Stoker (2013) - Stoker (2013) - User Reviews - IMDb
Stoker (2013) Poster

(2013)

User Reviews

Review this title
325 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Its complex direction hides its shallow nature.
Pjtaylor-96-13804430 March 2021
'Stoker (2013)' tells the familiar tale of an enigmatic, long-lost family member emerging after the death of a patriarchal figure, doing little to differentiate itself from the plethora of other movies in its subgenre. When it boils right down to it, it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect it to be. As such, it all feels rather... inconsequential. It plays its hand far too early in some aspects and, in general, is just incredibly predictable. Even its more extreme elements are presented in a somewhat 'neutered' fashion, feeling like they were included to shock rather than to elevate the story (or, even, make it more unique). That's not to say the film is bad, though. It's a relatively engaging and entertaining in-the-moment experience that does have some interesting aspects. The most obvious of these is its avant-garde direction from Park Chan-Wook, which is turned up to eleven in almost every single scene. This creates an odd effect that does elevate the flick's mysterious atmosphere, even if it sometimes seems a little too 'arty' for its own good. Another thing the film has going for it is its strong cast, each of whom turn in fairly strong performances. The overall thing just falls down in retrospection, though, because it doesn't really do anything all that special. Its overly complex direction hides the fact that it isn't all that deep, something which becomes clearer and clearer the longer you spend thinking about it. It's one of Park's weakest films, for sure. Still, it's a decent mystery-thriller. It's entertaining enough while it lasts. 6/10.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A modern update on Shadow of a Doubt
Red-Barracuda17 February 2013
This is the first English language film from South Korean director Chan-Wook Park. He is probably most famous for the intense psychological thriller Oldboy. With his American debut he reigns in the extremity somewhat but does retain the visual inventiveness that is also one of his trademarks. In many ways Stoker is a modern update of Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt (1943). Like that one, this film has a mysterious uncle re-emerge into the life of a family after many years of absence. Before long it becomes pretty clear that all is not as it seems with this man and he is in fact extremely dangerous. The main character is an 18 year old girl called India Stoker played by Mia Wasikowska who was recently in the not very good but very popular Alice in Wonderland. She leads the film very well and carries off the bookish character effectively. There is also able support from Nicole Kidman as her mother.

The look and feel of Stoker is impressive. The atmosphere is well sustained throughout. If I had a criticism it would simply be that the story ultimately isn't all that original and there aren't really a lot of surprises. What it does do though is to take a fairly standard psychological thriller story and make it interesting by way of cinematic techniques. It isn't a movie that is exactly going to break the mould but it is pretty accomplished nevertheless and is a pretty good first English language feature from its director.
98 out of 154 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Twisted Cinema
billygoat10716 March 2013
Stoker is a psychological thriller that you might not expect. It's not the usual type of the genre. The storytelling is in pure style and it features its terror in a completely twisted way. It's a weird cinematic experience that might stuck in your head for some time. It didn't offer much new to the plot but it creates a both melancholic and terrifying atmosphere to the picture which made it fascinating. What's more fascinating is the filmmaking understands the psychosis beneath it and it clearly shows them on screen. Stoker is quite peculiar but in a remarkably stunning way.

The story is just simple but it is told very differently. Thrillers usually slowly builds the tension of the plot until it gets to the point that everything what's happening is not right. Here, it already shows the oddness of their lives. The only thing it does now is to explore what's happening to the characters and what they are going to do. The plot isn't really that complex but it's all rather provocative. It embraces the strangeness that is manipulated from the two Stokers. It's not ought to be scary or anything. It's all about taking the ride on their horrifying acts. These scenes are, without a doubt, bizarre and somehow disturbing.

The film has a set of amazing talents. Mia Wasikowska has always been lovely and talented. She gives a sense of weirdness inside of her innocence which is perfect to the character. Nicole Kidman makes a great desperate mother. Matthew Goode adds some creepy mannerism to the psychotic Uncle Charlie. It's easy to get infatuated by his deceiving charms. The violence is a bit tamed for a Chan-wook Park film, but here, he aims more at the fortitude. He fills them with an impressively energetic style which helps executing its eerie. The gorgeous cinematography captures the melancholia of their world. Everything is just stunning.

