SummaryKinds of Kindness is a triptych fable, following a man without choice who tries to take control of his own life; a policeman who is alarmed that his wife who was missing-at-sea has returned and seems a different person; and a woman determined to find a specific someone with a special ability, who is destined to become a prodigious spirit...
SummaryKinds of Kindness is a triptych fable, following a man without choice who tries to take control of his own life; a policeman who is alarmed that his wife who was missing-at-sea has returned and seems a different person; and a woman determined to find a specific someone with a special ability, who is destined to become a prodigious spirit...
This ramping-up of darkness from episode to episode is largely what justifies Kinds Of Kindness’ triptych structure. It never feels like these evenly-timed stories would fare better in isolation; they build upon and complicate one another, gelling into something haunting that fits the touted “fable” description.
It’s not cynicism but a chuckling curiosity that fuels this sideways parable, which aligns it with Lanthimos’ past work in the most perfect of ways. You can’t say that it’s a movie for everybody. But it takes all kinds.
This movie was NOT what I expected, but after sleeping on it, I've come to the conclusion that it's about human connection of wanting to be loved and excepted, as well as a movie about redemption.
Yes, there are moments of much needed levity as well as "close your eyes" shock horror.
But even real life can shock you in ways you never expected.
Kinds of Kindness grew on me, and it may very well be the BEST movie I've watched so far in 2024.
And I NEVER thought I would say that going in.
But it made me think, and that's never a bad thing.
I’m going to say up front that this is a film I’m probably going to be processing for quite some time. The latest offering from writer-director Yorgos Lanthimos – best known for films like “The Lobster” (2015), “The Favourite” (2018) and “Poor Things” (2023) – is as much a puzzle as anything else. Told in three loosely interlaced stories with mostly the same cast members playing different roles in each, the film primarily deals in explorations of control and abuse examined from various angles. The individual stories plumb an array of additional subjects, including life, death, sanity, religion, cult membership, sexuality, dreams, surreality and self-indulgence, among others, most of which are tinged with exceedingly dark, macabre, cynical, satirical humor (evident even in its title) very much in the same vein as one of the filmmaker’s other, more troubling releases, “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” (2017). Unlike that mess of a picture, though, “Kinds of Kindness” is somewhat more coherently structured, both in its individual segments and overall, even though the finished product still has an overly cryptic eccentricity that could have benefitted from better delineated refinement. To be sure, “Kindness” has its strong points, such as its sardonic humor that may often have you giggling at things that you probably think you shouldn’t be laughing at. It also has strong performances from many of Lanthimos’s regulars, including Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe and Margaret Qualley, along with newcomers Hong Chau and Jesse Plemons, winner of the Cannes Film Festival Best Actor Award (though I can’t help but wonder what effect this film may have on the future of their careers, talent notwithstanding). And, much to my surprise, the pacing is fairly well sustained for a movie with a 200 runtime, probably because it holds viewer attention well, leaving audiences perpetually wondering where each of the vignettes is going next. On the downside, however, its graphic imagery, explicit sexuality, extreme violence and other questionable story elements may easily turn off some members (myself included at times), particularly when they push the limits of acceptability (sensitive viewers take note, especially animal lovers). So the bottom line questions here would be, “Did I like it?” and “Would I recommend it?” Well, that depends on how open one is to edgy content that clearly pushes the envelope. To be honest, there are things about this offering that I truly liked, but, then, my tastes tend to be more open-ended than those of many more conventional moviegoers. Because of that, however, this may consequently be seen as the kind of picture that many of those same audience members might find unduly troubling and offensive, readily labeling it as such and claiming that this is the sort of movie that gives many reviewers a bad name (and they probably wouldn’t be entirely wrong in saying that). Lanthimos has certainly pushed limits in many of his previous works, such as “Poor Things,” “The Lobster” and “The Favourite,” but the edginess of those releases had a playful, warmer, more whimsical feel to them than this outing, which is much more akin to the disturbing shadowiness of a film like “Sacred Deer.” Keep all of the foregoing in mind if you’re contemplating a screening of this one. And, in any event, if you come away from it outraged, disappointed or confused, don’t say you weren’t warned.
