4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days.

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.

Nice catch on that connection.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Cut the nonsense.

Look.

That's just how I experienced the movie. Your fatalistic take is just as valid a perspective. It’s very... Coelho-esque, I guess.

redowl90 said: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.

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.

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.

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

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."

Well, alright then. It’s always about "different interpretations," isn't it?

redowl90 said: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.

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.

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.

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

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."

Hmm. You really have to chew on that one. I didn't spend much time dwelling on it. But honestly, the focus the film seemed to aim for wasn't actually either of them—it was just the general state of things, from their situation down to the abortion clinic (interesting, how do you even refer to someone performing an abortion?). You should give your theory some serious thought, but I don't think that's quite how it landed for me. Even if one of them "carries" the film—meaning they hold the foreground, obviously not the quality—I’d call her the protagonist, but I’ll probably stick to what I said at the start: neither of them actually matters.

redowl90 said: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.

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.

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.

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

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."

Different interpretations again. To me, that stillness and monotony reflected the character's own state—so monotonous, slow, pointless, and trivial. And the "worst" part—exactly what is being shown to us—is that the actual high-stakes situation (tense, significant, a real "yes" or "no" moment) is the very thing we are denied access to, even though everyone (the director, the actors, the characters, and us) would kill to see it.

redowl90 said: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.

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.

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.

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

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."

😂😂

redowl90 said: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.

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.

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.

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

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."

👍

redowl90 said: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.

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.

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.

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

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."

Man, I didn't read up on it either, let alone watch a trailer (does one even exist?😁), or dig through a synopsis or whatever. But this movie was being talked about everywhere—from reviews at Cannes to essays on the Romanian New Wave to the Sundance Film Festival. People were buzzing about it constantly. It was honestly impossible to avoid knowing that "4 Months" is about abortion, just like I can't avoid knowing that "Deer Hunter" is about war, even though I've been waiting for a peaceful day to finally sit down and see it.

redowl90 said: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.

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.

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.

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

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."

I saw it in the theater, and it was awesome. Look, I try not to go to stuff in theaters lately if I can help it, but I'm telling you, it was great seeing it on the big screen.
As for "paziti seks" by liti Anga and that Winnerašnicla cycle? Yeah, that's a wrap. Done and dusted.

Michelle Wells3 said:Look.

That's just how I experienced the movie. Your fatalistic take is just as valid a perspective. It’s very... Coelho-esque, I guess.

Look.
Experience the movie however you want.

But don't talk nonsense.

...alright, guys and girls, look—everyone’s entitled to their own take on things. throwing insults isn't really an argument, is it? 🙂

Seriously, I don't see how I’ve offended anyone here.

Unless you think calling my opinion "Coelho-esque" is an insult? Because honestly, I don't take it that way. I've read Coelho before, and I definitely don't hold him in as low regard as the rest of the world seems to—and let's be real, most people barely grasp actual literature anyway.
Don't get me wrong, though; I'm not exactly singing his praises.

But enough about that, since it's not even what this thread is about.

Amanda Nguyen5, I think you might have mixed up your wires a little bit here. The protagonist doesn't say she'll "sort everything out with the conductors without any issues" (and honestly, I'm not even sure what she'd be solving with them anyway); instead, her friend asks, "Can you pay? I don't even know how to bribe a conductor," and the protagonist just replies, "Don't worry, I'll handle it." There's a bit of a difference there, right?

ruggedmarlin15

ruggedmarlin15 said:Amanda Nguyen5, I think you might have mixed up your wires a little bit here. The protagonist doesn't say she'll "sort everything out with the conductors without any issues" (and honestly, I'm not even sure what she'd be solving with them anyway); instead, her friend asks, "Can you pay? I don't even know how to bribe a conductor," and the protagonist just replies, "Don't worry, I'll handle it." There's a bit of a difference there, right?

ruggedmarlin15

1. Learn how to address people properly. It’s a good life skill to have.
2. Of course there's a difference. The whole conductor thing is secondary; I'm talking about her level of self-confidence and belief in herself. She didn't know how to bribe a conductor either, but she believed she could—that's my point. But honestly, it's not that deep. I explicitly mentioned that this is just one of those many "brilliant little details" that might seem trivial to the plot, but they all add their own flavor to the movie.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:1. Learn how to address people properly. It’s a good life skill to have.
2. Of course there's a difference. The whole conductor thing is secondary; I'm talking about her level of self-confidence and belief in herself. She didn't know how to bribe a conductor either, but she believed she could—that's my point. But honestly, it's not that deep. I explicitly mentioned that this is just one of those many "brilliant little details" that might seem trivial to the plot, but they all add their own flavor to the movie.

