old bedroom to bring them some fancy French dessert, even using the actual French name for it.
It isn't terrible, per se, but after that intense, hilarious, and looooong stretch in the room, this stuff feels way too slow. It just drags the whole thing back down to a basic level.

I forgot to mention that I ran into some acquaintances at the screening who claim to be huge cinephiles. We chatted for a bit afterward, and they were blunt: "Slow, boring, dragged out, monotonous, total waste of time. How did this thing even win an award?"

I think the most important part of that sentence is: "...who claim to be huge cinephiles..."
They should go watch a Haneke film instead!

I agree—it doesn't quite land. In that specific segment, she really has to face two things: processing what actually happened and bracing for the fallout. To me, that’s the true heart of the movie—it captures that core internal struggle of an individual clashing with decisions forced upon them, essentially dealing with a total lack of agency. That dinner scene? Absolute peak. The part in the room with the guy is a bit weak—honestly unnecessary since it just explains what's already obvious. But from there, the pacing stays intense right until the end... pure adrenaline.

redowl90 said:Haha, well... depends on how you look at it. Personally, I don't think there's a dip here because we needed to see how the whole subplot with the boyfriend would resolve since he was already part of the story. That bit with the phone ringing in the background while the rest of the family talks endlessly was actually incredibly effective. And their conversation in the guy's room and her abrupt exit? I loved it. I didn't feel the tension slackening at all, mostly because the question of "what happened to the friend" is hanging in the air the entire time; you can practically taste it.
Besides, you can't keep a movie at a constant, breakneck tension from start to finish. But once you realize what the movie is actually about and what might happen next, the tension stays constant.

I think the most important part of that sentence is: "...who claim to be huge cinephiles..."
They should go watch a Haneke film instead!

I mentioned the phone thing earlier, but honestly, the tension definitely lets up a bit. The "what's happening with the friend" subplot tries to be pushed to the background by showing us something else entirely, but it shouldn't work that way. For me, it worked, and honestly, the focus shifted more toward what's happening with them rather than "what's happening with her?". That question is still hovering in the air, like you said, but it’s definitely suppressed. Plus, when she returns to the hotel, we see that even the friend herself has suppressed her own "question," since she's basically half-asleep.
Can you make a movie tense at the exact same level the whole time? No, you can't. You go through a natural flow and slightly ramp up the intensity, but I've already said what I think about the tension in this specific film.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it again: the movie is excellent.
And about what you said at the end, "once you realize what it's about." Man, I've seen so many times where people just skimmed over the plot and wrote things like "girls are aborting" and stuff, which is just stupid. The movie is intentionally made so that for the first thirty or forty-five minutes, you don't quite get what they want; instead, you see that whatever they want, they can't quite grab it (which is the whole point), all while the abortion theme is being shoved in our faces. It's unnecessary. It would have been better if nobody knew anything about the movie beforehand. Though, yeah, you really couldn't avoid that word.

Now I just remembered the beginning. Two genius little details: the main character first says she'll "handle everything with the conductors without any problems," and then when she gets back to the room and her friend asks, "Why did you come back?", she replies, "Don't be superstitious (you aren't a peasant, or something like that)."
Just three minutes later, she goes from being almost kicked off by the conductor to being saved by some nice people who give her a ticket. Then five minutes after that, when the guy tells her to buy 48 roses for his mom's birthday, she says with this slight hint of fear: "Why an even number? Never an even number."
Both those bits show she's screwed. Not heavily, but seriously screwed.
While the second one is deeply, seriously screwed (not regarding the abortion, but just generally regarding life decisions and behavior), but that's a different story.

redowl90 said:Haha, well... depends on how you look at it. Personally, I don't think there's a dip here because we needed to see how the whole subplot with the boyfriend would resolve since he was already part of the story. That bit with the phone ringing in the background while the rest of the family talks endlessly was actually incredibly effective. And their conversation in the guy's room and her abrupt exit? I loved it. I didn't feel the tension slackening at all, mostly because the question of "what happened to the friend" is hanging in the air the entire time; you can practically taste it.
Besides, you can't keep a movie at a constant, breakneck tension from start to finish. But once you realize what the movie is actually about and what might happen next, the tension stays constant.

