Stoker (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Stoker (19/2/2013 12:55:46 PM)

Post your comments on this article




VwikusM -> Loved it. (19/2/2013 12:55:46 PM)

Absolutely gorgeous film. Seriously demented, but stunning at the same time. It was only after it had finished that i realised how weird it was. When it was on i was too swept up in it to notice.

While the acting was almost entirely flawless, i was most impressed by Goode. I cant imagine anyone else in the role at all.




londonnut -> RE: Stoker (20/2/2013 3:19:18 PM)

One of the best looking films I've seen in ages; almost to the point of distraction (several gorgeous seques/edits - such as a flawless mix from hairbrush to fields - which leave you admiring the film-making rather than adding to the story). Acting impeccable from all (esp Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode) but Nicole's botoxed face and pumped-up lips are far too distracting for her to be taken seriously any longer. Overall though this isn't as dark/twisted as the trailer leads you to believe; it's actually quite conventional which is a dissapointment. Was hoping for more deranged weirdness. Obvious hitchcock references (look out for the totally reinvented shower-scene which is the film's er 'climax' for me!) and it's very enjoyable but not quite as good as it thinks it is.




Jasper_29 -> RE: Stoker (26/2/2013 1:49:44 PM)

Excellent film. Dark, scary and twisted, with great acting all round. 4 stars




Normal Control -> RE: Stoker (27/2/2013 8:23:24 PM)

does Nicole get her Kidmans out onscreen (again)? I saw her boobs (plus more, in lots of other movies), but I'd love to see again!

and does Dracula show up at all?




ElephantBoy -> RE: Stoker (28/2/2013 12:56:06 AM)

Seen the full trialier and this does look very disturbing and stylsh. Good cast too, I look forward to it.




echoroom -> Really disappointing (2/3/2013 8:33:40 AM)

I was really looking forward to this, especially after Empires 5 star review. For me it's somewhere between two and three stars. Beautifully shot, fantastic dreamlike imagery, great acting, but the plot is very poor, with a twist that leaves you feeling... Is that it!? A gorgeous big Easter egg of a movie, that looks fantastic, but is empty in the middle.




Rich Empire -> Stylishly Intoxicating, lavishly rich, bewitchingly seductive and macabre. (2/3/2013 10:43:36 AM)

I have to say overall I loved Stoker, it's certainly not for everyone. Fans of Park's work will probably be in for a treat. I loved the performances and the unease/tension that plays throughout the film. It is lavishly shot, up there with the very best of the director & cinematographer's partnership. I can see the Hitchcockian angle that others have aligned the story to, with possible nods and tweaks to Lynch, Burton and Scott. Though it's undeniably Park whispering in your ear. It's bewitchingly ludicrous at times for which I loved it. It's very sensual in it's use of sound as well as it's visual symbolism. Deliciously decadent and bewitching to those who might like to give themselves over to the darkside of cinema.




Ramone87 -> DARK DELIGHTS!!! (2/3/2013 11:11:59 AM)

A chilling and precision executed psychological thriller!!

From the start you know you are in for an intriguing and sinister but beautifully made movie...nearly every shot from it's stylish opening credits sequence has been immaculately made for your eyes. First of we are introduced to awkward and pale faced india (Mia Wasikowska) struggling to come to terms with the sudden loss of her father in an accident.

Together with her mother Evie (Nicole Kidman) they must both cope with all the anxieties and feelings the loss has caused,..so directer Park Chan-wook lays on intense tension and analysis of these characters with extreme close ups, heightened noises to express the turmoil of these characters up close and personal. Matters get worse however when Evie invites his estranged brother Charlie played with pure menace by Matthew Goode arrives,....

Suddenly the atmosphere in their impeccably steely clean american household is unsettled. Mia can just sense their is something really wrong with Evie's brother, as he stalks her every move asking more stranger requests and odder responses.

Slowly India is seduced by Charlie and eventually uncovers his disturbing secrets when his volatile behaviour comes into full play in a number of disturbing yet stylishly mounted set pieces. The violence in the movie is direct and unflinching, using sounds and camera moves to great and disturbing effect...all the while played with a tad of dark eroticism.

After a painful murder sequence India begins to lose her innocence,..this being perhaps strangely noted by a spider which seems to crawl all over her body,..or when she plays her piano as entertainment as this seriously dysfunctional family has it's dinner at the table.... dialogue is kept to a minimum throughout but this helps set the mood and atmosphere really well.

