Is there something I'm missing?

This type of story would have probably worked better with an "unreliable narrator" narrative frame like The Usual Suspects, instead everything that happens is presented straight. And based on that I would say his "friends" don't necessarily hate him, but they surely don't know who he is and what he likes. And that is probably just as bad IMHO.

I did like the movie.

Personally, I side with the lead. Although the movie shows everybody in a bad light. It kept framing the blame on different sides to keep up the suspense. But if you try to follow who was right and wrong, you'd be lost. You just have to go with the flow, it's just the way the film is built to keep ramping up the tension.

Maybe he was being a little too sensitive and picking up on things that were innocent. I've been in the same position, where you think everybody is conspiring, and you're picking up half conversations, and over analysing thinking it's all about you.

But in my eyes, they were being dickish throughout. He hadn't seen them in years, he was anxious, he felt like an outsider coming back, and they didn't help that at all.

The friends were all hypocrites, double standards, held his actions to a higher standard. They were all insensitive, over sensitive and self-absorbed but accused him of being self-absorbed, they wouldn't listen to him but accused him of not listening, they would get offended if he said something they didn't like, even though they said plenty of insensitive and offensive stuff. Even in the same conversation, the drug guy called poor people peasants, then the lead repeated peasants, and suddenly it was a bad thing to call people peasants, and the druggy put words into his mouth as well.

They were all guilty of the pretty much everything they accused him of. Apart from his ex-girlfriend.

They complained to him at the very beginning over talking about work, "Don't talk shop". Then at the end, they complained that he didn't know what any of them did for work. They complained that he didn't listen to them, even though they constantly interrupted him. One opened up about his business thoughts, and he thought the lead was mocking him (paranoia) so the druggy complained about his own paranoid thoughts, then complained about the lead being paranoid. They complained because they had paranoid thoughts that he thought he was better than them. Then they complained he was always talking about helping refugees, but none of them listened or let him finish his story, and they did actually mock it. He just wanted to say something he felt important about his life, one time, let him get it out of his system and move on, but none of his friends let him finish. They called him self-centred, but they were all self-centred, he tried to open up with them on a 1 to 1 level, and he was always shut down. Or they turned the conversation around to be about them, which he did too. They all did it.

In the pub the drug guy thought he'd spilt his coke and went off his rocker about it. Then the stranger they'd only met yesterday said he did it (carelessly, without telling anybody or apologising), and suddenly the spilt coke was fine. No apologies for the shouting fit. Not to mention it was illegal drugs he was shouting about, and he was an adult not a teenager. Then when the lead gets agitated after being needled, all of a sudden he's being out of order and it's super inappropriate.

One dropped a bomb that his ex tried to kill herself after he left. Supposedly a private conversation. Then later a total stranger joked about her suicide attempt a couple of times. Same with other supposedly "private" conversations he had, everybody else knew the details of these conversations, so they were all talking behind his back and using what he said in them against him getting offended by anything he said in the moment. They only seemed to be loose with their sense of humour between the group.

The dirty car was parked at the house. He walked past it. Maybe he should have asked who was the owner of the car first before going off on one, but he was already mentally exhausted by that point.

AT the end they complained "You've changed", because he moved away and found a different life to improve himself, big wow. He never kept in touch that much. Simple, don't invite him to a party. They were offended by him not staying in the same place and moving to a new city, and not being a drugs mess that kissed dogs at parties. He grew up, you didn't. Don't invite.

But at the same time they complained that he was the same because he "can't take a joke", and he was a paranoid mess like always who flew off the handle. Well, they certainly helped ramp his paranoia up. Don't feed him coke, spike his tablets, and treat him like an outsider at a party YOU invited him to. Then have an outsider constantly needle him over private info between friends. Then for the finale humiliate him as a "joke" with another outsider.

I havent seen it , but this sounds like a movie written by someone who'se friends at school were dicks / bullies and wants confirmation that this was the case , or wants to show this and move on , or somethign ...

The film is trying to highlight that when you're confident, have good self-esteem and an active, full life, it's much easier to let jokes bounce off you.

When you're unsure of yourself, lack confidence, need approval, you feel like every joke is a personal attack.

We're supposed to understand (because they repeat it several times) that Pete isn't as confident as he used to be. They also have a scene where Pete is on the phone talking about how they haven't changed (it's meant to suggest he has grown up but they haven't when in reality, it demonstrates that they are still just as confident as they used to be). And at the end, George even says 'old Pete would have loved this.'

I get what they were trying to do but sadly, the film doesn't really portray that successfully though and it never seems like anything other than them being mean to him. Including his girlfriend.