I think the most important part of that sentence is: "...who claim to be huge cinephiles..."
They should go watch a Haneke film instead!

Look, I'm not even worried about them, I'm just pointing things out.
Haneke is great, but don't go bringing up Haneke unless you want Xavi to ban you.

Thomas Chavez8 said:I agree—it doesn't quite land. In that specific segment, she really has to face two things: processing what actually happened and bracing for the fallout. To me, that’s the true heart of the movie—it captures that core internal struggle of an individual clashing with decisions forced upon them, essentially dealing with a total lack of agency. That dinner scene? Absolute peak. The part in the room with the guy is a bit weak—honestly unnecessary since it just explains what's already obvious. But from there, the pacing stays intense right until the end... pure adrenaline.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I remember Wilde saying that fools contradict others while the wise contradict themselves, but honestly, there is no internal conflict here because there's simply no room for one. You almost hint at it later by mentioning a "lack of freedom" or "forced decisions," but I really don't get why you'd put two opposing ideas in the exact same sentence.
It's not that I care, I'm just saying.

Just finished watching... 👍 👍 🤮

Honestly, what a stroke of genius—it's one of those brilliant films that I am absolutely, 100% never going to watch again!

The framing 👍 😁

You’re either 1) contradicting yourself, or 2) you have no idea what you're talking about, so you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I recall Wild once noted that fools contradict others while the wise only contradict themselves—but even then, there isn't an internal conflict within her, because there's simply no room for one. You almost sense this later through the references to a "lack of freedom and choice" or "imposed decisions," but I fail to see why you'd present two opposing theses in a single sentence.

It's not that I care; I'm just saying.

How can you say there's no conflict? She has been blatantly betrayed on multiple levels, and none of her dilemmas have an exit strategy... that entire stretch from the sex scene onward reeks of her tangled emotions—shame, guilt, anger, fear for her friend, and this desperate urge to see things through to the end. You can feel it in those long silences, the way she walks, the drives, the dinners. She had a choice: she could have been a total coward and screwed everything up, or she could play the naive saint who got played—and she knows exactly which one she chose. When she looks at her friend in the restroom mirror, or even when she says goodbye to head to dinner, she’s simultaneously livid over the betrayal and motherly in her concern. At dinner, she’s paranoid and fixated on Gabita, all while becoming increasingly aware of the looming impossibility of any future choices—options that just keep mounting (living with a boyfriend, the possibility of an abortion, the hypocrisy of the people at the table). Their conversations provide us with the echoes of her thoughts, which are only subtly hinted at through her facial expressions and movements... before she finally voices them in the room. That’s why I think it's unnecessary.

I guess Maaaaalkice might have trimmed those long shots while following the lead actress—especially that sequence on the stairs—but honestly, all in all, it’s a seriously, seriously good movie. It never falls into those tired clichés, and the way it handles human nature is just spot on.

By the way, I walked out of the theater thinking how incredibly glad I am that I made it through my own sensitive, formative twenties without dealing with situations quite that insane (or at least, not on screen). When you're twenty, it feels like there are zero options, whereas when you're ten, you actually have a better sense of just how many choices were really there.

Thomas Chavez8 said:You’re either 1) contradicting yourself, or 2) you have no idea what you're talking about, so you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I recall Wild once noted that fools contradict others while the wise only contradict themselves—but even then, there isn't an internal conflict within her, because there's simply no room for one. You almost sense this later through the references to a "lack of freedom and choice" or "imposed decisions," but I fail to see why you'd present two opposing theses in a single sentence.