Acting is great from all the leads,..holding the tension, mystery and horror as the truth is revealed about Charlie and the effects and changes it has on both India and her mothers personalities. It all builds well, as India starts to lash out at bullies at college to the eventual climax involving this estranged family and it's new addition.


If you like Park Chan-wook's older work or are a big fan of Hitchcock you will be right at home with this strange and unhinged family.




WATCH it!!!




Qwerty Norris -> RE: DARK DELIGHTS!!! (2/3/2013 2:37:46 PM)

A welcome English language début for the Korean master, whose juxtaposition of image and sound creates an infectious and technically marvellous tale of eerie seduction and unleashed menace - evoking the work of Bram Stoker despite not explicitly being about vampires. Goode is perfectly cast as the figurehead everyone becomes drawn to, whilst Wasikowska projects a morbidity and weirdness the likes of Burton never managed to achieve in Alice in Wonderland. Look out too for a rather fabulous transition involving hair and grass as well.

4/5




Qwerty Norris -> RE: DARK DELIGHTS!!! (2/3/2013 3:49:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: filmigos

Is this movie a horror movie or just a weird thriller? I noticed over on filmigos.com 1 person has posted to avoid it. I kind of want to see it since I'm a big Kidman fan.


Well that's just silly in my view.

It's not an easily defined work and it did achieve a couple of walkouts in the screening I was in, but for me that says more about them & the multiplex experience in general than the merits of the film itself. It's definitely worth seeing so I'd advise you to make up your own mind if you have an interest in seeing it, rather than rely on someone who may have been perturbed by its non-formulaic aesthetic.




filmigos -> RE: DARK DELIGHTS!!! (2/3/2013 8:35:04 PM)

Was this script written by actor in the US TV show, Prison Break?




UTB -> RE: DARK DELIGHTS!!! (2/3/2013 10:32:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: filmigos

Was this script written by actor in the US TV show, Prison Break?


Yep, the very same.




Normal Control -> Beware 'exquisite' in any review (3/3/2013 12:06:07 AM)

Caught this one and totally regretted it, and not only coz Kidman doesn't parade her MILFness around nude as usual. This is one of a long line of shit movies pretending to be 'quality'. None of the 3 characters are engaging. Talk about wafer thin. The Stoker girl makes the dead chic in The Ring seem charming. Was wondering how the hell this got an 18 certificate until the shower Stoker stroker scene that's gonna keep me off my cornflakes all week. The Stoke City manager Tony Pulis seems to make an appearance towards the end. There's some shots of flowers being sprayed with blood a couple of months after the other movie, so how fucking original. Lame, laughable, pretentious, implausable crap. Twilight for anal-rentatives. And no Dracula.




Loosecrew -> Incredibly dull (3/3/2013 2:44:17 AM)

Really fed up of these 'slow burn' movies that seem to think they're on a higher level of filmmaking. If Shannon Tweed was in this it would be laughed out the cinema. I expect Matthew Goode to be bashing this inside three years.




fozzie12 -> RE: Incredibly dull (3/3/2013 10:24:57 AM)

Went to our local cinemas first showing of the film on friday and wow do i regret it deadly dull for me twists you could see coming from the beginning really was one of those films that screamed "look how good/clever i am"and while doing so forgot to put a story as clever as it thought it was very disappointing big fan of Park's work but this one while very well made just didnt do it for me.

Kidman acted very well as usual,her line of lushes are always watchable and Mia Wasikowska is pretty good too but in the end its a film that fails to deliver and its a shame i'd been looking forward to this for a few months and then seeing all the glowing reviews for it reinforced the view i was going to see a modern masterpiece,but as i say it failed for me at least.




MonsterCat -> RE: Beware 'exquisite' in any review (3/3/2013 11:03:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Normal Control

Caught this one and totally regretted it, and not only coz Kidman doesn't parade her MILFness around nude as usual. This is one of a long line of shit movies pretending to be 'quality'. None of the 3 characters are engaging. Talk about wafer thin. The Stoker girl makes the dead chic in The Ring seem charming. Was wondering how the hell this got an 18 certificate until the shower Stoker stroker scene that's gonna keep me off my cornflakes all week. The Stoke City manager Tony Pulis seems to make an appearance towards the end. There's some shots of flowers being sprayed with blood a couple of months after the other movie, so how fucking original. Lame, laughable, pretentious, implausable crap. Twilight for anal-rentatives. And no Dracula.


