Stoker

Immediately after her father's death, a strange daughter meets a strange - but drop dead handsome - uncle she didn't know she had. And then people start disappearing. That's this movie. And this movie is mediocre at best.The uncle's so strange - he doesn't eat! - he suddenly appears anywhere! - that you think this is a supernatural thriller. That he's a ghost or a vampire or something. And the daughter must be too. But in the movie's final minutes you realize the uncle and daughter are flesh-and-blood everyday people just like us. They're just psycho killers. One having perfected the art, the other just starting out.And that's where the movie falls apart. That's where you realize you've been sold a mediocre movie. Because these two's lives are utterly implausible. No guy who's spent 30-plus years in an institution for the criminally insane comes out as polished, clean-shaved, and good-looking as this guy; no girl as homely and weird as the daughter gets special attention from her high school's cliche of (also handsome) bullies. Oh, and when you murder five people in a short span of time, people in your small town tend to find out... and the cops tend to catch you. But not in this movie.More negative points come from this movie's depiction of public high school life. It's clear the people who made this movie never went to one. Or they knowingly blew off what they knew, and went for tired school life cliches and bullies right out of central casting (except all the bullies take art class with the daughter- and she's the only girl in the class. And they run wild in there too. Yeah, right).Nicole Kidman is utterly wasted in this movie. I suspect she was under contract and she got stuck doing this one.The daughter is played by the same girl as Alice in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (starring Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter). She does "Weird" really good. But she can't save this movie either.Oh, and the sound quality is poor. Minutes of unintelligible whispering, overpowering background music, and volume levels that suddenly go to ear-blasting level.So I give it two stars. Three is reasonable because it is filmed very well with pretty scenes. And the family is rich so you get nice scenes of wealth and opulence too. But that doesn't save this movie either.

I thought I knew what was going to happen with this movie, but I was TOTALLY off the mark. I like dark movies. And boy, is this one dark. I am also not a big fan of Mia Wasikowska, but I thought that she gave a wonderful performance. I initially bought the movie because I am a huge Matthew Goode fan, whose performance is utterly mesmerizing, but was surprised at Mia Wasikowska's as well. Nicole Kidman's performance was a little flat. The story was interesting, disturbing, and unusual.

STOKER is an underrated little thriller that was obviously intended to be a huge homage to Alfred Hitchcock's SHADOW of a DOUBT, a 1943 film which also featured a similar premise of a teen girl discovering her visiting uncle is secretly a serial killer. The acting from Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, and Nicole Kidman were stellar and spectacular, they show just how dysfunctional this family really is. And Kidman still looks hypnotically beautiful as she always has been since Batman Forever (yes, seriously), she is quite a Belle. I also like how the film also explores a sort-of theme in thrillers which is basically how "Evil is Contagious" or how evil has many different forms sort of like in APT PUPIL.If you are a fan of Shadow of a Doubt, or any other similar type of Domestic Thriller, then I recommend that STOKER is certainly worth the watch on movie night. Oh and also, Alden Ehrenreich (young Han Solo) is in this film, thought I should mention that.

Incredible and underrated. This movie is richly layered both visually and plot wise. The cinematography alone I could write about for paragraphs. Each shot leads into the next, and provokes you to question each character's motives and leads further into India's psychological and sexual growth into a woman. It's one of the most visually striking movies I've ever seen. It's clear each shot was chosen carefully. As for the editing--that too is phenomenal. In the trailer you can watch Nicole kid man's hair become grass through a seamless transition--this film is full of those well selected gems.As for the acting--that too is amazing. And who can complain with this cast--the well-loved Mia Wasikowska as the ingenue with deep but hidden emotions, Nicole Kidman as the lonely mother, and of course, Matthew William Goude. I didn't know this actor very well before this movie--but by God, he deserves some recognition. The whole movie, he plays him subtly off. Not incredibly overt, but enough to make you question his charm.This is an artistic, gorgeous film. If you aren't passionate about films being visually compelling, this might not draw you in. However, if you love to analyze movies, if you love to take in each line of a script, and each character placement--then this movie is a goldmine. It's subtle and thoughtful.As for the plot itself--it's a coming of age story with a dark twist. I found myself the whole time routing for India to grow into something dark, something dangerous. I was not disappointed. India is like an egg yet to be hatched at the beginning of the movie, and it is incredible to see what she becomes. This movie goes to the darkest places, and the musical score leads you there wonderfully.Definitely watch if you love cinematography and dark plots.

Stoker is based upon the stereotype of the creepy uncle. Mia Wasikowska’s father dies and then an uncle played by Matthew Goode shows up at the funeral that she never knew about. He moves into her house with her mother Nicole Kidman. The story takes off from there. Goode is great in his role. He shows up at unexpected moments, always has this angelic face that hides some darkness behind it when he looks at Wasikowska and more. The story gets really twisted some of which you could predict and others you can’t. The basic premise is that Goode was there to help Wasikowska to transform into something sinister. The film sets a mood immediately with its weirdness that draws you in and keeps your attention.

