Benutzerrezensionen

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.

Mr. K offers a compelling setup with well-crafted visuals and an eerie atmosphere. You spend much of the film trying to decode what the hotel represents - is it a metaphor for life, death, mental imprisonment? Unfortunately, the film offers little clarity, and its abstract nature feels more hollow than profound.

The guests seem resigned to their fate, contrasting with Mr. K's restlessness. One character asks, "Why isn't my truth the right one?" - a question never truly explored. Despite its short runtime, the film drags due to a lack of rising urgency and thematic consistency. The hotel supposedly shrinks, but its dimensions seem to shift arbitrarily.

In the end, Mr. K frees a mysterious being - and perhaps himself. But is he truly free, or has he accepted his fate? The final scene, swimming toward a light, raises more questions than it answers. I wanted to like this film more, but it left me unmoved.

First of all the way this movie is filmed is good. The acting of the main lead is good and of te side characters aswell.

Aside from that. This movie left me with an nasty feeling. The feels like the writer of this movie high on all kinds of drugs. The start was promising but the storyline after the first 5 minutes kept getting worse. The movie sums up in just weird and ridiculous situations that just make no sense. And when you think the plot will be explained later on in the movie, it won't. After all my friend and I thought this was wasted time of our very short life. This the first movie review from me because it was that bad. Sorry not sorry.

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.

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.

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.

I really have a soft spot for movies that feature strange quirky characters, locations and circumstances as long as they are well made and enjoyable.

The likes of Wes Anderson, Jean-Pierre Jeunet or Paul King I can watch again and again.

Mr. K. clearly tries to fall into this category, especially the nods to Wes Anderson's style are unmissable.

Sadly, it holds no substance at all, not even a plot to be honest. More like random scenes stitched together just to keep up the ´weird´.

There's nothing wrong with it on paper, it even looks good. But it is missing the ´movie´-part in favor of being just strange and unsatisfactory.

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.

Crispin Glover is weird. Most of his non-mainstream movies are weird. Let's be honest. He is a gifted actor, but he attaches himself to very bizarre projects. This is no exception.

As you press play, you are introduced to the myriad of companies involved in bringing this film to life: LevelK, Paradiso Filmed Entertainment, Eurimages, NL Film Funds, Flanders Audiovisual Fund, Finnish Impact Film Fund, The Film Kitchen, A Private View Productions, Lemming Film, Take 1, Avrotros, Aurora Studios.

I have literally never seen a film open with that many logos of the backers and producers involved. Not the best sign.

As much as I like Crispin for his work in mainstream films (particularly his claim to fame as George McFly), this film in particular was really a trial to get through. Honestly, I couldn't make it past the first 20 minutes, so this is not much of a review.

The story (if there is one) seemed to go nowhere, and the plot (if there is one) is just way too weird for me.

Hard pass.

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.

I was a bit scared after reading some negative reviews, but it wasn't founded. After seeing some really bad movies like 'Reflet dans un diamant noir' and 'the other way around' this was a breath of fresh air. I decided to give it a chance after reading that it won a prize at a fantasy film festival. That's a genre that always produces good movies, and those fans have a much better taste than your average media specialists! A good movie recently was 'Black Dog', from China! Wake up, USA, do they only make series to stream these days? At first the hotel guest is focused on finding the exit, but just like in reality, real life intervenes... The movie is about people who say and do anything that fits their beliefs or their own behavior... And not in a woke way.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the acting, even the dog does well, and there are several intriguing characters. The ending may not be much, but the rest of the movie more than makes up for it. Very atmospheric, nice moments with music, also the choice to make the main character a magician gives the whole thing extra cachet. Recommended!

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.

1. The Hotel as the Womb

The central setting, a remote and enclosed hotel, symbolizes the female womb. Mr. K enters it unknowingly-just as a sperm cell enters the egg-and finds himself unable to escape. This reflects the biological reality of conception, where once fertilization occurs, the sperm becomes part of a new process that cannot be reversed.

