polbucky

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.