Kinds of Kindness may not offer the kind of full experience provided by Poor Things but it is a reminder of the responses a movie can engender when the director doesn’t play by the rules.
What I loved about Lanthimos’ earlier movies was that they moved my heart while making me squirm. With Kinds of Kindness, his Tin Man could use a lot more heart.
Kinds of Kindness runs nearly three hours in length and reveals nothing more than our eagerness to give him the benefit of the doubt. We’re here for the sick thrills. Instead, what we’re served feels more like dirty limericks delivered at an excruciating pace by a bore with bad breath.
A truly torturous experience for almost everyone involved – up to and including the starry cast of Lanthimos regulars, who must now surely realize they have been duped by a master cinematic con artist – the film is an aggressively juvenile and tedious dissection of the notion of free will.
If you like the weirdest episodes of ‘Altanta’, you will probably like this film. It’s deeply disconcerting. It’s frequently hilarious. It’s anything but boring.
An interesting and alternative movie to watch, but with no point at all. It contains some psychological interesting scenes (as always in Lanthimos filmography) that, joint with the excellent acting, save this movie from defining it a failure.
This anthology film consists of three separate but loosely connected stories, each of which feature the same set of actors in different roles and scenarios. A man (Jesse Plemons) has his life and every move controlled by his domineering boss (Willem Dafoe), straining the former's relationship with his wife (Hong Chau), a police officer (Plemons) finds himself growing increasingly suspicious of his wife's (Emma Stone) strange behavior following her rescue from a deserted island, and two cult leaders (Plemons and Stone) attempt to seek out a woman (Margaret Qualley) who supposedly has the ability to bring the dead back to life. Written and directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, those who know and are familiar with him and his style by this point should know what they're getting themselves into for better or worse, what with his absurdist and incredibly dark and morbid sense of humor. Truth be told, I've long been of the belief that his style has worn thin. What was once fresh and worked really well for some of his earliest films simply feels not so fresh or unique anymore. Having not seen some of his earliest work such as 'Dogtooth', 'Alps, etc. I can only really speak on behalf of the earliest films of his that I saw, which was 'The Lobster' and 'The Killing of a Sacred Deer', both of which happened to be distributed by the ever-so-popular indie distributor A24. With both of those films, his style hadn't quite outstayed its welcome with me, as that's when I was freshly introduced to his unorthodox style of humor and filmmaking. They both remain his strongest works to date (especially 'The Lobster', which has remained one of my absolute favorites.) otherwise, the guy is pretty hit or miss with me, and everything after 'Sacred Deer' has unfortunately been a miss, with this one sadly, but also unsurprisingly to me being no exception. His previous two films 'The Favourite' and 'Poor Things' were both heavy on style and little on substance, with 'Poor Things' in particular overindulging on smut and sleaze and marking a low point in Lanthimos' career (at least in my opinion.) This time around, the biggest sin he's committed is trying to thread three stories loosely together with very little sense of aim/direction and trying to act like there's anything of significance connecting these stories together (other than the cast.) His efforts prove futile and pretentious once again here. Really the only positives I can think to mention are the cast and their performances and commitment to all of this ridiculous and farcical nonsense, as well as a handful of genuinely amusing moments. Otherwise, this is overall an overlong and scattershot attempt at a compelling and connective triptych of stories that ultimately falls apart after nearly three hours of struggling to keep itself together. Here's hoping Lanthimos will grow on me again someday.
This long film (2:45) is actually 3 separate stories using the same cast in different roles. Jesse Plemmons is at the center of each one, in addition to Yorgos Lanthimos regulars Emma Stone and Willem Defoe. The narrative is a cross between a flat Twilight Zone episode and a shaggy dog story. There are absurd elements that add interest but not much meaning. The cast does a fine job, even though the characters are emotionally arid and their sometimes stilted delivery doesn't help. Director Yorgos Lanthimos harkens back to some of his more bizarre work and this feels mannered and much too long. Some fans may enjoy the weirdness, but it's more pretentious and cerebral than rewarding or…heaven forbid…entertaining.