User Reviews

Over the last twenty years, Yorgos Lanthimos has cultivated an approach to filmmaking all his own. Like David Lynch, he has developed a singular, instantly identifiable style, which will, no doubt, one day be- if it is not already- referred to as Lanthimosian. Generally speaking, his films, though varied, usually explore power dynamics, featuring characters who speak in monotone, dialogue that is slightly unreal and darkly-comic narratives containing both bloodshed and nudity.

'Kinds of Kindness' bears all the hallmarks of his style. An anthology film- or triptych, as it is billed- its thematic content is open to numerous interpretations; the most obvious being control, as, in each of the three stories, it is examined in some form. In the first, a man tries to stand up to his domineering boss, with disastrous results. In the second, a policeman who is losing control of his life after the disappearance of his wife, finds things stranger upon her return. In the third and last, a woman working for a cult tries to find an individual who has power over life and death.

With each tale, the case can be made that Lanthimos is examining a different aspect of control with regard to power dynamics and family structures. In the opening segment, Lanthimos explores the theme of subjugation and rebellion, highlighting the delicate balance between asserting oneself and the risks involved in challenging authority. Furthermore, once free of the controlling structure he had grown subconsciously comfortable in, the protagonist seeks to regain his subjugated position- a poignant exploration of agency and longing.

In the second story the interconnecting notions of power, manipulation and the illusion of control are explored, as the policeman desperately tries to control and restructure a situation he does not recognise, nor has power over. The irrational demands he makes of his wife in order for her to demonstrate her love to him reveal the lengths one can go to maintain control and stability in the face of perceived chaos.

The third story raises questions about the limits of human agency, following a woman who has voluntarily given up control of her life to a cult and, like the protagonist in the first story, tries to regain her subjugated position, once free. Perhaps Lanthimos is examining fears associated with autonomy, of agency and desire.

However, while control appears thematically in each of the stories, there could be more at play. One could, perhaps, see the film as a religious allegory, with the three stories mirroring the ideas of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Lanthimos may be inviting viewers to explore fears associated with autonomy and desire through this lens.

On the other hand, considering the sacrifice of autonomy for comfort or survival becomes a recurring motif; might the film be primarily about just that: sacrifice? Or is it merely concerned with how manipulation, dominance and submission intersect? The film's digressive structure allows ideas such as these to unfold without arriving at tidy conclusions, leaving room for as many abstractions and interpretations as there are viewers.

Whatever the case, the stories are entertaining and darkly funny, full of the deliciously weird Lanthimosian dialogue many have come to love. However, as each are so engaging, it is a pity that they are not three individual, full-length films in their own right. Lanthimos and co-writer Efthimis Filippou could have expanded any of them into a stand-alone feature and, by doing so, heightened their power and impact considerably.

Despite this, 'Kinds of Kindness' remains engaging and thought-provoking, boasting assured, grounded visuals that heighten the narrative's strangeness. Lanthimos and director of photography Robbie Ryan film proceedings with realism in mind, avoiding flashy stylisations and unconventional camera angles. This juxtaposition between the natural cinematography and the inherent oddness of the narrative is both atmospheric and effective.

Furthermore, Jerskin Fendrix's score contributes greatly to the film's atmosphere. Full of sinister choral chants, like the singing of a group of mad monks, it adds an element of suspense and drama, complementing the visuals and the narrative. In addition, Anthony Gasparro's production design, as well as Amy Beth Silver's minimalistic set decoration and Jennifer Johnson's muted costume design, are immersive, drawing viewers further in to Lanthimos's odd world, emphasising the uncanny.

The film features some of Lanthimos's frequent collaborators, such as Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe, Yorgos Stefanakos and Margaret Qualley, alongside newcomers to his oeuvre, like Jesse Plemons and Hong Chau. All play multiple characters across the three stories- bar Stefanakos- and excel in each. Plemons showcases his versatility, bringing a decency and humanity to even the cruellest of men. Stone, meanwhile, proves yet again that she is a perfect fit for Lanthimos's material, inhabiting her disparate, bizarre roles with a remarkable ease and naturality.