Have you ever heard of correction tape?

2. Of course there's a difference. Mentioning the conductor isn't the point; I'm talking about self-confidence and believing in oneself. Even this woman didn't know how to manipulate the conductor, yet she believed she could—that's what I'm getting at.

We could go back and forth on this all day, but I don't feel like getting philosophical when nobody's asking for it.
Take care.

ruggedmarlin15

What an absolute lobotomy of a movie. Honestly, the entire plot could have been condensed into ten minutes, or at least started with something halfway interesting... instead, I just sat there watching the clock, wondering how much longer I had to endure this...

We all sat through it and marveled at those wonderful, glowing reviews...🤷

Just like this one here:

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?"

Larry Cruz51 said:What an absolute lobotomy of a movie. Honestly, the entire plot could have been condensed into ten minutes, or at least started with something halfway interesting... instead, I just sat there watching the clock, wondering how much longer I had to endure this...

We all sat through it and marveled at those wonderful, glowing reviews...🤷

Just like this one here:

So, tell me—how exactly would you have "spiced it up"? How would you have made this film actually worth watching?

Thomas Chavez8 said:So, tell me—how exactly would you have "spiced it up"? How would you have made this film actually worth watching?

I actually just put it on fast forward right at the start...😁

This is some hardcore post-feminist chick flick territory. It’s actually a bit of a shame how much the protagonists remind me of Thelma and Louise: you've got one who's totally naive and spacey, paired with another who's experienced, selfless, and fully aware—within the context of the movie, of course, just so the guys in the room don't feel too insulted by the blatant fact that a woman can really only count on another woman.

In case anyone else is still looking for insight, here’s another stellar critique from Radić: , especially that final paragraph.

I’m glad he’s sharing my take that "Lazarescu" is definitely on another level entirely, though I’d probably rate "4 Months" as just slightly more than "extremely solid."
It’s such a shame he doesn't write more often.
Pavičić, Rubeša, Jurak, Polimac, and that whole crowd at the local daily writing about modern cinema are just playing to the masses—it’s pure populism. Meanwhile, the "Ljetopisičari" crew like Turković, Krivak, Kurelec, and the rest don't even touch modern films, which makes Radić a truly valuable critic in that regard. If only he'd show up a bit more frequently.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:In case anyone else is still looking for insight, here’s another stellar critique from Radić: , especially that final paragraph.

I’m glad he’s sharing my take that "Lazarescu" is definitely on another level entirely, though I’d probably rate "4 Months" as just slightly more than "extremely solid."
It’s such a shame he doesn't write more often.
Pavičić, Rubeša, Jurak, Polimac, and that whole crowd at the local daily writing about modern cinema are just playing to the masses—it’s pure populism. Meanwhile, the "Ljetopisičari" crew like Turković, Krivak, Kurelec, and the rest don't even touch modern films, which makes Radić a truly valuable critic in that regard. If only he'd show up a bit more frequently.

Rubeša is easily the most pretentious critic out there. Every time I read his stuff, I honestly can't stop laughing. The guy is a joke. A total clown with his writing.

I can't even wrap my head around the pieces in HFLJ. Even Matija Kluković couldn't top that level of pretentiousness.

On the flip side, I think Šoša and Radić are great over at National. Personally, one of my favorites is Njegić at Slobodna, thanks to those "free-thinking" and irreverent columns of his. Most of the time, I find myself agreeing with his critiques.

redowl90 said:Rubeša is easily the most pretentious critic out there. Every time I read his stuff, I honestly can't stop laughing. The guy is a joke. A total clown with his writing.

I can't even wrap my head around the pieces in HFLJ. Even Matija Kluković couldn't top that level of pretentiousness.

On the flip side, I think Šoša and Radić are great over at National. Personally, one of my favorites is Njegić at Slobodna, thanks to those "free-thinking" and irreverent columns of his. Most of the time, I find myself agreeing with his critiques.

Even though this isn't really the right time or place, here's a quick reply:

I haven't had much experience with Rubeša, and I haven't read Njegić at all—never even heard of him, honestly. My bad.
But HFLJ puts out some solid pieces, and you can find a few gems in every single issue. Plus, it's pretty much the only magazine actually fighting for this subject, so that earns them an extra point from me.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:In case anyone else is still looking for insight, here’s another stellar critique from Radić: , especially that final paragraph.

I’m glad he’s sharing my take that "Lazarescu" is definitely on another level entirely, though I’d probably rate "4 Months" as just slightly more than "extremely solid."
It’s such a shame he doesn't write more often.
Pavičić, Rubeša, Jurak, Polimac, and that whole crowd at the local daily writing about modern cinema are just playing to the masses—it’s pure populism. Meanwhile, the "Ljetopisičari" crew like Turković, Krivak, Kurelec, and the rest don't even touch modern films, which makes Radić a truly valuable critic in that regard. If only he'd show up a bit more frequently.