How can you say there's no conflict? She has been blatantly betrayed on multiple levels, and none of her dilemmas have an exit strategy... that entire stretch from the sex scene onward reeks of her tangled emotions—shame, guilt, anger, fear for her friend, and this desperate urge to see things through to the end. You can feel it in those long silences, the way she walks, the drives, the dinners. She had a choice: she could have been a total coward and screwed everything up, or she could play the naive saint who got played—and she knows exactly which one she chose. When she looks at her friend in the restroom mirror, or even when she says goodbye to head to dinner, she’s simultaneously livid over the betrayal and motherly in her concern. At dinner, she’s paranoid and fixated on Gabita, all while becoming increasingly aware of the looming impossibility of any future choices—options that just keep mounting (living with a boyfriend, the possibility of an abortion, the hypocrisy of the people at the table). Their conversations provide us with the echoes of her thoughts, which are only subtly hinted at through her facial expressions and movements... before she finally voices them in the room. That’s why I think it's unnecessary.

Just go all in on the betting.
2. There aren't any options here. Once she decided to take that path at the start, she had to see it through to the bitter end. No choice. Just like their little fish (or fishes, whatever), sitting there alone after they all left—it wasn't by choice, but now that she's stuck, there’s nothing left to do but sit tight and starve for two days.
And just pray someone doesn't come along and fill her up.
Some kind of gust of wind.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Just go all in on the betting.
2. There aren't any options here. Once she decided to take that path at the start, she had to see it through to the bitter end. No choice. Just like their little fish (or fishes, whatever), sitting there alone after they all left—it wasn't by choice, but now that she's stuck, there’s nothing left to do but sit tight and starve for two days.
And just pray someone doesn't come along and fill her up.
Some kind of gust of wind.

Look, I never actually said she had a choice. Either of those two paths would have led to the exact same result... I was simply saying that the conflict and the internal struggle were happening within her.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Just go all in on the betting.
2. There aren't any options here. Once she decided to take that path at the start, she had to see it through to the bitter end. No choice. Just like their little fish (or fishes, whatever), sitting there alone after they all left—it wasn't by choice, but now that she's stuck, there’s nothing left to do but sit tight and starve for two days.
And just pray someone doesn't come along and fill her up.
Some kind of gust of wind.

Honestly, there are very few moments in life where you truly have zero options, and I don't think this was one of them. Usually, when people say they have no choice, it’s just because they can't see the alternatives right in front of them.

I feel like you missed the actual point here. It's about how we're constantly making decisions—some good, some pretty terrible—that end up shaping our lives and everyone else's too. And honestly, the movie is great mainly because it captures that reality so well.

I don't think it's really about making the decisions themselves—it’s more about how you carry the weight of them, especially when they aren't even a matter of personal preference, but rather just navigating a narrow set of options and trying to make do with what you've got.

Michelle Wells3 said:Honestly, there are very few moments in life where you truly have zero options, and I don't think this was one of them. Usually, when people say they have no choice, it’s just because they can't see the alternatives right in front of them.

I feel like you missed the actual point here. It's about how we're constantly making decisions—some good, some pretty terrible—that end up shaping our lives and everyone else's too. And honestly, the movie is great mainly because it captures that reality so well.

Cut the nonsense.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:I mentioned the phone thing earlier, but honestly, the tension definitely lets up a bit. The "what's happening with the friend" subplot tries to be pushed to the background by showing us something else entirely, but it shouldn't work that way. For me, it worked, and honestly, the focus shifted more toward what's happening with them rather than "what's happening with her?". That question is still hovering in the air, like you said, but it’s definitely suppressed. Plus, when she returns to the hotel, we see that even the friend herself has suppressed her own "question," since she's basically half-asleep.
Can you make a movie tense at the exact same level the whole time? No, you can't. You go through a natural flow and slightly ramp up the intensity, but I've already said what I think about the tension in this specific film.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it again: the movie is excellent.
And about what you said at the end, "once you realize what it's about." Man, I've seen so many times where people just skimmed over the plot and wrote things like "girls are aborting" and stuff, which is just stupid. The movie is intentionally made so that for the first thirty or forty-five minutes, you don't quite get what they want; instead, you see that whatever they want, they can't quite grab it (which is the whole point), all while the abortion theme is being shoved in our faces. It's unnecessary. It would have been better if nobody knew anything about the movie beforehand. Though, yeah, you really couldn't avoid that word.