The story isn't really that subtle or original but Stoker is a stylishly made film that will give you a quite different experience. Instead of jump scares or whatever tricks that typical thrillers use, the film rather tests the anxiety of the audience in these strange haunting exteriors. The film is not trying to be innovative but the reason why it's interesting is because of its intense use of filmmaking styles. It leaves the clichéd modern thriller plot points for a while and it simply tells the story by exploring these people's little twisted lives. Overall, it's visually captivating despite of the horror underneath the surfaces and that what makes the film so appealing.
100 out of 144 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Disturbing and beautiful
LifeVsArt24 May 2013
"Stoker" is a beautiful, twisted, hypnotic trance - it's meant for an audience not overly concrete in it's thinking but who have an open imagination and are able to take the plunge into the darkly poetic vision of it's director. "Stoker" doesn't exist in a normal, everyday reality - it's more of an alternative dream reality, hyper-aware and sexually charged. The three principle actors are superb, but Mia Wasikowska really gives the film a beating heart, as she emerges from her innocence into her latent self - a mesmerizing performance. This movie is filled with images that are as disturbing as they are lyrical and open to endless interpretation (along with a subversive wit). I've seen the film multiple times and find that my impressions change with each viewing and that it has really haunted my imagination. "Stoker" is one of those unique and mysterious masterpieces that I'm sure I will be returning to frequently over the years - there's much to drink in, as the well runs deep.
218 out of 288 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
THE GROUND IS SOFT
nogodnomasters6 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The film starts off with some first person narration by India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) a special girl who sees and hears things others do not. She is very attached to her father and has never bonded with her mother Eve (Nicole Kidman, by favorite B-movie A-lister). When her father dies, his brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) suddenly shows up and has an unusual bond with with India.

The film is quirky. It is steep with symbolism, innuendos, and metaphors contained in the dialouge, wine, spiders, music, and shoes. Half of it I didn't get, maybe it was just a cinema thing. In any case the film had be fooled into thinking it was great. Charlie didn't eat and had a strange effect on women. A woman shows up who is named "Auntie Jen." Clearly there is something symbolic in antigen, right?

About an hour of intense watching, attempting to catch clues, the film dies for me as I realize the story behind the mysterious Charlie. It was one of the more cleverly done film of this genre, I think, and for that I give it 4 stars. Clearly not for everyone.

No F-bombs, that I recall. Sexual conduct, very brief nudity (Mia Wasikowska, or double.)
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Potpourri of Vestiges Review: Chan-wook Park's ode to the Master of Suspense, Sir Alfred Joseph Hitchcock
murtaza_mma2 July 2013
Stoker, celebrated Korean director Chan-wook Park's English-language debut, is a dark, disturbing and diabolical film about an introspective young girl named India who witnesses the loss of innocence following the sudden and untimely death of her beloved father. In Stoker, Park's fixation for the bizarre and the morbid is once again on full display. But, he is clearly a bit more cautious than usual. He seems to keep his characters on a tight leash for a much longer duration, and this makes the movie's first half appear much slower and less hyper than a typical Park film. But, once the dust settles down, the viewer is treated to sheer mastery of Park's craft.

In Stoker, Park pays homage to the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. Those who have seen Hitchcock's 1943 thriller Shadow of a Doubt wouldn't find it hard to draw parallels. Park limns a colorful canvas like only he can and his characters tread it like spirits caught in a limbo. While the characters are highly emotional, their strangely selfish actions make it difficult for the viewers to sympathize with them. Chung-hoon Chung's alluring cinematography gives the movie a hypnotic feel. The acting of movie's three lead characters viz. Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, and Matthew Goode is quite brilliant and in that order.

Overall, Stoker is an intriguing work of cinema that despite managing to stoke the fire of curiosity may still leave any keen-eyed, intelligent viewer high and dry. Those accustomed to watching the quintessential Hollywood product are likely to find Stoker very strange and deeply disturbing. But, if you are looking for something different to break your monotonous daily routine then Stoker will surely not disappoint you. 8/10