In addition, Dafoe demonstrates once more why many consider him one of the finest actors working today, bringing authenticity to three markedly different personalities; from the good and the bad to the ugly. Furthermore, Qualley and Chau both bring life to smaller roles, showcasing their considerable abilities, while Stefanakos- totally mute- has a strong screen presence, making his enigmatic character all the more intriguing.

Darkly funny and overwhelmingly odd, 'Kinds of Kindness' is a typically Lanthimosian venture. Featuring three entertaining tales of madness, control and manipulation, it is utterly unique. Boasting striking cinematography, as well as a stirring, sinister score, one won't easily forget it. With strong performances from all in the cast- especially Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons and Willem Dafoe- and comically off-beat dialogue, it is all kinds of weird- and all kinds of wonderful.

This feels like the summer movie for lanthimos' fans 😂

Good piece of art, not at the level of poor things IMHO, but still very interesting. Honestly I felt like with poor things some reviews were searching too much into a "positive ending" or a woman empowerment change... While poor things also had some very dark moments almost like a parody... Well, here we have the usual lanthimos... The one who tends to give us the worst of humanity 😂

I still need to reflect a bit, especially on the 2nd story, but yeah, definitely great dry humour movie. Oh and some scenes will make people talk ... :) This is a funny movie but it's also very harsh

Emma (or Emily 😄) and Jesse and Willem are brilliant as always.

Giving this an 6/10 rating

Yorgos Lanthimos is one of those directors you are going to love or hate. 'Poor Things' was a really great film, earlier this year, garnered many awards, but this - 'Kinds of Kindness' is one that that I will not want to watch again, is just about good.

The film is split into three tales, all are good, well acted, good lines, it's all almost good, but for the actual characters them selfs, I just could not like any of them, these are people who I would not want to spend any time with at all, very unsettling humans, maybe that is the point? If so, it worked, but still, even with the real great laugh out loud moments, I still felt cold on this film.

It's not total crap, but in my mind, not Lanthimos' best. So 6/10 is the most I can give it, Could use trimming on time too.

Yorgos Lanthimos returns with a vengeance, delivering a film that feels closer to his earlier cinematic endeavors. "Kinds of Kindness", is a challenging film in the sense that you have to experience it emotionally. Trying to intellectualize it, will only lead to frustration. It's the kind of film that provides you with a very unique experience. When the credits roll and you leave the movie theater, you don't leave the film behind, you take it with you at home. It affects you, it lingers in your mind and it makes you think about it all the time. That is, at least, the effect the film had on me.

Many things have been said about Lanthimos and his potential cinematic influences, from the cold, cynical minimalism of Michael Haneke, to Lars Von Trier's provocative, violent and disturbing cinema and finally, to Stanley Kubrick's ambitious, cinematically rich Odysseys. With this film in particular, Lanthimos reaffirms what I always felt about him. There's a surreal, dream-like, psyche penetrating effect that he achieves with many of his films and "Kinds of Kindness" is definitely the most surreal, dream-like and psyche penetrating cinematic experience that he has ever provided us with. I feel like he is much closer to David Lynch than most people think.

Watching "Poor Things", I felt like he was doing something like "The Elephant Man"-an adaptation of somebody else's work that people felt maintained his identity but was quite different and much more accessible compered to his earlier films-and now "Kinds of Kindness" feels like he automatically jumped to making something along the lines of "Lost Highway" or "Inland Empire"-an original film that is very experiential and hard to intellectualize, denying conventional interpretation and instead, aiming for the senses.

Three different stories, different characters played by the same actors, themes varying from power and control to love and death, "Kinds of Kindness" is certainly a unique kind of film that really grows on you the more you're thinking about it.

Lanthimos reunites with his fellow screenwriter and partner in crime, Efthimis Filippou and the result is exactly what I was expecting. I feel like this is a very personal film for both Lanthimos and Filippou, with the second story in particular being a very devastating exploration of how we desperately want our significant other to be exactly the same way they were when we first met them. Or, at least, that's what I got from it, having watched the film once, so far. The final scene from the second story, strongly reminded me of the ending of Lynch's Eraserhead, when Henry is finally reunited with the woman from the radiator, after having exterminated the source of his problems aka his unwanted child.