Now I just remembered the beginning. Two genius little details: the main character first says she'll "handle everything with the conductors without any problems," and then when she gets back to the room and her friend asks, "Why did you come back?", she replies, "Don't be superstitious (you aren't a peasant, or something like that)."
Just three minutes later, she goes from being almost kicked off by the conductor to being saved by some nice people who give her a ticket. Then five minutes after that, when the guy tells her to buy 48 roses for his mom's birthday, she says with this slight hint of fear: "Why an even number? Never an even number."
Both those bits show she's screwed. Not heavily, but seriously screwed.
While the second one is deeply, seriously screwed (not regarding the abortion, but just generally regarding life decisions and behavior), but that's a different story.

Look, I'm not even worried about them, I'm just pointing things out.
Haneke is great, but don't go bringing up Haneke unless you want Xavi to ban you.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I remember Wilde saying that fools contradict others while the wise contradict themselves, but honestly, there is no internal conflict here because there's simply no room for one. You almost hint at it later by mentioning a "lack of freedom" or "forced decisions," but I really don't get why you'd put two opposing ideas in the exact same sentence.
It's not that I care, I'm just saying.

I don't see it that way. It really just comes down to how you interpret things, because in my view, nothing was intentionally pushed into the background. To me, her friend stays front and center throughout the entire movie. Everything else—what happens while she’s away from the hotel, staying with her boyfriend and his family, and then later with him—is secondary, if we even need to call it that.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:I mentioned the phone thing earlier, but honestly, the tension definitely lets up a bit. The "what's happening with the friend" subplot tries to be pushed to the background by showing us something else entirely, but it shouldn't work that way. For me, it worked, and honestly, the focus shifted more toward what's happening with them rather than "what's happening with her?". That question is still hovering in the air, like you said, but it’s definitely suppressed. Plus, when she returns to the hotel, we see that even the friend herself has suppressed her own "question," since she's basically half-asleep.
Can you make a movie tense at the exact same level the whole time? No, you can't. You go through a natural flow and slightly ramp up the intensity, but I've already said what I think about the tension in this specific film.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it again: the movie is excellent.
And about what you said at the end, "once you realize what it's about." Man, I've seen so many times where people just skimmed over the plot and wrote things like "girls are aborting" and stuff, which is just stupid. The movie is intentionally made so that for the first thirty or forty-five minutes, you don't quite get what they want; instead, you see that whatever they want, they can't quite grab it (which is the whole point), all while the abortion theme is being shoved in our faces. It's unnecessary. It would have been better if nobody knew anything about the movie beforehand. Though, yeah, you really couldn't avoid that word.

Now I just remembered the beginning. Two genius little details: the main character first says she'll "handle everything with the conductors without any problems," and then when she gets back to the room and her friend asks, "Why did you come back?", she replies, "Don't be superstitious (you aren't a peasant, or something like that)."
Just three minutes later, she goes from being almost kicked off by the conductor to being saved by some nice people who give her a ticket. Then five minutes after that, when the guy tells her to buy 48 roses for his mom's birthday, she says with this slight hint of fear: "Why an even number? Never an even number."
Both those bits show she's screwed. Not heavily, but seriously screwed.
While the second one is deeply, seriously screwed (not regarding the abortion, but just generally regarding life decisions and behavior), but that's a different story.

Look, I'm not even worried about them, I'm just pointing things out.
Haneke is great, but don't go bringing up Haneke unless you want Xavi to ban you.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I remember Wilde saying that fools contradict others while the wise contradict themselves, but honestly, there is no internal conflict here because there's simply no room for one. You almost hint at it later by mentioning a "lack of freedom" or "forced decisions," but I really don't get why you'd put two opposing ideas in the exact same sentence.
It's not that I care, I'm just saying.