For more, please visit my film blogsite:

http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/
77 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Very well made film...dark and expressive.
jojeesmiles17 July 2013
I almost DID NOT watch this movie due to the fact that the horrible reviews were really horrible and those people seemed to absolutely hate this film.I decided to give it a shot anyway and I am certainly glad I did. I sat down to watch the film expecting it to be bad and it was not. I loved it. The acting the was spot on, the characters flawless in their representation. The plot was extremely interesting. The movie as a whole was captivating. The only thing I hated about it is that it was over. It's not an action-packed, explode in your face kind of film. It's thought provoking, dark and highly enjoyable. I am glad I gave it a chance. It's a film more than deserving of the time I spent watching it and one I will own for myself.
165 out of 210 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
'Stoker' is a rare case of an Asian Director's first English language film not being a let down
nrbarton6 March 2013
What typically happens when a prestigious Asian Director makes the transition to their first English language film is that the resulting feature is a stylistically watered down, less edgy affair and the worst film of their career. Presumably, Hollywood studios interfere so much they end up robbing them of what people loved in the first place. I can firmly say with utter relief that this is not the case with Chan- wook Park's 'Stoker'.

Stylish, artistic, beautiful, controversial and feeling much more like a movie from his native South Korea; Chan-wook Park is bang on form. All that's changed is the actors are American and speak in the English language, and the location of course. I sincerely hope Hollywood takes note that this is how to do it right! Don't interfere with the artist and corrupt and americanise their vision. However, I have heard there was a 20 minute enforced cut made to the film by an editor for the studio. Here's what the Director has to say about it:

"It's just such a different animal from what I've experienced in Korea," he says, "but it's just like how you can't really complain about the weather in the States when you're going over to shoot a film. The Searchlight people had good taste, though. There were some differences of opinion, but at least they didn't make any nonsensical remarks."

Chan-wook Park is responsible for such acclaimed movies as 'Oldboy', 'Lady Vengeance' and 'Thirst'. Until now at least, 'Oldboy' was his most famous movie, and an American remake nobody wants is due for release soon. 'Stoker' is admittedly less violent and more subtle than those movies, but only because frequent action isn't suitable for this particular script. It's primarily a character study focusing on the loss of innocence, and I'm sure some less contemplative people hoping for frequent action will be disappointed. When it comes to style and controversy though, this movie delivers and was everything I'd hoped it would be. It's stunning to look at and almost every shot is symbolic. More often than not it's sexual symbolism regarding loss of innocence, and the same goes for the frequent symbolism in the dialogue. Furthermore, there's a wonderful Hitchcock feel to it and clearly pays homage to 'Shadow Of A doubt' with a character called Uncle Charlie.

The writer is Wentworth Miller, an actor, and this being his first screenplay makes it all the more impressive. Erin Cressida Wilson (Secretary, Chloe) is credited as contributing writer. Based on the quality of this movie, Wentworth Miller needs to get writing some more screenplays.

I also felt the subject matter was a perfect match for Director Chan-wook Park, who's no stranger to controversial themes. It's a really rather pervy film, even if done subtly, artistically, and almost entirely non-explicitly. However, there's one particular scene I found gloriously wrong and solidified my opinion that the filmmakers had at least been respected and the goal of the studio wasn't to tame and americanise the Director. However, it will be interesting if a Director's cut comes out, or at least deleted scenes to see what cuts were made and if they were a good move making it less baggy or toning it down. The important thing as of now is that the result is a great movie. Movie critic Chris Tookey, for The Daily Mail, was disgusted by the film, so it can't be that toned down. A one star review from this man almost guarantees greatness.

The title and characters' surname 'Stoker' has obvious vampiric connotations, so some will be wondering if it's a vampire movie. Well it is and it isn't There are no fangs or capes or turning into bats, but the name 'Stoker' is certainly no coincidence. Vampire mythology, literature and movies are loaded with symbolism of the sexual predator seducing the innocent. Furthermore, one of the definitions of the word 'vampire' is non-literal, simply meaning a person who preys on others. Vampires are also natural hunters and killers and there's a nature verses nurture aspect. These themes are essentially what the movie is about.

Nicole Kidman plays mother 'Evelyn Stoker', and Matthew Goode plays charismatic, creepy Uncle 'Charles Stoker', but there's simply no argument as to who steals the limelight and it's Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland, Jane Eyre), as 18 year old 'India Stoker'. The actress is 23 but easily passes for an 18 year old. Her character is the main focus of the film and I feel she was perfectly cast for the role. She's old enough to be sexy, yet young enough looking so you feel a little conflicted about thinking so, and, despite her innocent appearance, has a facial quality that you can believe hides a personality more sinister. The character she plays is deeply intriguing and her acting as a dark, sexually ripe, moody introvert was magnetic and convincing. If it happened to be awards season, I'd say she was in with a chance of some nominations, but then when does subtle acting as a quiet introvert ever get nominations?