The first story, I felt was by far the most disturbing one, considering the state most people from younger generations find themselves into: sacrificing the prospects of leading a normal life and having a family, all for the sake of maintaining a prestigious job and achieving financial wealth, as they completely submit to those pursuits. This is something that is very evident in Greece and most countries of the Western world as well.

The third story, is probably the most difficult to interpret, both in and of itself and in terms of how it creates the bigger picture that is this triptych of a movie.

From a technical standpoint, the film is meticulously crafted which is not particularly surprising considering that Lanthimos has proven time and time again that he is a remarkable filmmaker. The fact he is one of the last few remaining filmmakers who still shoot on film, is very inspiring for younger, aspiring filmmakers who unfortunately grew up in an era in which cinema was transitioning from film to digital. The film looks gorgeous and the visual aesthetic of the celluloid elevates the film's atmosphere and otherworldliness.

After I watched the film, I was trying to understand whether Lanthimos and Filippou intended for us to see all these different characters played by the same actors, as the same characters reincarnated in different lives-an interpretation that isn't exactly off the table, considering the film's surreal and occasionally supernatural logic-but eventually, I came down to the conclusion that they were trying to communicate something else.

We are all completely different in many respects, but in the end of the day, we are all struggling with the same things and we have very similar problems and existential anxieties, which essentially make us all different versions of the same individual. It doesn't matter whether you're a slave of your boss, your husband or your pastor. There's only one constant in life, and that's death.

We're all just trying to survive and find some kind of meaning. Some kind of kindness that might ease the pain of the inevitable ending that will come for as all.

-BV.

"Kinds of Kindness" is Yorgos' latest cinematic achievement. A self aware, self conscious film that doesn't try to prove anything more than what is already well established. Yorgos is a freaking good filmmaker!

Traversing back to his early years in the industry, Lanthimos takes a gamble and gets a full house! Resembling more to his first movies, with "Kinds of Kindness" he embraces the directorial qualities that defined his work.

The idea to create an anthology movie was brilliant and effective. Three stories with a thinly visible thematic connection, offer an almost 3hr long journey through Lanthimos' wide and wild imagination.

The comic reliefs are quite present, cautiously placed throughout the stories. The humor is dry, raw, almost unintentional. It makes you laugh -sometimes a lot-, coming in a full contradiction to the cruelty and the strong element of macabre crowning the pleasing visuals.

The gore is generously poured all over the place, sometimes for serving a cause... or just for fun. The string that ties all three stories though, is the robust essence of decay that modern human relationships strongly consist of. The idea of manipulation, blind dedication, enslavement of someone's free will, greedy desires, hypocrisy and lack of empathy are so blatantly obvious, that it's really hard to not notice. It's this slowly rotting world that keeps these phenomenally separate stories together, and I'm here for it!

The first part, tells the story of an employee so ridiculously castrated by his hyper-manipulative boss, to the point where the lines between obedience and free will, seem to be devoured by a psychotic love triangle.

The second tells the tale of a police officer, who rejoins his wife, who almost lost her life in a tragic accident. She's welcomed home and everything seems to go back to normal, but something seems off...

And lastly, the third and final part of the anthology is about an absurd, muscle car driving, sex cult and their desire to find the "higher human" who can grant life through his touch.

All these short, sexually charged stories, beautifully shot and directed, offer a great time at the movies; an experience like no other.

P. S. Jesse Plemons is the absolute highlight of the movie! Hats off to this exceptional actor!

IT'S WORTH OF YOUR TIME!

As of this summer season, a brand new film from Yorgos Lanthimos has been released called Kinds of Kindness. Following its premiere at the 77th Cannes Film Festival, in which lead actor Jesse Plemons won the award for Best Actor, the film got released in late June across America and has garnered fairly positive reviews. It's honestly shocking how quickly it came out after Lanthimos' last feature Poor Things, which not only came out to the states a mere six months ago, but also had Emma Stone as the primary lead. Regardless of any coincidences, it's best to see how this ambitious black comedy anthology has turned out for the whole world to see.