Nice review, BatSpider.

I see we are back to insulting people who like the films you hate?




Normal Control -> RE: Beware 'exquisite' in any review (3/3/2013 1:39:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Normal Control

Caught this one and totally regretted it, and not only coz Kidman doesn't parade her MILFness around nude as usual. This is one of a long line of shit movies pretending to be 'quality'. None of the 3 characters are engaging. Talk about wafer thin. The Stoker girl makes the dead chic in The Ring seem charming. Was wondering how the hell this got an 18 certificate until the shower Stoker stroker scene that's gonna keep me off my cornflakes all week. The Stoke City manager Tony Pulis seems to make an appearance towards the end. There's some shots of flowers being sprayed with blood a couple of months after the other movie, so how fucking original. Lame, laughable, pretentious, implausable crap. Twilight for anal-rentatives. And no Dracula.


Nice review, BatSpider.

I see we are back to insulting people who like the films you hate?


1. Thank you.
2. Whodat? Cool name though...
3. Huh? No way.




tysmuse -> generous (4/3/2013 12:29:15 AM)

It looks amazing. The acting is solid. It's intriguing for a while. But doesn't really go anywhere in the end.




chris wootton -> Hmmm (5/3/2013 12:07:23 PM)

An incredibly simplistic story stretched out over the running time and is beefed up by some oddness.. it reminded me of To Die For in it's odd setting over compensating for such a slight story.




demoncleaner -> RE: Stoker (6/3/2013 12:13:46 AM)

Up its own arse whilst also being laughably naive, like a psychological thriller from the sixth form.

There's a line in Ozu's Late Spring that goes something like "Your uncle's favourite suit has been eaten by moths", I think the reason why that stayed with me is that I probably thought at the time “what a strange fucking thing to say.” The majority of lines in Stoker are like that. When I say the majority I mean the times when it’s “doing” psychological. The film does psychological the same way the actors in this “do” acting. “Go away I’m acting” says Mia What’s-her-face’s furrowed brow. Nicole Kidman post-stretch surgery, longs for yesteryear when a furrowed brow was an option, and she goes around looking like a kind of startled handbag. Matthew Goode has to keep his hands in his pockets presumably to stop a phantom itch to twirl a six foot long invisible moustache only he can see. His characterisation is possibly the broadest definition of louche possible, a women-love-bastards high gothic creation and he could give you pubic lice just by looking at you. The script also gives his character an arbitrary lunge to Rain Man when the script remembers variance is probably a good thing. When it’s not “doing” psychology the film is mostly doing a kind of failed Donnie Darko that misses an eighties-feel retro chic and plummets into the worse excesses of eighties naivety with Karate Kid grade bullies and would-be rapists. Obviously there wasn’t a near-rape scene in the Karate Kid, but if there had been, this was it.

This might have been written by the guy who was in Prison Break (no point naming him, after this he’s still the guy from Prison Break) but it might just as well have been written instead by the spotty oik who works in Blockbusters. It has just the right calibration of cynicism toward the mainstream coupled with it’s own crass cluelessness to qualify for that appraisal. Considered “hot” material only for the conceivable reason that fuddy-duddies like Ridley Scott thought Stoker might be a much needed antidote to Twilight, this may find itself loved by semi-literate emos but it might as well be pretty close to Twilight itself. When you have a coming of age story cunningly evoked by scenes of er…”coming” then you are perhaps drawing similar lines of arrested maturity in fairly half-assed sketches of adolescence.

As a nice, but incredibly superfluous distraction we have Park Chan Wook’s involved direction which can be remarked upon because it is doing much the same thing that we expect from his almost pure visual narrative style. The film’s framing of conspicuous imagery, sparingly repeated throughout then built into a mosaic that tells the entire story in a wordless recap is the kind of trope that may wrongly accrue accusations to the film of its being clever. The direction seems to camouflage an incredibly simplistic, meagre and extremely linear tale, fluffing it up to something akin to a many chambered puzzle box perhaps. But you could film “John Buys a Newspaper” and with a mosaic of isolated images that are gradually brought together you could really plant visual clues throughout that portend all along to the possibility that John really is going to buy a newspaper, the crazy bastard. It never occurred to me before but this really seems like the discipline of an ads director.