It may only be the beginning of March, and there's been a lot of great movies so far in 2013, but I think 'Stoker' is the best film of the year at this point. It's not only the exception to the rule that Asian Director's first English language features are watered down missteps, but it's a film I thoroughly enjoyed and left the cinema genuinely excited about. You know that feeling when you find a movie that you really connect with and you can't wait to tell everyone about it? It's one of the best feelings in the world. Produced by Ridley and Tony Scott, 'Stoker' is an example of Hollywood getting it absolutely right, so please go and support it.
193 out of 288 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Stoker: everything you love about Park-Chan Wook movies, just dialed down a couple notches
ianfarkas921 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As a fan of Chan-Wook Park's Korean films, particular his gross twist on a vampire story in 2009's Thirst, I was incredibly excited to see his first English language offering. Stoker, the first film made stateside by CWP, defiantly doesn't disappoint. This is largely due to the director staying with what he knows, telling a story that has all the dark hallmarks from his Korean works. However, Stoker is also less extreme then one would expect from Chan-Wook Park, as many moments of violence and depravity that could have been much more over the top are toned down.

Stoker focuses on the titular family of India, Evelyn, and Richard Stoker (Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, and Dermot Mulroney). When Richard dies in a mysterious car crash, his oddball daughter India begins to further distance herself from her estranged mother, Evelyn. After burying their patriarch, the family is visited by India's Uncle, Charlie. Charlie seems a little out there, and begins to form a sketchy relationship with India that suggests Uncle Charlie may desire more than family bonding.

To elaborate any more would spoil the film, but needless to say it's an interesting premise. The story unfolds very slowly, with few dramatic developments until the second half of the film, which contains much more wizz-bang than the somber and meticulously paced beginning. This isn't a bad thing, largely because the characters are so fascinating from the get-go that accompanying them while they go about their day to day lives is a pleasure. Even when the movie seems to be resting on its laurels early on, the performances are great all around (in particular Wasikowska's performance as distant and on-edge India). Except for a few odd holes, the script stays strong throughout, providing plenty of great dialogue courtesy of Wentworth Miller (you read that right,the dude from Resident Evil: Afterlife. Who saw that coming?).

Of course, the strongest link in the chain is Chan-wook Park. From the opening scene of fragmented shots with computer generated transitions that occur throughout the movie, his mark is clearly laid on the film. Stoker never has an ugly moment, and each shot oozes with that distinctive Chan-wook flair. My personal favorite is an early scene in a basement involving a swinging light fixture (think Once upon a time in the West). The only thing that feels absent compared to CWP's other efforts is a slew of neasea-indusing scenes whose only purpose is to shock the audience. Although Stoker has a few jarring moments (think showers), for the most part its very restrained compared to Chan-wook's other works. This is fine up until the last act, when the nature of the story demanded for a more powerful and shocking denouement then what was given. So despite not quite sticking the landing, Stoker is effectively creepy, well acted, and an enjoyable beginning to what I hope will be a long English language career for Chan-wook Park.
135 out of 192 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Intriguing and disturbing
lianaki-imdb31 August 2013
Without the appropriate cinematic skills, this film could have sunk completely, but thanks to Chan-wook Park being a master of psychological thriller, it came to be a nice work of art. A great manipulator of the audience's emotions, he meticulously constructs the movie in such a way to get you exactly where he wants you throughout it. He might be a little bold, but he knows how to keep the balance.

"Stoker" obliges you to stay fully conscious all the time to keep up with the symbolisms and invites you to use your imagination. The director wants a participating audience, is ambiguous on purpose, loves to make us wonder and speculate just as much as he loves leaving us room for interpretation when the film ends. Deliberate loose ends and cut scenes, designed to confuse the viewer and cause uncertainty.

Much like with his all-time classic, puzzling masterpiece "Oldboy", Park wants to disturb you. An exciting, twisted story, very powerful scenes, even scenes that many people won't be able to tolerate. A compelling story about dark nature and sickness, about liberating yourself and becoming aware of your desires. Violence is portrayed with scenes focused on beauty, and sexuality is portrayed dark and repressed.