Executed as a triptych feature film, Kinds of Kindness details three distinct yet loosely connected storylines with mostly the same cast of Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Willem Dafoe, Margaret Qualley, Hong Chau, Joe Alwyn and Mamoudou Athie. Each storyline follows the multifaceted theme of control and how human beings cannot fight against it enough before returning to it and resulting in a lack of satisfaction in their lives. While each segment tells a completely different narrative, they are all connected with the anonymous person known as R. M. F. And thus are only connected within the essential absurdities going on throughout the overall feature. Due to the film's structure, it may be hard for most people to tie down what the film is saying as a whole, but the filmmakers and cast manage to keep the blending of deadpan humor and absurdist tragedy concise enough tonewise within each segment that it could at least leave you talking more and more in the end. Although this film relies largely on its ensemble cast to carry Lanthimos and co-writer Efthimis Filippou's complicated screenplay, the intricate cinematography, stream of consciousness-like editing and haunting score are just as welcoming for viewers.

Now as for the segments themselves, the first one entitled "The Death of R. M. F." details corporate lackey Robert Fletcher who follows every order from his boss Raymond, only for his life to fall apart when he refuses to do one that is life threatening. Every conceivable aspect of Robert's own life is executed like a tragic moral of not biting the hand that feeds, complete with the man's complicated morals on murder, his marriage failing rapidly and how his own position could be broken at a whim. In addition to Jesse Plemons nailing Robert's desperate emotional state, this segment may be the most grounded in the whole feature due to its relatable premise and concise theme on how losing control can fundamentally break a person. The second segment, "R. M. F. Is Flying", details a police officer named Daniel whose wife Liz returns home after being lost at sea. Because Daniel doesn't believe his wife is who he knows her as, he ends up pushing Liz to prove her loyalty to him which results in truly horrific outcomes. Although Plemons and Emma Stone are giving this segment their all, this segment may be the weakest in the film due to its confusing moral ambiguity. It does at least offer so much needed surreal comedy, which was definitely lacking in the first segment.

Finally, the third segment entitled "R. M. F. Eats a Sandwich" details two cult members Emily (Stone) and Andrew (Plemons) trying to find an unknown woman who can bring the dead back to life. On top of this segment being the longest in the entire feature, there's arguably a lot more going on in this one storywise, complete with Emily obsessing over a woman she saw in her dreams who she believes is the "one" to getting drawn back to her estranged daughter and abusive husband. The cult itself is focused on reversing death and thus this segment possibly ties the film together through its absurd deconstructive look at the danger of seeking autonomy. Because cults themselves are usually made to control others for their odd concepts and morals, a lot of interpretation within this segment's storyline could be the disturbing nature of whether to be a part of something seemingly special or going against it. It's arguably weirder than the first two segments and nowhere near as brutally relatable or questionably humorous as either of them, but the characters themselves are endlessly fascinating based on how their own roles either make or break others around them. It's possible that at least one of them will leave you wondering what is up with their whole lives.

So while Kinds of Kindness may be a bit too absurd and surreal for its own conceptual intrigue, the cast and intricate filmmaking qualities do tie it together well enough as an admirably ambitious anthology worth checking out at least once. Compared to Lanthimos' more narratively concise films like The Favourite and the aforementioned Poor Things, this one might leave as many people scratching their heads in bewilderment as it will leave others contemplating the thematic qualities surrounding it. Regardless of where you stand on this film, it is admirable to see an absurdist filmmaker like Lanthimos unleash his vision internationally with fewer restrictions.

Weird, awkward, oldschool Lanthimos is back! His latest movies were extremely commercial, and now he's back to his roots with this low budget anthology of a movie. Three extremely crazy episodes that feel like Black Mirror episodes, "Kinds of Kindness" is a movie that explores human relationships with a significant other, with a boss and employer, different power dynamics of each relationship and the power that sex has in our lives and in the formation of our relationships. It's an absurd movie, very weird, and you vibe along with it realising that nothing is gonna ever make total sense and that's fine. I liked it a lot but it surely is not meant for a wide audience.

