Mr. K

The opening transition and narration are clever, touching, and deftly done. Bravo. I'd like to say it sets the audience up for the rest of the viewing experience. But sadly the film does never again do anything like it.

The movie looks great and all the elements are there for a remarkable film experience, or at least a memorable one. But instead we get weak uninteresting quirky characters and an endless sequence of nonsensical scenes. At first I was hopeful and intrigued because, surely, there was going to be a pay off. The characters -- all except Crispin Glover's -- appeared to be in on the 'joke' and such elaborate costumes, sets, and staging must be going somewhere. Right? Nope.

More than once I was struck by the impression that I was watching a Tech Demo. I wasn't there for the story or the characters but rather to see this neat thing that the maker did. But not actually a film.

To be honest I stopped watching at some point before the end. I beyond caring about what was going on on the screen at that point that I don't think even the greatest movie ending ever filmed could have re-ignited my interest. But to be clear I have no idea how it ends. Or if it even does.

If it was an exercise in surreal wackiness that could at least be entertaining. But as another reviewer points out it never crosses over into that territory.

Mr. Glover is woefully underused. No doubt the makers were hoping to bring some of his 'character' to the role, but the writing never gives him a chance. They could probably have cast anyone that can muster a lost, bemused expression and the film would not have suffered.

The sets are great. The hotel feels like a place that's a few steps from reality right from the start. But not once was I convinced that any of the characters were an organic part of it. They were just props with the sole purpose of contributing to the atmosphere. This does not a film make.

Mr. K had an intriguing concept and some cool, moody vibes. The setup made me think it was going to go somewhere really interesting, but the ending was underwhelming and left me a bit confused. The intro dragged on longer than it needed to, which made it harder to stay engaged early on. I could tell the film was trying to say something deeper, but it didn't really land for me because I just didn't get it. That said, the acting was solid and it looked great visually. Cinematically, no complaints. It had style and potential, but it just didn't fully connect for me in the end. I guess it's one of those "weird" movies.

Saw this at the Imagine 2024 film festival in Amsterdam, where it was the main course at the formal opening. Very strange story, impossible to condense in a few sentences, other than what the synopsis on various websites already tried to tell us about this movie.

Kafka is referenced very often in the synopsis and reviews, and implicitly in the film title (Mr. K.) too. It is not bureaucracy being K's primary obstacle, but other people in the hotel, who are very happy the way it is now and don't want any change. The continuous drive K had to find the hotel exit, came initially from an early appointment he had the first day of his stay. Once he missed that, his urge to get out of the hotel persisted for no reason other than instinct.

A variety of mysterious circumstances and events hinder him on his way out, one of which is an often-appearing marching band passing through the hallways, without any goal or purpose, if only to confuse us as well as Mr. K. The walls and wallpaper start crackling, later revealing some vegetation, maybe suggesting that the hotel is in fact an organism with a purpose of its own. More such extraneous things pass by, none of those really eerie, merely unusual or unexpected, by lack of better words to describe what happened. K's whereabouts in the hotel's kitchen are even stranger, but what it means, if anything, can better be left to an unprepared viewer.

Quote: "We didn't need an exit before you came." From early on, we see the word Liberator painted on the wall near K's hotel room, obviously meaning something, but we don't know the author nor the reason why K is appointed that role. One moment he is respected, nearly worshipped as their liberator, and a few scenes later he is chased and attacked for destroying the hotel and ending everyone's peaceful existence. Neither is true, of course, but we don't know the real truth either. Maybe the best parody on normal life is demonstrated in the kitchen, with a peculiar hierarchy, and a head chef who sees some talent in K, only to feel challenged by him later.

The only objective evidence that unexplainable things are happening, and that the inhabitants cannot go on forever like they are used to, is the shrinking of the hotel rooms. We see the hotel guests cheerfully bringing their furniture to the corridor (which is also shrinking, but they do it anyway). Strangely enough, no inhabitant finds the shrinking building something to worry about. K's journey through the building lets us meet a variety of characters, all having their own role in defending the status quo as the way it should be, defying any changes.

Quote: "You look for the reception where you came into the hotel, to find the exit. Sometimes, the entrance is not the exit." (paraphrased). This comes from two wise-cracking elderly ladies, repeatedly offering him coffee and cake, seemingly in no way concerned about the world around them. They try to cheer up K, who is apparently in distress and deaf to their good-natured comments.

All in all, if you want a deeper showcase for the behavior of people living happily in their comfort zone, only to be disturbed in their happy isolation, this is an interesting and entertaining story. The "offender" causing the disturbance is ridiculed as well as worshipped. Instead of Kafka's struggle with bureaucracy, this Mr. K. must overcome the natural resistance of average people who clinch to their quiet and peaceful existence, and who also refuse to see a lurking danger that is obvious to us but not to them. You need an outsider to trigger change, or better said a revolution.

Having a hard time to make a comment here but the film sort of requires a response. Is it worth watching and if so will you actually not be forced to fast forward it every so often because it is both fascinating and totally irritating all at once. If I have to make a recommendation then it is to watch this on a computer so you can ado the fast forward because if you are trapped in a cinema it will really piss you off. OK. The overall quality of film making is actually quite good. The set is a hit for sure and the premise of the cage hotel is also OK. Where the film fails is in the tempo and in the lack of editing to make it flow better but that was most likely a challenge that the director was battling with himself. The acting and the choreography of the people movements in various parts of the film is very good. There a good number of moments when the viewer is seriously challenged as to what the hell is going on and what or how one should be interpreting the film which makes for a fairly exhausting experience which I actually liked as it is not often that a film these days reaches the level of cerebral impact. Does the film have a resolution and does it make sense and does it serve the rest of the film well? These questions are for you to answer. I do not wish to spoil anything that you may experience or feel.

I first saw the trailer and was really looking forward to the film. The beginning was okay, the first few minutes. I thought it would be a great film. The setting, costumes, and camera work are all very good. But as time goes on, the film becomes increasingly silly and nonsensical. I was very disappointed after about an hour, but I kept watching. After about 80 minutes, I found the film so incredibly silly that I had to turn it off. Yes, I can only rate the 80 minutes or so, and I give it 5 out of 10. It's a shame; I had completely different expectations.