I liked the script by Wentworth Miller (although I don't think the script gets full credit for the suspense created here), and I found Mia Wasikowska's performance superb.

This film is dark and might make you feel disgusted or uncomfortable. But for me, the beauty of the scenes, the emotions it provokes and how it climaxes, made me think of it as a piece of music.
51 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Park is a director of detail, and nothing goes unnoticed here.
punch873 January 2019
Stoker delves into some seriously dark psychological territory, while somehow rising above it. It pulls the impressive trick of making ugly acts seem beautiful...
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Stylish direction and spellbinding performances
phd_travel16 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
A mysterious uncle comes to stay with his niece and sister in law upon the death of his brother.

The direction is quite mesmerizing. Hope to see more English language movies from this talented Korean director. He draws you into this strange world quite subtly and effectively. The details shown and the focus on the expressions of the actors keeps one watching every scene carefully. The acting is top notch. Nicole Kidman's cosmetic procedures have settled down and she looks younger and more beautiful than she has for quite some time. Matthew Goode is very suited to his role as the mysterious uncle and he plays it just right. Mia is becoming one of the most captivating actresses and she takes on this difficult enigmatic role with great skill. The various encounters between the characters is full of tension and suspense in a modern Hitchcock way especially the piano duet and hair brushing scenes.

Liked the house with it's creepy but elegant combination of old structure and new details.

The story keeps one guessing and interested from the first scene till the last. The ending is complete enough which is good. There aren't any things left hanging. But after watching the movie you may feel a bit of an "is that all?". Would have preferred a different more feel good outcome. It isn't an irritating end just a tiny bit formula and not unexpected.

Overall the style direction and acting are all excellent. The performances are haunting. The good points overcome the weaknesses in the story and make this a very recommended movie.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The ultimate so-what experience..
CineCritic251717 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Stoker, a half baked thriller with overly lush visuals about the infatuation of a young woman with killing and the sudden appearance of an estranged uncle who apparently shares the same interest.

Rather than being suspenseful, the film turned out to be a patchwork of silly acting, awkward scripting, listless pacing and an incomprehensible choice of narrative structure that is simply unsuited for this kind of film. Someone ought to revisit and study the classics and until such time, apply for a job in the food service industry.

It is obvious from the get-go that the girl and her uncle are psychos, so why limp around aimlessly for two hours getting a point across that couldn't have been made more clear already 10 minutes into the film?

Is having a plot too much to ask these days?

3/10
177 out of 333 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Boring and Pretentious
claudio_carvalho9 June 2013
In the countryside of the United States, the eighteen year-old India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) loses her father Richard (Dermot Mulroney) on the day of her birthday in a car accident. Out of the blue, her unknown uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) visits India and her estranged and unstable mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) cheering her up while India grieves her loss.

Soon India discovers dark secrets about her mysterious uncle. But she also has a crush on Charlie.

"Stoker" is a boring and pretentious thriller by the cult South Korean director Chan-wook Park. It is impressive how Hollywood is able to destroy such great director. In the end, "Stoker" seems to be a suspenseful "The Piano" or "The Hours" with the weird Mia Wasikowska in the lead role and beautiful cinematography. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Segredos de Sangue" ("Blood Secrets")
46 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Stimulater...
Xstal22 January 2022
Uncle Charlie decided to stay, after father was taken away, a curious soul, likes to backfill a hole, one of several macabre games he plays.

India has a style of shoe, mainly white with a saddle of blue, was close to her dad, made her mam a bit mad, Uncle Charlie is the one she'll turn to.

Evelyn is India's mum, to Charlie she starts to succumb, but there's competition, for that closed position, though the best choice would be to just run.

