User Reviews

With these three absurd and grim stories, Lanthimos seems to be writing a love letter to Bunuel. Desperation, insanity, loneliness, cults, cannibalism, unquestionable faith and manipulation, are all there. I was sunk in, from the first close up of Plemons's mustached face, and Stone's celebratory dance in the parking lot 2 hours and 45 minutes later caught me by surprise, despite knowing it was coming. The cast really sinks into the robotic, yet powerful performances. Their delivery of the lines cautiously keeps you at bay, so that you can't really empathize with any of the characters, although you are desperately trying to. The dry humor pops up in unexpected moments and it almost feels unintentional.

The dominant emotion you feel during the movie is guilt, for having such a great time watching all this cruelty unfold on screen. The setting of a faceless, damp, summer New Orleans, binds perfectly with Robbie Ryan's beautiful cinematography. Extreme and long close ups, along with various wide lenses are back. Fendix's stoic score, which seems to consist mainly of piano and unsettling chanting, felt appropriate.

Is there any depth to all of this? Maybe not, but you have no other choice than to discuss about it with a friend, which is probably more than enough to make the director happy.

This macabre anthology film solidifies the fact, that no one makes movies like Lanthimos today. This isn't a movie for wider audiences, but his fans will definitely enjoy it, maybe a bit too much, like me.

Concerning the first story, I think that it painted the picture of a scared man who did not trust himself, did not believe in his power and was therefore easily manipulated. This man was looking for a messiah, somebody who could tell him what to do, how to act and even what to eat and drink. The old guy is a narcissist who found an easy prey to manipulate. The narcissist ordered the young man toy kill R. M. F, because he wanted to ensure that he ( the young man ) would do anything he asked him to do. When the young man said no to killing R. M. F and decided to leave the narcissist, he found himself having trouble taking life in his own hands. He was isolated and completely alone, because that is exactly what a narcissist will do. Because the young man could not believe in his own power and felt so alone and isolated he decided to kill R. M. F. Killing R. M. F granted him a place back into the narcissist's abusive and controlling behavior.

R. M. F's death symbolizes the death of the free will of the young man who succumbed to the narcissist and therefore forever lost his own power.

The first story perfectly pictures what happens when we are looking for a messiah, an external force to save us. The only one who can save us is our self.

The second story, I believe, wanted to get across the same message. The young man was so dependent on his wife that he could not survive without her. While she was missing he was losing his mind. The problem was that he wanted her to be the exact same person she was when she met her. Even the slightest of change in her behavior made him lose his mind. On the other hand, the young woman was scared to leave her husband because he had been there for her in the past. So she stayed in this abusive relationship. The young man's demand towards his wife to give him her thumb and liver to eat for dinner symbolized the effort this young man was making to kill this version of his wife so he could get the previous version of his wife back.

The third story showed, in my opinion, how absurd it really is to be searching for a messiah.

This woman was looking for something so absurd and illogical that she abandoned her husband and her daughter. She took part in a cult which made her do illogical things and she did all of those things without thinking, without considering the absurdity of them all. Her husband tried trough a violent act to make her leave the cult. But even after being kicked out of the cult, the young woman continued searching for her messiah, only to find her and then lose her.

The last scene of the movie truly captures the message that the movie wants to get across.

There are no messiahs, no external forces that can save you. The only person that can save you is you and you need to believe in yourself enough to understand that you are your messiah.

"Kinds of Kindness" is an ambitious but ultimately disjointed film that attempts to capture the peculiar essence of a Yorgos Lanthimos-inspired world, populated by unempathetic characters whose bizarre actions lack any justification beyond directorial whim. The film oscillates between moments of potential intrigue and abrupt, unsettling turns that detract from any developing narrative.

One particularly jarring example is the segment "R. M. F. Is Flying." Here, we follow Daniel as he investigates the suspicious behavior of his newly rescued wife. Just when the story seems to gain momentum, it takes a grotesque turn: Daniel transforms into a psychopath, demanding that his wife feed him her thumb and liver, which she inexplicably complies with. This sudden descent into absurdity typifies the film's struggle to maintain coherent and compelling storytelling.

The characters in "Kinds of Kindness" fail to elicit any emotional investment. Unlike anti-heroes who, despite their flaws, possess qualities such as honor, courage, or a personal code that evoke empathy, the characters here are uniformly despicable without any redeeming traits. This lack of relatable or admirable qualities makes it difficult for the audience to connect with or care about their fates.

What is the message?

The messages that can be derived from this film are numerous, especially from the community that will inevitably enjoy this picture. One particularly troubling message emerges in a scene where Aka tells Emaly, who has been expelled from "the creepy orgy clan" after being raped by her husband, that "not everyone is suited for everything, some were made to lead a life with a husband and have children." This implies that traditional roles and desires are inferior to the clan's perverse lifestyle. Such a message is not only disturbing but also suggests a disdain for conventional values, which could be interpreted as the film's misguided attempt at provocation.

In conclusion, "Kinds of Kindness" is a nearly three-hour ordeal that fails to develop a coherent plot or deliver a meaningful message. Its characters are unappealing, the narrative is constantly derailed by gratuitous shock value, and any potential themes are lost in the chaos. The film might find an audience among those who appreciate avant-garde cinema that thrives on discomfort and confusion, but for most viewers, it will be a perplexing and unsatisfying experience.