Stoker

→ in
Tools    





In a nutshell, the film is exactly what you expect, that being great visuals and a shoddy script, but not even I was prepared for how beautifully shot it was. You will get the impression Wentworth Miller thinks he's pretty clever, what with hilariously over-the-top innuendo (and if it wasn't then wtf Miller), ridiculous dialogue, and countless tonal jumps, but somehow it doesn't distract too much from enjoying it, thankfully because there's more quiet time to let the camera do the talking. In the hands of a general American director they usually get for these types of flicks, the film would essentially fast-forward to the end and probably have given everything away long beforehand, but Park cooks things like a slow burn from the very beginning, and that's what makes this sub-par thriller get under your skin. Unfortunately until dvd screenshots start coming up, it will be difficult to describe the fluidity of the filming, though even compared to his past films this is at least at their calibre if not beginning to exceed. It's one thing when Park can make a great film out of a great script, but for him to make what feels just like a first draft a really compelling thriller almost solidifies his mastery in the field. Plus every actor, even Kidman, also deserves credit for boosting the script to watchable, and Matthew Goode's face basically sells everything anyway. I also got the impression the foley people had a field day. One last thing, Philip Glass' work in here is utterly gorgeous.

Just a few things I wanted to say having just returned from the theater, but hopefully some of you have seen it by now, yes?



I saw it and pretty much agree with your points. It's hard to point to any extreme highs or lows and think you summed it up.
__________________




Is it very similar to Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt plot-wise or is it more a 'based on' than a remake?
I wouldn't called it a remake, despite the similarity of the name Charlie. It's a lot more perverse of a relationship between him and India. It's Hitchcockian sure, but not even based on I don't think.



I wouldn't called it a remake, despite the similarity of the name Charlie. It's a lot more perverse of a relationship between him and India. It's Hitchcockian sure, but not even based on I don't think.
I'm happy to hear that. I'm not a big fan of remakes of good classics.
I will certainly give this a look, because it sounds really interesting and of course because of the acclaimed director.



Frankly, so far it's the best of the 30 or so films I've seen thus far in 2013. It's been a down year but this was a highlight. IF you let the film just happen it'll get under your skin and make you swear you're dreaming.

I was haunted by this and it's definitely one hell of an example of how to build tension with careful orchestration. Even the dining room table seemed chose to add to the pressure. Loved it.

The full review is up on our site.
__________________
/commment Movie Reviews
the last word on just about everything...



I was disappointed. I thought it was visually overwrought and bordering on incoherence. It had its good moments, yeah... like the piano scene. I just wish they were in a better movie. The story sucked, tbh. It was disjointed and under-developed... the hyperstylized direction stood out like a sore thumb against the ho-hum script... the characters were all poorly defined, obtuse and unappealing...

The overall result was a mishmash of half-baked themes and pretentious imagery in a labored narrative structure that ultimately went nowhere. The first half-hour or so was especially dreadfully dull and meandering, and the constant portentous delivery of dialogue was laughable. Some scenes were painfully trite, like the bullying of India and the young man who sticks up for her.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



Chappie doesn't like the real world
I agree with Deadite about the flaws, but I don't think I was as bothered by them. When I tabbed it I wrote that it was stylish and pretty to look at and I don't think it's much more than that, but boy is it pretty.

Mia Wasikowska makes the most of what she's given and she's immensely watchable.

I feel like the entire film either needed more restraint or really go for it and use less. It just seems a little average at the end of the day for a film so beautifully shot and with such eccentric and eerie performances.

I have a feeling that it will actually be better on second viewing because I know I'm not going to get a lot out of the story and I can just sit back and enjoy the scenery. Now that I know what it is I'll be able to get more out of it, if that makes sense.

If I remember correctly, I gave it a B-. Thinking back on it, it seems like an awfully high score for such a flawed film, but the parts that were enjoyable, I enjoyed immensely. I still think it's an appropriate grade.



That's fair. I didn't particularly hate it but I was definitely very underwhelmed. I struggled hard to stay with it through the beginning but it got a little better after awhile. I can't really recommend Stoker... but at least for fans of Director Park I'd advise going in with low expectations and enjoying the eye candy. I personally couldn't imagine sitting through it again.



That's fair. I didn't particularly hate it but I was definitely very underwhelmed. I struggled hard to stay with it through the beginning but it got a little better after awhile. I can't really recommend Stoker... but at least for fans of Director Park I'd advise going in with low expectations and enjoying the eye candy. I personally couldn't imagine sitting through it again.
I had low expectations when I saw who penned the script. And you're right, it's utterly laughable. However, if I could watch it without any dialogue, my rating might skyrocket.



Your friendly neighborhood film critic
This is a jem. Really, I thought it was an absolute wonder, between all the crap Hollywood has been serving us lately.