Another take on this one. I didn't experience it that way, and I don't think the focus was really on the family bickering at the table. Especially since the camera stays completely static, keeping the lens locked on the main protagonist—who, let's be honest, definitely earns that title—throughout the entire scene.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:I mentioned the phone thing earlier, but honestly, the tension definitely lets up a bit. The "what's happening with the friend" subplot tries to be pushed to the background by showing us something else entirely, but it shouldn't work that way. For me, it worked, and honestly, the focus shifted more toward what's happening with them rather than "what's happening with her?". That question is still hovering in the air, like you said, but it’s definitely suppressed. Plus, when she returns to the hotel, we see that even the friend herself has suppressed her own "question," since she's basically half-asleep.
Can you make a movie tense at the exact same level the whole time? No, you can't. You go through a natural flow and slightly ramp up the intensity, but I've already said what I think about the tension in this specific film.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it again: the movie is excellent.
And about what you said at the end, "once you realize what it's about." Man, I've seen so many times where people just skimmed over the plot and wrote things like "girls are aborting" and stuff, which is just stupid. The movie is intentionally made so that for the first thirty or forty-five minutes, you don't quite get what they want; instead, you see that whatever they want, they can't quite grab it (which is the whole point), all while the abortion theme is being shoved in our faces. It's unnecessary. It would have been better if nobody knew anything about the movie beforehand. Though, yeah, you really couldn't avoid that word.

Now I just remembered the beginning. Two genius little details: the main character first says she'll "handle everything with the conductors without any problems," and then when she gets back to the room and her friend asks, "Why did you come back?", she replies, "Don't be superstitious (you aren't a peasant, or something like that)."
Just three minutes later, she goes from being almost kicked off by the conductor to being saved by some nice people who give her a ticket. Then five minutes after that, when the guy tells her to buy 48 roses for his mom's birthday, she says with this slight hint of fear: "Why an even number? Never an even number."
Both those bits show she's screwed. Not heavily, but seriously screwed.
While the second one is deeply, seriously screwed (not regarding the abortion, but just generally regarding life decisions and behavior), but that's a different story.

Look, I'm not even worried about them, I'm just pointing things out.
Haneke is great, but don't go bringing up Haneke unless you want Xavi to ban you.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I remember Wilde saying that fools contradict others while the wise contradict themselves, but honestly, there is no internal conflict here because there's simply no room for one. You almost hint at it later by mentioning a "lack of freedom" or "forced decisions," but I really don't get why you'd put two opposing ideas in the exact same sentence.
It's not that I care, I'm just saying.

I can't tell if my friend just pushed her question aside, if she was simply exhausted, or if she truly didn't care... But honestly, the woman is being foolish. That’s just the fact of the matter, and that's how I'd describe her decision to just sleep it off.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:I mentioned the phone thing earlier, but honestly, the tension definitely lets up a bit. The "what's happening with the friend" subplot tries to be pushed to the background by showing us something else entirely, but it shouldn't work that way. For me, it worked, and honestly, the focus shifted more toward what's happening with them rather than "what's happening with her?". That question is still hovering in the air, like you said, but it’s definitely suppressed. Plus, when she returns to the hotel, we see that even the friend herself has suppressed her own "question," since she's basically half-asleep.
Can you make a movie tense at the exact same level the whole time? No, you can't. You go through a natural flow and slightly ramp up the intensity, but I've already said what I think about the tension in this specific film.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it again: the movie is excellent.
And about what you said at the end, "once you realize what it's about." Man, I've seen so many times where people just skimmed over the plot and wrote things like "girls are aborting" and stuff, which is just stupid. The movie is intentionally made so that for the first thirty or forty-five minutes, you don't quite get what they want; instead, you see that whatever they want, they can't quite grab it (which is the whole point), all while the abortion theme is being shoved in our faces. It's unnecessary. It would have been better if nobody knew anything about the movie beforehand. Though, yeah, you really couldn't avoid that word.