The phrase "The hotel is shrinking" represents the growing fetus within a finite space, gradually feeling more confined as it grows larger, mirroring the tightening womb.

---

2. Mr. K as the Sperm Cell

Mr. K is not just a man trapped in a surreal situation-he's a metaphor for a sperm cell at the start of life. His isolation, confusion, and helplessness evoke the moment of transformation when a sperm becomes something else entirely, part of a new being forming in the womb.

His psychological distress mirrors cellular-level confusion or unconscious awareness of transformation.

---

3. The Chefs as the Digestive System

The hotel is filled with chefs, all working tirelessly in kitchens. These chefs symbolize the digestive system, particularly the stomach, which plays a central role in nurturing life.

The act of cooking, preparing, and transforming raw ingredients into sustenance parallels the metabolic and nutritive processes inside the womb.

---

4. The Twin Women as the Kidneys

The presence of twin women represents the kidneys, which are paired organs essential for filtering and balance in the human body.

Twins naturally symbolize symmetry and duality, making them an ideal metaphor for the kidneys.

Their role in the narrative (if calm, observant, or regulatory) would echo the kidneys' function of maintaining the body's internal balance.

---

5. The Inescapability as a Symbol of Gestation

The fundamental fact that Mr. K cannot leave the hotel mirrors how a fetus cannot exit the womb until birth. He is trapped not by walls, but by a natural process that must complete its course.

The film, in this reading, becomes a metaphor for gestation: a surreal, dreamlike passage through bodily systems that sustain, process, and eventually prepare for rebirth.

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.

Mr. K (2024) is a quietly compelling drama that blends mystery, psychological intrigue, and emotional depth. Centered around a man known only as "Mr. K", the film gradually unravels layers of his identity, past, and motivations - inviting the audience into a puzzle that's as personal as it is suspenseful.

What stands out is the film's atmosphere: minimalist, moody, and often surreal, it builds tension not through action, but through careful storytelling and nuanced performances. The lead actor delivers a captivating portrayal, bringing quiet intensity and vulnerability to a character that keeps us guessing until the end.

Visually stylish and narratively restrained, Mr. K isn't for those seeking fast-paced thrills, but rather for viewers who appreciate character-driven stories that linger in the mind. It's a film that asks more questions than it answers - and does so with confidence.

No pun intended - the movie has quite a descriptive title in Germany .. as in you can understand what the movie will be about - something you cannot figure out from the original title to be honest. On the other hand I am not sure I can tell you ... much. Because the movie is quite out there - while actually being inside! Like deep inside ... you'll get it (probably).

Crispin Glover - a name that many connect with Back to the Future ... but a lot of time has passed since then. And he has become quite the household name for weird, independent and mostly horror movies. Now this ticks almost all those boxes ... well kind of all and then some.

It would be moot for me to try to explain what is happening - I assume at least there is social commentary (well there definitely is) ... and pressure, character development ... life goals ... life itself ... we are stuck aren't we? Or maybe you aren't - good for you.

The movie has to be watched multiple times for sure - to fully experience and understand ... something you can't do with life ... well not yet ...

Tallulah Hazekamp Schwab is a genius, a visionary.

This movie is one part Andrei Tarkovsky, one part Franz Kafka, and one part Sigmund Freud.

The story has depth, symbolic complexity, and artistic brilliance. And, in addition, it is nonstop entertainment - you never have an idea what is likely to happen next. Just like Mr. K, over and over the viewer is confounded by events as they unfold.

A lot of movies strive for a surreal atmosphere - The Hourglass Sanatorium (1973), The Holy Mountain (1973), or Saló, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) come to mind. The experimental nature of these movies is obvious, but there's nothing to grasp hold of, no sense to be made of what they're trying to say.

Mr. K is peculiar and disorienting, but it is also a powerful allegory. In that regard it reminds me of surreal movies like The Cell (2000) or Poor Things (2023). Yorgos Lanthimos always leaves his audience with things to ponder, much like Schwab.