Mr. K

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.

The quality of all aspects of the production is pretty much the best you can get-acting, set design, cinematography, music, and direction are all top-notch. Every scene feels intentional, with a clear artistic vision behind it. The performances are powerful and believable, drawing you into the world with ease. However, this isn't the kind of movie you can throw on in the background or watch passively. The plot is dense and layered, focusing on a main character who is desperately trying to uncover the truth about his situation. It's emotionally and mentally engaging, and it asks the audience to reflect on their own reality and the systems we live in. It's a brilliant film, but not a mindless watch-it requires thought, attention, and a willingness to dive deep.

This movie is what happens when everyone behind the camera get full freedom to make the best movie they can make.

Everything is wonderfully made, from small details in the background, light and sound and special effect department.

In the end, you have a mix of Terry Gilliam/Lovecraft and Kafka. The people asking for financial support to this movie deserve a payraise - they seem to have called and knocked on every door and institution in Europe, and i am glad they did.

I am happy they included the first 30 seconds of the movie, and the last 30 seconds as it confirmed my theory on what it allaccomplish were about. I might be wrong, but don´t think i am. There are other movies on the same theme - but i think this is the best one i have seen so far.

This movie makes me think of the value of work, partner and friendship i have in life, something few movies can brag about.

Naturally, Crispin Glover is perfect in this role. Someone that can play a really weak character, like he did in Back to the future, and also the bad guy like he did in American Gods - fits my description of a really good actor.

If someone ever doubt movies as an expression of meaningful art - show them this movie.

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.

As a Dutch filmmaker and actor, I was so proud when I first saw the trailer for Mr. K. It looked promising, and I couldn't wait to see it. But sitting in the theater, I can't remember the last time a movie left me feeling this irritated. While the meaning behind the film is intriguing and has potential, the execution completely pulled me out of the story. Here's where things went wrong for me: (apologies in advance for being this negative!):

-----An Ambitious but Confusing Story----- Mr. K attempts to tell a surreal, Kafkaesque tale of a failed magician entangled in an absurd hotel full of bizarre characters, searching for escape. While the idea sounds interesting, the movie lacks pacing and focus.

The protagonist feels shallow-we don't learn anything about his background, motivations, or emotions. This makes him feel like a spectator in his own story. His goals and desires are tot clear enough, and the film is inconsistent in showing what he wants. This makes it hard to care about his journey.

---Surrealism That Just Misses the Mark--- The film tries to create a surreal atmosphere but fails to land its punches. Many scenes have potential, but bad direction and weak acting ruin them. The timing is often off: scenes aren't funny enough, suspenseful enough, or weird enough to stand out. Sometimes the scenes are too stylized, to show off: LOOK HOW SUPER WEIRD THIS IS!!! Which makes it cringy and not actually weird. It's a shame because the hotel setting had a lot of potential.

---Get on with It!--- Repetitive scenes and sluggish pacing drags the film. It desperately needed more energy and urgency to keep the audience engaged.

---Weak Acting and Extras--- One of the film's greatest weaknesses is the acting. My frustration with this aspect was immense. While the protagonist occasionally delivers believable moments, he often seems lost, likely due to improvisation. The rest of the cast is characterized by overacting and poor direction. Surrealism does not excuse a lack of believability.

The extras, in particular, are an issue. At times, it felt like watching an improvisation class at Toneelschool Amsterdam (school of dramatic arts), but then with too eager and unskilled performers. One example is a dinner scene in the protagonist's room, where extras act as if they were childs told to "pretend to eat weirdly." Another instance is when a group of followers bangs on a door with small pans in an attempt to appear threatening but ends up delivering awkward and soft taps. These moments made me cringe a lot.

The kitchen scenes fare no better. A chef stands on a table directing his team, with extras circling the table in a cringeworthy display of overacting. Where was the director during these scenes? It often feels like only American productions know how to properly direct extras. They are leagues ahead in quality. But why? I don't understand.

---A Technical Bright Spot--- Despite its many flaws, the technical aspects of the film deserve praise. The art direction is particularly strong for a Dutch production. The hotel feels imaginative and stylized, although some sets come off as overly "studio-like." The cinematography has some nice moments with well-composed shots.

The CGI, however, is inconsistent. While I understand CGI it not budget friendly, the effects like the worm in the walls looks fake and low-budget. The last scene at the end, however, looks much better and is very well-done.

---Conclusion--- The strong art direction, music, and sound design can't save it from poor direction, bad acting, and slow storytelling. What could have been a surreal gem ends up as a frustrating experience full of missed opportunities. It's a film that evokes more irritation than wonder-a shame for a project with so much potential. A disappointing effort for the Dutch film industry.