Now I just remembered the beginning. Two genius little details: the main character first says she'll "handle everything with the conductors without any problems," and then when she gets back to the room and her friend asks, "Why did you come back?", she replies, "Don't be superstitious (you aren't a peasant, or something like that)."
Just three minutes later, she goes from being almost kicked off by the conductor to being saved by some nice people who give her a ticket. Then five minutes after that, when the guy tells her to buy 48 roses for his mom's birthday, she says with this slight hint of fear: "Why an even number? Never an even number."
Both those bits show she's screwed. Not heavily, but seriously screwed.
While the second one is deeply, seriously screwed (not regarding the abortion, but just generally regarding life decisions and behavior), but that's a different story.

Look, I'm not even worried about them, I'm just pointing things out.
Haneke is great, but don't go bringing up Haneke unless you want Xavi to ban you.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I remember Wilde saying that fools contradict others while the wise contradict themselves, but honestly, there is no internal conflict here because there's simply no room for one. You almost hint at it later by mentioning a "lack of freedom" or "forced decisions," but I really don't get why you'd put two opposing ideas in the exact same sentence.
It's not that I care, I'm just saying.

Nothing was misunderstood here. The movie is excellent. We're all on the same page.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:I mentioned the phone thing earlier, but honestly, the tension definitely lets up a bit. The "what's happening with the friend" subplot tries to be pushed to the background by showing us something else entirely, but it shouldn't work that way. For me, it worked, and honestly, the focus shifted more toward what's happening with them rather than "what's happening with her?". That question is still hovering in the air, like you said, but it’s definitely suppressed. Plus, when she returns to the hotel, we see that even the friend herself has suppressed her own "question," since she's basically half-asleep.
Can you make a movie tense at the exact same level the whole time? No, you can't. You go through a natural flow and slightly ramp up the intensity, but I've already said what I think about the tension in this specific film.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it again: the movie is excellent.
And about what you said at the end, "once you realize what it's about." Man, I've seen so many times where people just skimmed over the plot and wrote things like "girls are aborting" and stuff, which is just stupid. The movie is intentionally made so that for the first thirty or forty-five minutes, you don't quite get what they want; instead, you see that whatever they want, they can't quite grab it (which is the whole point), all while the abortion theme is being shoved in our faces. It's unnecessary. It would have been better if nobody knew anything about the movie beforehand. Though, yeah, you really couldn't avoid that word.

Now I just remembered the beginning. Two genius little details: the main character first says she'll "handle everything with the conductors without any problems," and then when she gets back to the room and her friend asks, "Why did you come back?", she replies, "Don't be superstitious (you aren't a peasant, or something like that)."
Just three minutes later, she goes from being almost kicked off by the conductor to being saved by some nice people who give her a ticket. Then five minutes after that, when the guy tells her to buy 48 roses for his mom's birthday, she says with this slight hint of fear: "Why an even number? Never an even number."
Both those bits show she's screwed. Not heavily, but seriously screwed.
While the second one is deeply, seriously screwed (not regarding the abortion, but just generally regarding life decisions and behavior), but that's a different story.

Look, I'm not even worried about them, I'm just pointing things out.
Haneke is great, but don't go bringing up Haneke unless you want Xavi to ban you.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I remember Wilde saying that fools contradict others while the wise contradict themselves, but honestly, there is no internal conflict here because there's simply no room for one. You almost hint at it later by mentioning a "lack of freedom" or "forced decisions," but I really don't get why you'd put two opposing ideas in the exact same sentence.
It's not that I care, I'm just saying.

Before I watched this, I had absolutely no clue what I was getting into. I've actually reached a point where I've stopped doing any research on the internet about films, watching trailers, or reading synopses... anything, really. I just realized that watching a movie that way is much more rewarding. So, I didn't have any idea what this was about; I just popped the disc into the player and hit "play."

The movie is honestly great. I actually love how much debate there is regarding its meaning or what the core story is really about. I find myself leaning toward what Michelle Wells3 mentioned—it’s all about choices and their consequences when you're stuck in a rough spot, both personally and socially.
By the way, Michelle Wells3 noted how effectively the film captures human character.
Could someone help me compare and contrast Otilia and Gabita? Is there a psychologist on this forum?