Mr. K

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.

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.

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.

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.