Lanthimos has almost rubber banded back to his usual films from his Oscar winning film. A cynical look at various interpersonal relationships between, Boss and worker, Husband and Wife, and Cult leader and its members.

Being essentially an anthology film while having such strong connective tissues for each story. As such for a story like this, each story will be compared to the other and not all deliver the themes of the movie with such precision. Two of the stories provide strong mystery on top of a serious analysis of control and sexuality amongst the various character dynamics.

It's a mixed bag but something that feels strong in its direction but don't provide consistency in that direction.

I sat through about 90% of this film until I realised that what I was feeling wasn't intellectually challenged, what I was feeling was that this film is a load of pretentious, self indulgent, twaddle.

The cast is reasonably stellar - Dafoe, Stone, Plemons. It's in three parts - which I assume are meant to have some sort of thematic thread running through them - but other than sheer awfulness, that theme was beyond me. Insofar as script and acting went - well both of those happened and I'm sure a lot of effort went in to them, but why anybody funded this, other than on the back of the "success " of Poor Things is beyond me - maybe it looked good as an idea on paper.

I do like to be challenged and, sometimes made to feel uncomfortable when I go to see a film, and the three vignettes that make up this film are certainly challenging. However, even stand alone, they are really hard work - they each shock and have reasonably original stories, but good grief, talk about a film maker self stimulating through their own art - this one really takes the biscuit for that practice.

I am sure that some will feel that this is a masterpiece, but, as you may have worked out, I'm not one of them.

POSITIVES:

1) The cast are all great screen presences whom it's impossible to take your eyes off, and it's quite impressive how well the leads are all able to inhabit three different characters in the space of one film 2) The technical aspects of the film are all just as great as you'd expect from a Lanthimos film. The direction, cinematography, costume design, production design etc are all superb 3) I think the score deserves a special mention. It's incredibly melodramatic but in a great and memorable way 4) For a film that's just under three hours long, I was never bored or feeling like the time was passing slowly. The film feels a lot shorter than it actually is, which is definitely a good thing

NEGATIVES:

1) I always have and always will have a fundamental problem with anthology films like this. The fact that the film is made up of three separate stories, each of which are just under an hour long, means that it's impossible to ever actually latch on to or care about one specific story or character. None of the individual stories or individual characters are given enough time to breathe or be properly fleshed out, meaning everything feels rushed and not impactful. Each of the three stories could easily have been their own feature length film and that would've been more enjoyable I think 2) I found the film to be very cold and emotionless. All Lanthimos films come with odd line delivery at times, but in films like The Favourite or Poor Things you can still connect emotionally with the characters. Here, on the other hand, everyone seems to deliver their lines in a completely emotionless and staccato way, making the film feel quite robotic and without any depth 3) By the end of the film, I had grown incredibly frustrated at the fact that none of the three stories we've just sat through come with any kind of resolution or payoff. I'm not one of those people that needs everything laid out plainly and clearly to be able to understand it, but I also don't think it's fair to ask an audience to sit through almost three hours with you and then not really give them any answers about what they've just seen. Each one of the three stories just left me with more questions than answers and this grew irritating by the end of the film. Don't set up all these interesting characters and mysteries and then give us literally no answers or payoff about what has been happening or why it's been happening!

1) after seeing the trailers for this movie and having seen 'Poor Things' I was really looking forward to seeing this movie ; the trailer and the movie have nothing in common.

2) my partner and I walked out after the second portion of the film and if you see it I think you will know why.

3) as others have noted here and the way my partner put it,' it just didn't gel for me' 4) the theater was absolutely full and we could not sit together and when the movie became pointlessly gratuitous I went to her seat so she could leave if she wanted to. It is a disjointed meanandering screen play in which I failed see any coherent narrative. There were delusions in 'Birdman' and they carried the story along , in this move there is no story to carry . Profoundly disappointed and nothing about this movie is profound.

It was 3 hours of nonsense that could've been cut down into a Netflix short, although it was more watchable when it didn't take itself so seriously and had more humour like in the first segment. Emma Stone sank the whole thing in the final 2 hours.