***SPOILERS***
At the end of the day this is a film so slight on ideas that its premise and twist collide in the first half hour – Premise:- is the uncle a bad ‘un?; Twist :- yes, yes he is. Cool, can I go home now? Well you might as well cause there’s fuck all else to see. That’s the first half hour and you only have a predictable outcome to limp towards for the remainder. That mostly involves trying to do something interesting with a shadow of the character of the teenager from Beetlejuice. The comparison to Hitchcock, even as homage, is completely laughable. In terms of suspense it’s even inept about basic things, like…oh, I don’t know…knowing that reveal comes after set-up? The main character has seen the guy murder people, she’s read his letters to a five year old on Valentine’s day, but then she’s shocked to find out after this that the letters came from a mental institute. To me, this is like Wendy from The Shining finding the “all work and no play” manuscript but only getting upset about it at the book launch.

Lamentable bilge.

1/5






OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Stoker (6/3/2013 9:56:31 AM)

quote:

demoncleaner

So the films not all that?
Darn,I was looking forward to this.




Davross -> RE: Stoker (6/3/2013 6:29:15 PM)

Absolutely ravishing film. If it's style over content who cares if the styles this good.




Qwerty Norris -> RE: Stoker (6/3/2013 8:18:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

To me, this is like Wendy from The Shining finding the “all work and no play” manuscript but only getting upset about it at the book launch.



Completely disagree with your review, but that's a cracking quote. [:D]




demoncleaner -> RE: Stoker (6/3/2013 10:34:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

To me, this is like Wendy from The Shining finding the “all work and no play” manuscript but only getting upset about it at the book launch.



Completely disagree with your review, but that's a cracking quote. [:D]



I'm just glad you got something out of it[:D]




Dr Lenera -> RE: Stoker (7/3/2013 6:50:09 PM)

Stunning direction and decent performances just about atone for a rather confused, muddled script. Different enough from its main inspiration Shadow Of A Doubt to justify existing.

7/10




teejay -> RE: Stoker (8/3/2013 6:58:25 PM)

Pretentious codswallop. Went to see this on the strength of the good reviews. Total waste of money[:@]




elab49 -> RE: Stoker (8/3/2013 7:23:30 PM)

What did it pretend to?




demoncleaner -> RE: Stoker (9/3/2013 4:26:02 AM)

I hate the film personally, I think the 3 main strands of apologia are a) camp value b) shadow of a doubt and c) Park Chan-wook''s ingenious direction


I think that c) is the most difficult to challenge, because it's expert and involved, and I think in his commitment to match imagery to both plot and theme he's the best and only good thing about this.

b) next motherfucker to mention Shadow of a Doubt in connection with this film is gonna get my metal..to quote Marilyn Manson's first album. Quit it. You look very foolish. It's a very LAST DITCH comment of appreciation. But let's discuss it. Joseph Cotten's character is maybe a career criminal covering his tracks. Where is he a self-enjoyed eye-humping psychopath?

a) The most disappointing apology for the film to find in broadsheets (who should know fucking better) is this idea which says "it's broad, it's delicious, swtich your brain off and go with it"...absolute bollocks. To be camp is to be self knowing, and in a great B-movie tradition, enjoy yourself far in advance of the audience.

I think Stoker isn't smart enough to enjoy itself, I think the script is fucking creaky, and nervous, I think the acting is fucking wall-to-wall awful, again nervous and creaky and broad. A broad, as I've just said that doesn't work.

And Olly Richards! Olly Richards said in his review (as a sort of Beatitude) that there is a certain type of performance that doesn't win awards but is quietly functioning. If there is any justice in the world I wish Olly a long life of unemployment where he may revel in many an afternoon watching Doctors and Waterloo Roadon catch-up. Meanwhile, we all know what a fucking character actor looks and behaves like.




Stoker is a Brian De Palma film in a world that wants congenital herpes more than it wants another Brian De Palma film.




jrewing1000 -> Utterly awful. (9/3/2013 2:13:08 PM)

Quite literally one of the worst films I have ever seen. A shining example of style over substance. I am completely amazed at how this received a five star review, and only confirms to me that the Empire review staff have no clue what they are talking about. I'll go even further to say that Empire have embarrassed themselves for allowing this 5 star rating to stand.

This review is much more accurate:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/sundance-review-park-chan-wooks-stoker-with-nicole-kidman-mia-wasikowska-matthew-goode-jacki-weaver-lucas-till-alden-ehrenreich-20130121?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625