I find myself struggling with films of this nature, where individuals with mental challenges possess an acute awareness of everything except their own reality. Instead of confronting the truth and understanding the reasons behind their disconnection, they use substances to get them even further from the real world and then see the problem in the world we live in blaming it for all the misfortune in their lives.

A new female resident arrives at the rehabilitation center, or whatever term is used, and proclaims, "my problem is women..." However, the true issue lies within her troubled mind and flawed thought processes. The detrimental influence of her environment has penetrated too deeply, leading her to engage in self-destructive behavior while casting blame on others. Furthermore, the characters project an image of coolness, as defined by their peers-an assembly of individuals who have been granted the chance to "express" themselves through the dismantling of anything of value in life. It appears that the film allows these troubled individuals to take control of the narrative.

While the screenplay itself is well-crafted, I believe that Nadine Crocker, as a writer, should pivot towards more uplifting themes that showcase triumph rather than destruction. Although some viewers may empathize with the protagonist, I found it difficult to do so, as the narrative is rife with justifications and excuses. The boyfriend's remark, "Some people just feel more deeply than others..." left me questioning, "What exactly does that mean?"

The director seems to manipulate the audience's emotions, ensuring that by the conclusion, sympathy is directed solely towards the female lead, neglecting the collateral damage inflicted upon others. The character of Dean, portrayed by Crocker, did not elicit my sympathy; rather, she came across as bothersome, fragile, and unkind to those who cared for her. When her friend inquires, "How do we fix it?", Dean's response, "Live..." suggests a lack of direction and thoughtful consideration, raising the question of why different outcomes would be anticipated.

The ending felt like an attempt to sweeten the bitterness of the rest of the movie, and I am not sure that Nadine Crocker managed to do it. I understand this film as disappointing brainwashing for unsuspected.

I understand that this is supposed to incorporate some her past experience with depression and attempted suicide, and I was down with the portrayal up until the meeting of Trenton at her job which seemed to be her first night there. It just didn't come off as authentic and rather forced. Add that Shiloh Fernandez didn't do a good job on his part and came off rather cringy, plus everyone at that table towered over him. So I couldn't see him leaving his date, slugging a goon and picking a girl fresh out of the nut house pardon my French. The whole thing lacked any realism, but that is just my take on it.

But seriously, if he was trying to comfort a woman who was just sexually harassed by a goon, trying to Casanova her didn't cut it. So I Fast Forwarded past that portion of this movie, and at this juncture at approximately 1 hour and 7 minutes of run time. I am at a loss as to why they choose Shiloh at all. He is so one dimensional and wooden that he could have been used for kindling to start up the wood burning stove or fireplace. He has the same tome no matter what's the subject matter is, where as Nadine Crocket does show emotion and depth at different times depending on what her character should be feeling. Well except for the bar scene which fell back on the usual cliched meetings of the opposite sex.

Would I watch it again, probably not, but it's worth a view.

This review is not just for the director / writer / actor in this movie but its for every combo writer / actor / director in the industry.

I implore you and beg of you tot please pick one profession and stick to it. Its not complicated, its just and right and spares us poor saps who have to watch the movies you produce, a lot of disappointment and despair.

Writers should only write.

Actors should only act.

Directors should only direct.

PERIOD. When you do all three, you create a mess.

Please do not think you can do all three let alone produce something that is in any way watchable.

Please listen to what I am saying, maybe ask some directors only or actors only if I am wrong. I will bet you that if they have a shred of honesty that they would tell you I am right.

Pick one field and stick to it please.....