Two Distant Strangers Review
A controversial short film that I personally loved
This review comes from my Letterboxd profile, where I write movie reviews consistently.
I would love to have respectful discussions about people's potentially polarizing opinions on this short because let me get this out of the way now, I am a white, cisgender, straight male. I'm not going to lie about how I felt about a film on the first watch, but I also want to be open to discussing why it may be a problematic watch in general. If I get off balance in any way with my cluelessness here, I would love to have a respectful discussion about it because I think discussions like that are important. However, I can't lie about what I thought about this short film on the first watch. So, what did I think?
Watch. Two. Distant. Strangers. I don't care when you do it, just watch it. It's on Netflix right now, and it's a half-hour short film that uses a concept that I would argue is sometimes seen as overdone and twists it in a way that makes it socially relevant for our times. Yes, the racial parallels to real-life Black deaths are obvious and not subtle at all, but in my opinion, that's the point this film is trying to get across. The subtlety doesn't lie in the message for this film, it lies in how the narrative EXECUTES that message. Through the narrative device of a time loop, the constant racial and societal struggles that Black people in this country have to go through are emphasized to demonstrate how many things it feels like Black people try to keep themselves safe and avoid conflict and how it never seems to work. Much like the main character of this film is stuck in a literal time loop, Black people have been stuck in a system for WAY too long that actively harms the image of and actions toward their race for situations that should NOT have escalated as far as they have. It's the narrative device that supplies the subtlety of this message, not the events of the plot or story itself. In every turn, Carter has to find a new way to escape this permanent hell he's living in because he simply wants to get home and at every turn, the situation keeps escalating unnecessarily despite his best efforts. That's the brilliance of this short to me -- it takes a very well-known narrative device and makes it topical.
I've also heard the complaints about the death scenes being borderline exploitative, and I guess I don't really see it that way. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand where that viewpoint is coming from because the deaths are often very brutal and very similar to real-life police-related deaths of American Blacks, but to me, even though the deaths were absolutely front and center, they never felt like they were simply there to exploit. They were there to emphasize the true scope of the problem involving police brutality in America, and it never felt to me like a situation was simply made up just to show a Black man dying over and over again.
I also cannot believe that Joey Bada$$ is in this film. I've heard one or two of his songs here and there and really enjoyed what I've heard, but my god, I had no idea the guy had acting chops, too. And you know what? Andrew Howard and Zaria Simone were really good in my opinion, too, and I'm standing by that assessment. The script, while it definitely can have cheesy one-liners at times, is still (again, in my opinion), constantly strong and doesn't just seem to focus on one side of the issue. It allows every main character in this film to have the say of their side of the problem at hand, and I genuinely think that can help with some really important discussions of racial tension in our country today.
Look, it's not like one film or short film or book or piece of art or even one revolutionary act is gonna completely solve the centuries of systematic abuse that Blacks have endured. That kind of issue takes a lot of work and a lot of effort from everyone to slowly weed a racially biased system out of existence. Say what you want about Two Distant Strangers, I will respect your opinion regardless of what you actually think about it, but I'll be damned if it doesn't at least get a discussion going, and while I'm genuinely rating this a five-star score because I personally loved this short as much as I did (it's probably easily gonna be amongst my favorites, if not my absolute favorite), I'm open to discussion. I'm open to hearing different sides. I'm open to a different perspective from someone else and I don't want anyone to be belittled or to belittle anyone else for their opinion. My basic philosophy on pretty much anything at this point is to respect human individuality. Respect the way they were born, respect the way they identify, respect their own personal opinions, and as long as they're not doing anything actively morally wrong, that individuality is not a bad thing. If you HATE this short for one reason or another, that is totally, totally fine. If you agree with me and you LOVE this short, that is totally, totally fine, too. Just don't belittle anyone for having a different opinion from you. Respectfully discuss, and even if someone is so out of boundaries with their moral compass that there's no way to reason with them, don't cause conflict just to cause conflict. Let it be or find a way to stand up against the system that can slowly get us to the better society that we all want. In my opinion, Two Distant Strangers is an absolutely incredible short, and if you agree or if you disagree, I would love to know why. Please discuss openly in the comments if you feel I'm uninformed about anything.
Letter Grade: A+
About the Creator
Jamie Lammers
This is a collection of miscellaneous writing of mine from all over! I hope something here sticks out to you!
Keep reading
More stories from Jamie Lammers and writers in Humans and other communities.