Orson Welles wrote that when a director gets to Hollywood, he can finally "play with the WHOLE model train set", but I think it somehow backfired for director PArk Chan-Wook, who in Korea has developed a hyper-melodramatic style -- a Korean High Baroque -- that makes him one of the world's most interesting directors to follow (try Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, I'm a Cyborg), yet his one English-language film feels constrained, muted. Fo r example, the three main characters are each stuck with only one mask to wear: Mia Wasikowska as the teen daughter India is blocked in suspicion, cold hate in her black eyes (usually glaring at you sideways (see DVD box cover)); Nicole Kidman as her mom sustains a smoky scowl through an alcoholic haze (and the occasional phoney smile), and Matthew Goode as Uncle Charley, half smiling and glassy-eyed, forever hides a Big Something... but the whole movie is likewise static, a twisted psychological thriller trembling in aspic, struggling hopelessly to move ahead. It's typical of the film, I think, that the intrusive character in the family is named Uncle Charley, getting you to say "a-ha: Hitchcock!" but the allusion is an illusion: it doesn't lead anywhere. Likewise, I don't see what story-threads the climax of the film tie up: arbitrary blood-letting because you have to end it some time? Okay, so why three whole stars? Well, the photography is gorgeous, music is handled beautifully, and above all it's a film by Park Chan-Wook: watching him fall helps you appreciate it when he really flies.

This disc is a double film dvd. Stoker/Black Swan. I haven't watched "Black Swan" yet, but as I bought it for Matthew Goode in "Stoker" I watched that first. A bit of a disappointment as the mystery of who was the villian became clear in the first few moments in. The director/producers were trying to recreate Alfred Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" with Joseph Cotton as Uncle Charlie. I suppose one of the differences was the girl had hidden madness in her, which her father had recognized in her early childhood, and the girl in "Shadow of a Doubt" didn't. I prefer Hitchcock's film as it scared me which this film didn't. Joseph Cotton didn't pose any threat on first appearing, but Matthew Goode had a malevolence about him from the first scene. It made me think when will people start disappearing. And no surprise, they did.

Park Chan-wook's first Hollywood film shows that he's not about to join the mainstream. Part gothic family drama, part Hitchcock thriller, the film is a subtle, intimate character study of a peculiar family.Now first thing's first. If you haven't sen the film, watch it knowing as little as possible.Still here? Okay. This movie is a feast for the eyes and the ears - the score and final song and elegant, and the use of sound is effective at portraying the world of someone who's senses are suprsensitive. It all adds to the effective double-mystery of both India and the creepy but suave Uncle Charlie. The film hints throughout - eveb the title "Stoker" has many wondering if this is about vampires. It reminds me of a series of stories Ray Bradbury wrote about a strange family where they all had weird powers. The answer when it comes is perfect - a bit gothic melodrama, but then that fits with the mood as a whole.Not that it's without its flaws. The screenplay is a little clunky. The story itself is cracking but occasionally the dialogue is a bit wooden (though the actors mainly overcome this). Worst is the unnecessary exchange between Kidman and the aunt about Richard ("your husband, my nephew"). Some characters (all the teenage boys) suffer as a result of being sketchily written. And there are occasions (I'm thinking especially "letters") when an intriguing revelation is almost immediately followed by another that twists things around. These twists are good, but it's a shame the movie doesn't let these little timebombs sit for longer before revealing themselves as they could turn everything on their heads.But these are minor quibbles. The direction, look and excellent performances bring a depth to the story that elevates this into a striking film. Kidman's brittleness works well here, but this is Goode and Wasikowska's movie. Goode gives Uncle Charlie a spooky charm and an unwavering hunter's stare. And Wasikowska portrays so much of India's confused journey of self-discovery by revealing so little. We really can't be sure of her final trajectory because she plays it close to her chest and she's excellent.This film is not a case of style over substance: as I said earlier, the central story is already a strong one. One of my favourite films is "Don't Look Now" and it was only recently I realised that the dialogue is occasionally clichéd and wooden - but the story, direction and performances elevate above that and make it a clasic. "Stoker" isn't quite that good but it's still an amazing film to experience, and an intimate and self-contained chamber-piece, most effective when it's at its most claustrophobic.

HOLLYWOOD vs THE WORLDThis is one of the few and most representative examples left of Hollywood managing not to spoil a foregin director but to even force him to be more controlled and balanced without losing his style.Some said that this film is a false step in his career, but I prefer not to rely on the clichè according to which, anytime a foreigner works in an american production, he automatically loses his style. As a matter of fact, I remember how Hollywood help great european directors (Fritz Lang, Wilder, Hitchcock, etc...) to even improve their style in the glorious 30s to 50s.THE FILM, THE DIRECTORSo, in my opinion, this is his best movie (yes, better than Lady Vengeance and Old Boy).He tried himself with the need for storytelling and the long tradition of Hollywood noir (starting with Hitchcock, all the way to Polansky, Lynch, etc...)and succeeded.Stoker is a work of art, where every shot and moment is perfect and makes this dark story even darker.Great to see it doesn't need to be long (less than 1 and 1/2 hour long) yet it seems so dense and full of significance and cinema and atmosphere, that you really don't care when some piece don't exactly explain itself. You just let yourself go with this irresistible and unique touch, that Hollywood, still and once again, managed to add value to instead of diminishing. A must-watch and watch again

One of the best films I've seen in ages. It's a pure masterpiece, an utter piece of art the way it's filmed. Acting was beyond perfection, the story was genuinely original. Loved every minute of it.