There are two things that you’ll instantly notice when watching “Stoker”. First, it’s clear that director Park Chan-wook is a true visionary. Second, there is something seriously not right in the Stoker household. “Stoker” is a twisted psychological thriller oozing with Hitchcockian influence and mixed with traces of classic horror. There’s a good reason for that. The script was written by Wentworth Miller (yes, the guy from “Prison Break”) who stated that he used Hitchcock’s classic thriller “Shadow of a Doubt” to help frame his story. But this isn’t a mere carbon copy. He takes things in a much darker direction which helps this movie stand on its own two feet.
Chan-wook is best known for his “Vengeance” trilogy and for “Oldboy” which is currently being remade by Spike Lee. “Stoker” marks his English-language debut and his fingerprints are all over this film. He takes Miller’s script and instantly incorporates his signature style which works to create a specific mood and tone throughout the picture. And if you’re familiar with his other work you know his films often incorporate uneasiness and brutality. Both are present here as well.
The story centers around young India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska). Her life is dealt a terrible blow when her father Richard is killed in a tragic car accident on her 18th birthday. India was very close with her father, something that can’t be said about her relationship with her mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). The two have a strained relationship resulting from Evelyn’s emotional instability and her jealousy of India’s affection for her father. After the funeral, both meet Richard’s brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) who has been traveling abroad for years. Evelyn takes to him instantly but India doesn’t trust him. He has the charm and good looks but there’s something unnerving about this guy.
Uncle Charlie volunteers to move in to help the family out. Evelyn is thrilled which does more to strain her relationship with India. The story unfolds and we quickly sense Charlie is up to no good. But there’s a lot more going on than anyone realizes. Most of the film deals with the tension between India and her Uncle. Her suspicions of Charlie are valid but neither she or the audience can figure the guy out. But it’s not as if she’s completely stable. She’s a very dark and brooding recluse. She lives in her own little world which is made clear by a couple of scenes that take place at her high school. The contrast between home and away is profound. Her nature and Charlie’s creepiness make for some good, eerie conversations between the two. But there’s also an undeniable psychosexual tension that permeates each scene. It’s a key part of the movie’s overall weirdness that sometimes has you squirming in your seat.
Wasikowska is an young actress that I’ve always been impressed with. She gives another solid performance here although the material doesn’t require much in terms of range. Throughout the entire film she maintains the same blank expression regardless of what’s happening. It’s nothing that allows her to flex her acting muscle yet it’s strikingly appropriate for this story. I also thought Kidman was really good. She takes on a smaller role, but her strong performance brings more to her character than you might expect. But for me Matthew Goode is the real standout. From his first appearance in the cemetery overlooking his brother’s funeral service, Goode maintains an eerie presence. He slithers around the Stoker’s secluded two-story estate channeling his best Joseph Cotton from “Shadow of a Doubt”. I loved what Goode did with the role and for me he helped give the movie the creepy intensity it was shooting for.
But I think my favorite thing about “Stoker” was the undeniable style of Park Chan-wook. I loved what he was doing with his camera and I never grew tired of his perspectives. There’s such artistry at work as he uses strategic close ups, moving cameras, and specific framings of shots. Chan-Wook also left indelible images carved into my mind. He gives the film a real horror movie feel with chilling shots of things like a crawling spider, a hair on a bar of soap, or a pencil sharpener. He also gives the movie heightened senses particularly in the area of sound. It may be voices, buzzing house flies, or even the crumbling of a boiled egg’s shell. All of this contributes to letting us know everything’s wrong in their world. I mean even the end credits are backwards and scroll down instead of up.
All of the amazing visuals and strong acting really worked for me. But some will assuredly be turned off by the movie’s bloody and violent final act. In a way I can understand why but not necessary due to the blood. I’m just not sure that the ending works that well storywise. That aside, “Stoker” is a strong film, dark and unsettling but still wickedly entertaining. It’s most certainly not a film for everyone. But it should be seen even if only for Goode’s devilishly good performance and the stylistic visionary direction. Lucky for me, I found there to be more to like than just that.
Great review Keith and I agree with pretty much everything you say. I thought it was verging on style over substance at times but fortunately had enough to carry it through.
Thanks! You make a good point. But I felt the style was so connected to the mood of the film that it worked. In fact I thought sometimes the style kept things creepy even when the story would hit a rut.
Great review, you’ve convinced me to view it.
Fantastic. It’s a nice little film and a solid English language debut from Chan-wook.
Man this family has long necks.
LOL! This is basically the story of how they got those long necks. That’s the big reveal in the second half of the film. 😉
Great write-up! Now I know to check this out =)
Cool. It’s not a perfect film but a good one. Let me know what you think if you see it.
Crazy freakin’ movie, but a bunch of fun to watch. There’s no real character development or emotions involved, but that’s what the movie is going for. It’s dark, weird, and a bit strange. That’s the way I like it. Good review Keith.
I hear ya bro. That’s exactly the way I saw it. It’s not flawless but it was a lot of fun.
Havent seen it yet. I want to though… sorry buddy, had to skip the review (as is my policy until I can see/review myself). 😦
No prob! It’s spoiler free but I completely understand wanting to go in with everything completely fresh.
Good looking film but it was awkward and irritating at times. The ability of characters to show up at just the right spot at the right time without any explanation was frustrating. The creep factor is high, but sometimes it felt like images are inserted without any reason. It just struck me the wrong way and unfortunately ended up being a disappointment.
Always appreciate your comments. I can see where you’re coming from especially concerning the visuals. Some did seem out of the blue but they did work for me mainly because they always felt consistent with the mood of the film. It kept me with the sensation of unease an the feeling that something just wasn’t right.
YAY, we’re in agreement once again Keith! Goode is sooo eerie wasn’t he? He’s sooo good looking which makes him even more terrifying, there’s that Norman Bates vibe to him. Wasikowska has always impressed me too, kinda like Saiorse Ronan, so young but sooo talented!
Oh yes, I love Ronan as well! Both are such good young talents. Stoker was the picture of creepy. I loved the visual style that you see all through the film.
Great review, Keith. Really want to see this one!
I appreciate it man. It’s good creepy fun!
I love Park’s style – his “Thirst” is one of my all time favorites, so I can’t wait to see this one. I really like all 3 main actors and Clint Mansell’s score is lovely so I’m sure I’ll love the movie. Great review!
Thanks a bunch. In many ways this is a tempered Park but its still really effective. And great mention on the score. It’s really good!
Pingback: Rorschach on DVD: Stoker | Rorschach Reviews
Pingback: The Top 10 Films of 2013 |
Pingback: 2013 K&M Random Movie Awards |