The movie works when it's approaching the surrealism of a Buñuel film, e.g. Exterminating Angel, but then in the final couple segments it devolved into long scenes of Emma Stone randomly talking to people about dogs on an island, or trying to raise the dead, with stiff line delivery.

The director punctuates the boredom with random acts of violence, orgies, nudity, and animal abuse.

It was at the 2 hour mark where I wondered if this is really what the Hollywood elite does on their off-time, and they made a home movie about their debauchery as a tax write-off for Fox Searchlight. We did get to see a very nice yacht and some houses that probably belonged to one of the producers.

I loved it. You truly didn't know what was gonna happen next. A refreshing way to tell a story, it's the most awkward and intense anthology of stories. Like if Grimm horror was written by an autistic maniac (I'm saying that as a compliment). The way the dialogue is so awkward and formal yet makes perfect sense in each universe.

I'm very glad I barely watched any trailers going in because the only one or two I saw made no sense and now I look back in. They actually made perfect sense. It's three stories told by the same cast that have no connection to each other.

Extremely well done and like always Yorgos keeps you perplexed.

Weird, but make it Yorgos weird 😂 As someone who adores everything he makes, I loved "Kinds of Kindness" as well. The film is a brutal triptych fable, intertwining three distinct (yet interconnected) stories: a man without choice striving to take control of his life, a policeman grappling with the eerie return of his wife who was missing at sea, and a determined woman searching for a person with a unique gift destined to become a spiritual leader. The excellent performances by the cast bring each bizarre scenario to life, making the surreal narrative feel both real and deeply emotional.

Full disclosure: "Kinds of Kindness" is not a movie for everyone, and I didn't love it as much as I loved "Poor Things." However, the film's ability to stay with you long after it's over is undeniable. The unsettling yet captivating plot forces you to ponder the complexities of choice, identity, and destiny. While it may not be universally appealing, for those who appreciate Yorgos Lanthimos's unique storytelling style, this film is a compelling addition to his body of work.

Lanthimos presents, through his unique perspective, (not only) three different kinds of kindness. Kindness as manipulation, control, inability to accept, obsession, submission, dependence, and greed. These are the only connecting threads between the three stories. These different kinds of kindness challenge, in every way-allegorically, surrealistically, and literally-the (problematic) structure of society. The constant extremities are all part of a sick human behavior, a sick social mentality. Once again, Lanthimos and Filippou do not provide a clear interpretation of what we see; everything has multiple interpretations, both hidden and apparent. Jesse Plemons emerges as the ideal protagonist, fitting seamlessly into the distinct directorial style meticulously crafted by Yorgos Lanthimos due to his exceptional performance(s).

If your like me and watch plenty of movies and are a film buff then you know that the movies directed by Yorgos Lanthimos are complex, strange, and different, a little confusing as you the viewer have to search for the meaning and form your own take. This latest work "Kinds of Kindness" is much the same yet the acting and on screen chemistry is in all pro and all star form. You get a pleasure seeing the wonderful Emma Stone and the supporting performances from Willem Dafoe, Jesse Plemons, and Margaret Qualley make the film a joy. Set and told like a book with different stories and chapters, you see it a man Robert(Plemons) who just can't escape his normal life as he's controlled by Raymond(Dafoe). Then the other stories go on with a mixture of accidents, blood, and a missing person still thru it all love is felt with sex and raw passion. Really this is film is a metaphor as to what people will do and how far they will go to please and be kind to others and find happiness. Overall probably not the greatest film ever made yet still for it's subplots, and different stories and wild out crazy things it does entertain any film watcher.

When prepping yourself for any movie, you must have expectations for the subject matter. You must have a glimmer of an idea for the story, the motivations and possibly the overall plot archetype. We get none of that with Kinds of Kindness.

Much like most of my countrymen's inability to look at satire or even understand it due to our school system that focuses on standardized tests rather than art and media literacy, we are foisted upon a dense and enigmatic triptych. Utilizing virtually the same cast and ideas, we look at the darkest levels of control and how it influences us. The film will test your resolve, because it is long and pretty uncomfortable, but each section speaks about the hidden institutions that deprive us of the only thing we possess in spades....that being freedom.