In The Heights Review
This review comes from my Letterboxd profile, where I review every movie I see. Wow, wow, wow! What a night this has been! I'll be honest, this might be a smidge of a biased review partially because I had such an amazing experience with this movie. Yeah, that's right, I saw this movie a month early, and this is actually my first ever advanced screening! My college announced free passes for the movie, so I signed up for one and coincidentally ran into a friend of mine from my old high school who also goes to my college. I'd been meaning to hang out with her for forever, and running into each other and realizing we were BOTH going to see the film was absolutely amazing. This is also the first time I've been in a theater since February of last year, with Birds of Prey being the last film I saw before everything shut down (let me tell you, that's a disappointing last movie to see in theaters). All in all, this was just an absolute blast of a night and one that I won't soon forget, so maybe I'm partially biased in giving this film five stars because of that, but I'll be darned if I didn't also think it's the best film musical I've seen in a long time.
By Jamie Lammers5 years ago in Humans
Hind Rajab: A Child the World Heard Too Late
Cinema has always been a powerful medium for telling stories that history books often reduce to numbers. When a film chooses to focus on a single child caught in the machinery of war, it forces audiences to confront reality not as statistics, but as human loss. The movie inspired by the tragic story of Hind Rajab, a young Palestinian girl, does exactly that. It is not merely a film; it is a testimony, a memorial, and a question posed to the conscience of the world. Hind Rajab’s name became known globally after reports emerged of her final hours during the Gaza conflict. She was a child trapped in circumstances no child should ever experience. The film based on her story does not sensationalize her death, nor does it turn her suffering into spectacle. Instead, it approaches her story with restraint, dignity, and an unwavering focus on innocence lost amid violence. The Story at the Heart of the Film The movie centers on a young Palestinian girl who becomes separated from safety during intense military escalation. Through her eyes, viewers witness fear, confusion, and the fragile hope that someone, somewhere, will come to help. The film follows her final journey—both physical and emotional—using minimal dialogue and powerful visual storytelling. Rather than relying on graphic imagery, the filmmakers choose silence, pauses, and close-up shots to convey terror and vulnerability. This artistic choice makes the film even more haunting. The audience is left to sit with the child’s fear, her calls for help, and the unbearable waiting that defines her final moments. By focusing on Hind as an individual rather than a symbol, the film restores her humanity. She is not portrayed as a political tool, but as a daughter, a child with dreams, and a life that mattered. A Child as the Center of a Global Tragedy What makes this movie particularly impactful is its refusal to shift focus away from the civilian cost of war. The story does not revolve around soldiers, strategies, or power struggles. It revolves around a child who should have been worried about school, friends, and play—not survival. This narrative choice challenges the audience to rethink how conflicts are discussed in media and politics. Wars are often framed in terms of borders, ideologies, and victory. This film asks a different question: What is the price paid by those who have no role in choosing the war? By centering the story on Hind, the film exposes the imbalance of power and the devastating consequences faced by the most vulnerable. Artistic Direction and Emotional Weight The film’s direction is deliberately restrained. There is no dramatic background score overpowering the scenes. Instead, ambient sounds—distant explosions, static-filled phone calls, the quiet breathing of a frightened child—carry the emotional weight. This realism makes the film deeply unsettling. The young actress portraying Hind delivers a performance that is heartbreakingly authentic. Her expressions alone communicate fear, confusion, and bravery far beyond her years. The filmmakers avoid overacting or melodrama, allowing the story’s truth to speak for itself. Cinematography plays a crucial role as well. Tight frames and limited perspectives reinforce the feeling of entrapment, while long, unbroken shots force viewers to experience time as Hind did—slow, uncertain, and terrifying. A Political Film Without Political Speeches One of the film’s greatest strengths is that it does not rely on speeches or overt political messaging. Its power lies in its simplicity. By telling one child’s story honestly, it exposes the broader reality of civilian suffering in conflict zones. The film does not tell audiences what to think. Instead, it asks them to feel—and that is far more powerful. Viewers are left to grapple with difficult questions about responsibility, accountability, and the value of human life. This approach has made the movie resonate across cultures and ideologies. Even those unfamiliar with the details of the Palestinian struggle can connect with the universal themes of childhood, fear, and loss. Reception and Global Impact Since its release, the film has sparked intense discussion on social media, in film circles, and among human rights advocates. Many viewers describe it as one of the most emotionally challenging films they have ever watched. Critics have praised its ethical storytelling and refusal to exploit tragedy. For many, the movie serves as an entry point into understanding the human cost of the Gaza conflict. It has been screened at independent film festivals and community events, often followed by discussions about civilian protection and children in war zones. Most importantly, the film ensures that Hind Rajab’s name is not forgotten. In a world where news cycles move quickly, cinema has given her story permanence. Why This Film Matters This movie matters because it stands against normalization of suffering. It reminds us that behind every headline about war are real people, real families, and real children whose lives are forever altered—or ended. By immortalizing Hind Rajab’s story, the film becomes an act of resistance against silence. It insists that her life had meaning and that her death deserves acknowledgment, reflection, and accountability. In the end, this is not just a film about one Palestinian girl. It is a film about every child trapped in conflict, every unanswered call for help, and every moment when humanity fails its youngest members. Cinema cannot undo tragedy, but it can refuse to let it be ignored. And in doing so, this film ensures that Hind Rajab’s story continues to speak—long after the screen fades to black.
