naq-1

I thought the film was exceptional in acting, cinematography, lighting and sound. Everything here works together towards a climax which is unexplainable but has a spiritual overtone, and it all serves to make its protagonist played by the phenomenal Crispin Glover into a messianic figure.

Mr. K, a Magician, arrives at an unnamed hotel in order to perform at a local venue. Within moments of his arrival in a strange otherworldly hotel, we know that we are in for a wild roller coaster ride -- and when it starts, with a raucous marching band, all hell breaks loose and we are no longer able to get off the roller coaster until it stops. Everything about the hotel is beyond comprehension, and without mentioning spoilers, is every bit as disconcerting as the hotel in The Shining.

What seems to be the only difficulty here is that the message of who is the lead character here is not always clear -- since it is not the hotel, which almost seems like it is a living being. Whether the character played by Crispin is a metaphor for a Christ-like Savior, or perhaps a kind of cipher along the lines of Kafka's Josef K's character (ie, Orson Welles' brilliant "The Trial"), or whether he's just an ordinary human being caught up in a confusing universe -- this what is questionable.

Regardless of the intention, the film holds us spellbound in its masterful combination of lighting, location, and atmosphere and keeps us raptured from the first moment until the last, culminating in a form of poetry that is without compare. Exceptional work by a very talented filmmaker, and superior acting by an equally talented lead actor.

This is one of the biggest mistakes I have ever made. It sounds intriguing, based on the poster, which makes it looks very retro-70's detective pulp movies, and the cast, which includes Aubrey Plaza, who is one actress who can always be counted on to bring her best to any role. However, the storyline leaves me cold and uninterested in whatever mishmosh was going on.

First of all, it seems like a story about a murder, then it seems like a parable about a corrupt cult-like church preacher, then it seems like a lesbian will-she or won't-she story. None of the various subplots seem to mesh together, and all the scenes seem shoehorned in to the overall scenario.

The only other thing that characterizes it is a series of over-the-top killings and head-bashings that are most likely intended to be humor, however they fall flat. The viewer is obviously supposed to eat this up, like something from a Tarentino film, where the director makes every bit of violence into a joke, kind of like, hint-hint, 'this is supposed to be funny, so laugh, folks.' But it really is painful to watch. Can we please be spared this technique from now on?

Simply awful. One of the all-time worst I have ever seen. I cannot understand why it even got released, let alone made a huge splash and was awarded all the Oscars. What's Russian for Payola?

I will have to give the filmmakers one kudo, and that is for the location, the lush imposing house that the leading man (really should be "child man") lives in. It is truly one of the best locations in any film about the top 1%.

Mickey Madison as an actress is another mystery. Why would anyone give her an award for performing faux sex on camera? I don't think we even felt one iota for her performance -- it was as if she just phoned it in, acting like a stripper who was lured in by money and then did it in every position, and provided some very unimpressive sexual simulated dancing as well. The one thing I will give her kudos for is that she apparently had to learn Russian for the role.

The worst part of the screenplay, which is really just about as minimal and predictable as can be, is that there is absolutely no explanation for anything that the Russian family does -- they seem to be involved in arms trading, but then again, that is also completely avoided. So of course, we have no clue about any of the characters and couldn't care less about any of them.

Even Igor, who is supposed to be the one and only character that we have any idea of what he is feeling, is completely glossed over. I suppose this is a result of the current trend in major films - writers sit thru screenplay lectures in which they are cajoled for explaining what each character's motive is, and so the script is made up of just lame dialogue in which every other word is a common 4-letter word, and we can only imagine what might be motivating each one. So Igor is somehow supposed to be sympathetic, but we never really understand why. Maybe the concept is to hold off so that they can make an "Anora 2" so that we can at least understand something about what is going on.

Overall, no point in wasting time watching this -- it really doesn't have any redeeming value whatsoever.