In the first chapter, a man gives up his free will to mesh and cavort with the lucrative and shadowy corporate world. He bends to its expectations and its desires and its conformity, incapable of making any decision for himself. It's a simple look at corporate America, its inability to create and institute mechanisms that aren't malleable to the changing world.

The second story is an obvious knock against marriage. As one partner changes, the dynamic of the marriage changes. Unless both are willing to adjust, violence can happen whether it can be physically or with a piece of paper.

The final story is an obvious slap in the face to tribalism. The US in particular has become a cesspool of division, and the fact our main characters are bound to the desires of a cult leader who has no true healthy intentions for them displays their lost minds.

The entire film has horrific scenes littered throughout, from murder to rape to even animals abuse. It's not an easy sell and I can fully understand why some people are reacting to the film the way they do. It's reminiscent of the film Funny Games, which showed us a potentially Tarantino-like film chalked full of quips, extreme violence and hipster music. Instead we got a slow, quiet film that stares at you with judgmental eyes. Kinds of Kindness was quick to add Lanthimos' most accessible films as a lead in to what the this film might be. The Director of the Favourite and Poor Things were plastered all over the advertising. Nope. This is Greek cinema Lanthimos work. I described it as "American Dogtooth" in both its energy and look. Much like Dogtooth, a central male figure leading and manipulating the violence to his own desires.

This movie is not for everyone. You will be appalled, disgusted and sometimes shocked. Heck, I've seen some wild movies and it managed to make me squirm. Go in with an open mind and possibly and empty stomach.

Yorgos serves up a three-course meal in his latest film, blending themes of kindness with toxicity and abuse that run throughout the entire experience.

In this film, Yorgos returns to his signature style that first put him on the map: the unsettling cinematography, the peculiar dialogue, and the eerie interactions between characters. The atmosphere is bizarre and disturbing, I'd love to watch it on a full theater just to see the reactions.

While I found "Poor Things" more enjoyable on a first watch due to its more grounded and marketable nature, this new film offers a different kind of allure. Despite its nearly three-hour runtime, it felt surprisingly brisk and engaging, keeping me captivated from start to finish. The unique storytelling and bold artistic choices made it a memorable experience, showcasing Yorgos's ability to craft compelling narratives that hold your attention.

I'd also say that I do prefer a more structured one story type of movie, but then again experimenting is never a bad thing specially when done but such a talented director.

I sincerely hope we continue to see such daring and unconventional films. Although it may not appeal to the mainstream audience, I encourage to approach it with an open mind and enjoy the ride.

I thought that Yorgos Lanthimos's previous film "Poor Things" was the best movie of 2023. Now with his new movie "Kinds of Kindness" he has directed the best movie of 2024 so far in my opinion.

"Poor Things" ended up winning four Academy Awards including a well deserved Best Actress Oscar for Emma Stone. And this movie "Kinds of Kindness" won a Best Actor Award for Jesse Plemons at this year's Cannes Film Festival. Also well deserved.

The movie is made up of three separate stories with the same actors playing different characters in each story.

The actors are Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Willem Dafoe, and Margaret Qualley and they all give Oscar worthy performances.

The film is truly bizarre and may not be everyone's cup of tea but I found it fascinating and compelling. I loved this movie.

Yorgos Lanthimos is truly one of the very best directors working today.

This movie also has superb cinematography from Robbie Ryan who was nominated for "Poor Things" and "The Favourite".

A great cinematic experience.

Billed as a groundbreaking exploration of profound themes, the movie fails to deliver any coherent message or insight. Instead, it bombards the viewer with disjointed scenes, masquerading as intellectual depth

The narrative is virtually nonexistent, the director appears more concerned with showcasing obscure (and probably meaningless) symbolism than crafting a consistent story. The film's pacing is erratic, and any semblance of tension or engagement is quickly lost in the muddle

While the cinematography occasionally impresses with striking visuals, it ultimately feels like empty spectacle. The film tries too hard to be profound, but its lack of substance becomes glaringly obvious.

It's an exasperating watch that leaves you feeling duped rather than enlightened. Save your time and look for a film that actually has something to say.