A refreshing take on a repeating cinematic theme.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"Shadow of the Doubt" is better
jordondave-2808527 April 2023
(2013) Stoker PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER

One of the things I sometimes avoid doing is reminding myself who directed it, and just watch it as a movie since a considerable amount of critics often point out that it's Chan-wook Park's first English language directorial debut. You know, the director who synonymously made a name for himself after directing "Oldboy" and "Thirst". What I sometimes do instead is remember specific sequences or scenes, that if I recognize it from another movie then I'll probably mention it which is exactly what I thought "Stoker" really looked like. Which is a current revision of Alfred Hitchcock's 1943 film "Shadow Of A Doubt". That even though the set ups are similar, the end results are radically different which if viewers are already familiar with Chan-wook Park's work, they would be able to identify his trademark on this film toward the end which to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense if one were to think about it. This is either a coincidence or something else, but if viewers were to click onto the writer who was credited for writing the screenplay for "Stoker" by the name of Wentworth Miller, you will see that he was doing it as a homage to Hitchcock just because he's also employed as an actor as well, of such movies and television shows as "Prison Break", "Underworld" and "The Human Stain" to name a few. It's called "Stoker" because it's about the "Stoker" family which is their last names. While India (Mia Wasikowska) is wondering around outdoors, viewers get to hear what she is thinking. And it just happens to be that she has very sensitive hearing. Is this going to be a factor as the movie is processing. Not really since if you've seen a lot of movies as much as I have, I had already suspected it. Anyways, we had just found out that India's dad is dead without knowing about it's circumstances too much. After the mom, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) and daughter, India buries him, we find out that India happens to have an uncle she didn't know she had before calling himself "Uncle Charlie" (Matthew Goode). Get it, in "Shadow Of A Doubt", the Joseph Cotton character was also named Uncle Charlie. One of the last things happened before her dad died was that he had left her a present with a key, viewers are oblivious what for. Viewers know nothing about Uncle Charlie except to see the things he appears to be very good at including cooking and piano playing which no one in the household asks him anything about his life- that includes the father. Once a maid goes missing, we suspect that Uncle Charlie has something to do with her disappearance, and the makers avoid asking questions about it too. One of the major flaws with this film is that director Park-wook Park isn't familiar with North American customs and traditions, therefore we as viewers are able to forgive him for that as long as he shows us something else, such as the local sheriff visiting the Stoker residence who doesn't even seem to suspect anything suspicious when in real life, that is most unlikely to happen. India does What is the history between Uncle Charlie and the maid, and that is nothing. How does Uncle Charlie seem to know where everyone is going, which is another question that is not answered by viewers. And now that the maid is gone, how does the house get itself cleaned up since the maid that went missing is supposed to be the head maid. Despite the strange ending, viewers are left with more questions than answers.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Stoking
kosmasp30 September 2013
Stoker of course is very similar to other words that rhyme with it. What is really great about the movie, is the fact, that it is not as clean cut as some would like it to be! You can't define some moments by saying, it must be like this or like that. The movie did stay with me, after I watched it. You can speculate and try to figure out, what the director was trying to say.

But what we do know is, that the acting is incredible, the framing and the color set is great too. I wouldn't say it's a Korean thing per se, but the coloring of the walls is very intense. As is the rest of the movie of course. It might be slow burning and it might raise more than one question to what is happening and what not, but it also is really great when it comes to the suspense department!
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The flames either erupt or die out
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews8 October 2014
Richard Stoker is being buried. He leaves behind his daughter, India(Wasikowska, quiet and restrained, with a hidden passion… you can't take your eyes off hers) and widow Evelyn(Kidman, resentful). But they won't be the only two residents of the family home for long. Uncle Charlie(Goode, equally devious and handsome) appears, out of nowhere, and moves in. Not only does this strain some already bad relationships… isn't there also something strange going on?

This is a polarizing one. You love it or hate it. It's difficult to argue for either side. Because on one hand, this is a beautifully filmed, edited, scored, acted(such subtlety) movie, creepy, full of suspense and tension leading to brutal violence, with a mystery that is gripping until the flat, climax-less ending that takes a lot away as we learn the truth… and the symbolism, great, though there's also a bit too much of it. On the other, the story doesn't flow, we never fully understand the characters or scenes(which stop suddenly, or start midway into a conversation), and ultimately, while it is well-told, the plot is not as complex as it may seem at first.

It matters a lot what mindset you go into it with. You should probably know something about director Park Chan-Wook, most known for Oldboy, the Vengeance Trilogy(which I have yet to watch, but they are on my list), going in. He doesn't seem to have been compromised by Hollywood, albeit the language barrier may have impacted the final product. It's very much a slow burn. It owes debts to De Palma, Lynch, Burton, and, especially, Hitchcock – without any of them being ripped off. As the first script by Wentworth Miller, this is good, and I hope he keeps working on that… this shows promise.