By Hasbanullah3 days ago in Humans
Standing While Falling
Quotation from Friedrich Nietzsche "He who wrestles long with monsters should beware lest he himself become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. Man is not destroyed by suffering, but by the meaning he makes of it."
By LUCCIAN LAYTH7 days ago in Critique
Comments (1)
Dear Jamie! I appreciate your emphasis on keeping a debate calm and within boundaries, but I think the real solution for a debate is not behind the sentence: agree to disagree. I think a debate should change - and most importantly - form the ideas of the individuals taking part in it. If not, the two polarized ideas will never meet at the center and have a compromise. My idea of the movie: 1. It is really a good movie, because it started discussion about the topic, which is a HUGE merit. But this is only true from this particular perspective. 2. It is a really harmful film, from another point of view. Think about it for a second. You, me, every rational and kind-hearted person would agree with the thesis: if you have a debate that HAS to be solved (this problem in the US has to be solved) you always have to make a compromise with the one you are arguing with. Am i right? Yet, i think yes. On this we can agree. SO: this movie was made to show us the black communities’ oppression in the US by the police, representing the BLM movement’s opinion of this topic. Yes? I think so, because George Floyd and his murder scene - for instance - were almost completely recreated. So, if there is a debate between the ones saying: “black people are the victims of police brutality which is completely the system’s fault, and the black people murdered are often innocent ones” and the ones saying: “but black people make cops kill them, by resisting, having a firerarm, being on drugs etc” some time in the future they have to agree on something. I believe rising above this problem could be an answer, when each arguing parties give up their own pride and accept something from the other’s arguments. For example: “yes, due to the history of the USA, black people are more likely to come from areas where crime is more common due to the living and raising conditons, but on the other hand police officers do often act like racist bastards and are full of unnecesary prejudice that should be completely erased” Maybe the compromise would look something like this. I hope you see what i’m trying to explain. So turning back to the movie, and the fact that it represents the BLM movement’s argument. The harm in it - i believe - comes from the story itself. Until they shake hand at the end i thought: yes, they can have a compromise, hurray, we can solve this huge debate between the two extremes, the “two distant strangers” meet in the middle and agree. The cop understood the guy’s story about reliving his death again and again, they had a nice chat about racism and stuff and then happily shook hands leaving each other with a warm heart, maybe understanding a little something from the other’s opinion. THAN THE MOVIE SHOT ITSELF IN THE HEAD. After a really nice conversation. After a kind and important argument. After SHAKING HANDS! The cop decides to kill the guy??? How on earth can this be realistic. If a cop is racist and wants to harm the one he’s detaining he will never shake hands and argue and laugh together with it’s victim, then killing him. WTF? This movie for me was a sign, that BLM community thinks that the only one to blame is always the cop. Never and never the one who is detained. Then they wrote in the end that George Floyd was only going to the grocery store, not mentioning he was on drugs (not like a real crackhead, but on drugs), tried to pay with fake bills, and had a record threatening a pregnant woman! Soo one sided story telling, and that’s why i’m so sad. I believed this could be an example for a compromise! And the creators wanted the viewers to believe: cops are the only ones responsible for these fatal and tragic situations. Finally, i believe that this was the finest work of art that ever made me this upset, and wanting to have a debate with anyone on this topic, but on the other hand i’m so sad that the ones who had the money, the possibility, the resources to moderate this degenerated argument, only made a one sided, extremist approach of the whole discussion. This is my idea, that i felt after watching this movie. Tell me what you think about it, i’m really up to meeting you in the middle!