That closing bit is gold. He basically tries to play it cool and act like everything is fine, but then admits you can't have the bread without the blood and the sex. I guess the only part in parentheses that actually makes any sense is the one sentence there.

^ Exactly. 😁

Here’s the trailer for the US market, if anyone actually feels like having a good laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1KCZLdLbIQ

redowl90 said:Rubeša is easily the most pretentious critic out there. Every time I read his stuff, I honestly can't stop laughing. The guy is a joke. A total clown with his writing.

I can't even wrap my head around the pieces in HFLJ. Even Matija Kluković couldn't top that level of pretentiousness.

On the flip side, I think Šoša and Radić are great over at National. Personally, one of my favorites is Njegić at Slobodna, thanks to those "free-thinking" and irreverent columns of his. Most of the time, I find myself agreeing with his critiques.

I second this. The crew at National is top-tier, and I’d also throw in Zeljko Luketica from 101ic. Whenever I’m about to watch something, I check what he’s written first. He has some brilliant pieces that really shape my expectations.

Getting back to the movie itself—I watched it yesterday with my girlfriend. Just like some people on this forum argued, she felt the scene where the blonde girl shows up at her boyfriend's mother's birthday party was overblown. And believe it or not, we didn't even fight about it.
Personally, I didn't see it that way. It perfectly captures her sense of agony, from the ringing phone that nobody answers to the blowout fight with her boyfriend. It's tense and masterfully done. Not to mention the ending, where she tries to ditch her bag and runs through those dark streets while the handheld camera follows her. She almost falls out of the frame, reaches the rooftop, drops the bag, and just lets out this deep sigh. It’s brilliant. I will admit, though, that sudden cut at the very end caught me off guard, even if it makes perfect sense. As the blonde said: let's just never speak of this again.
The end

Drew White said:I second this. The crew at National is top-tier, and I’d also throw in Zeljko Luketica from 101ic. Whenever I’m about to watch something, I check what he’s written first. He has some brilliant pieces that really shape my expectations.

Getting back to the movie itself—I watched it yesterday with my girlfriend. Just like some people on this forum argued, she felt the scene where the blonde girl shows up at her boyfriend's mother's birthday party was overblown. And believe it or not, we didn't even fight about it.
Personally, I didn't see it that way. It perfectly captures her sense of agony, from the ringing phone that nobody answers to the blowout fight with her boyfriend. It's tense and masterfully done. Not to mention the ending, where she tries to ditch her bag and runs through those dark streets while the handheld camera follows her. She almost falls out of the frame, reaches the rooftop, drops the bag, and just lets out this deep sigh. It’s brilliant. I will admit, though, that sudden cut at the very end caught me off guard, even if it makes perfect sense. As the blonde said: let's just never speak of this again.
The end

I was actually talking about that specific sequence myself, and I wasn't even saying (and honestly, nobody else used that word either) that it was overplayed. The scene itself is brilliantly directed—it's sharp, direct, and totally unapologetic. But when you look at the movie as a whole, that moment kind of kills the dramatic tension that was building up.
Don't spread misinformation.

Drew White said:I second this. The crew at National is top-tier, and I’d also throw in Zeljko Luketica from 101ic. Whenever I’m about to watch something, I check what he’s written first. He has some brilliant pieces that really shape my expectations.

Getting back to the movie itself—I watched it yesterday with my girlfriend. Just like some people on this forum argued, she felt the scene where the blonde girl shows up at her boyfriend's mother's birthday party was overblown. And believe it or not, we didn't even fight about it.
Personally, I didn't see it that way. It perfectly captures her sense of agony, from the ringing phone that nobody answers to the blowout fight with her boyfriend. It's tense and masterfully done. Not to mention the ending, where she tries to ditch her bag and runs through those dark streets while the handheld camera follows her. She almost falls out of the frame, reaches the rooftop, drops the bag, and just lets out this deep sigh. It’s brilliant. I will admit, though, that sudden cut at the very end caught me off guard, even if it makes perfect sense. As the blonde said: let's just never speak of this again.
The end

Look, Pui uses abrupt cuts like that in "Lazarescu," and I bet Nemescu would have done the exact same thing. It’s really the only right way to end a film with this kind of tone. You do it specifically to show that the ending doesn't actually matter, because in (this kind of, or any) reality, there is no such thing as an "ending." In an art form like film, you just have to mark the spot where it stops.