The Blu-Ray comes with the well-done 28 minute featurette Stoker: A Filmmaker's Journey, 16 minute interesting Theatrical Behind The Scenes, 15 and a half minutes of worthwhile Red Carpet Interviews, 10 minutes of good deleted(well, extended) scenes, a great 5 minute musical performance, slick trailers and TV spots(note that they contain big spoilers), and dozens of gripping stills in the Image Gallery, and a bunch from London Theater Design.

In addition to what I've already mentioned, there is some nudity and sexuality(and a lot of sensuality) and breaking of taboos in this. I recommend this to anyone who can imagine themselves liking this. 7/10
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Style Over Substance
redskyfilming6 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Having watched the terrible decline in many areas of movie making over the past 20 years, i think 'Stoker' is a clear example of a movie that is all style and little else. Chan-Wook Park seems to be idolized by the chosen few who seem to think his movies are pure art. Quite where this comes from i have no idea. Take the 'Stoker' storyline; Daddy dies, Uncle appears from his travels, Mummy falls in love with Uncle, Uncle has a crazed sexual longing for his niece, cue over the top killings. Add to all of this a collage of 'so called' cool scenes including the bursting of a foot blister in extreme close up, the spreading of tennis balls on a court, nicely placed boxes of shoes on a bed, an egg being rolled around a table with a weird crunching sound,the daughter dressed in strange 'Meeks Cutoff' movie leftovers,the Uncle who drives a sports car alongside a school bus of screaming girls, the horrendous eating sounds of the daughter at each meal time (maybe something to do with her super hearing) and on and on. A total mess of footage that we are meant to see as 'total Art-house'. Matthew Goode must have laughed his way through this garbage thinking of the paycheck. Nicole Kidman simply did what she has done in many of her previous movies by acting strange. Last but not least, the very over rated Mia Wasikowska who simply plays the oddball and is better known for her unpronounceable name and whiter than white skin. This movie is typical of today's output by directors making a name for themselves with sub standard crap pretending it is art.I have not been so bored since i watched the aforementioned 'Meeks Cutoff'. Straight in with a bullet as one of the worst movies of this decade.
171 out of 292 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Sight and Sound Enhance Classical Story
LeonLouisRicci20 August 2013
The best Stylist Directors use all of the elements of Film to create and transcend Movies and present an elevated multi-faceted Entertainment. This is an example. Taking the Classical Story, Coming of Age Rage and muting it with serene Scenes with limited Dialog enhanced by a Poetic Visual Maximum.

Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt (1943) is the homage here with a dash of a physical, emotional, and chilling representation of Norman Bates and then there's the Suspense you can cut with a knife, or in this case any convenient Weapon lying around. At work here is a belt, rock, rifle, gardening shears, and more.

It is a subtle, quiet, violent, Psycho-Sexual Story. The Soundtrack, both Musically and Effects are used to heighten the Horror. Uncle Charlie uses Piano Duets to Seduce both Sister-In-Law and Niece bringing them to near Orgasm while sharing the Keyboard and the Bench.

This is a unique and diverting entry in the multitude of Maniac and Serial Killer Movies and is Self-Conscious Cinema done by a Self-Confident Director.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disturbing story, exquisitely done by all.
TxMike9 February 2019
I had missed this movie when it came out a few years ago. I recently did a search on "best movies" of various years and came upon it for the year 2013.

Instead of trying to give a summary I will just say that what seems to be the situation at the beginning of the movie isn't valid, and as the movie goes along, all the way to the final scene, additional surprises come at you.

It involves the untimely death of a husband and dad, Mr Stoker, followed immediately by the showing up of dad's rarely seen brother Charlie. His appearance happens to be on the daughter's 18th birthday and that was not a coincidence.

All the parts are very well portrayed by the various actors, the story and its nuances are disturbing but the movie is so well done that it is totally worthwhile.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Haunting and unforgettable, gets beneath your skin
safenoe11 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Chan-wook Park's English language debut has three Australians in the cast: Nicole Kidman, Mia Wasikowska, and Jackie Weaver. Jackie experienced a major career resurgence (and two Oscar nominations) after starring in Animal Kingdom.

British actor Matthew Gould also features in this movie, so quite a multicultural cast on hand for this moody and atmospheric movie.

If you're into fast and furious cars or mixed martial "arts", then Stoker isn't for you. Please give up your cinema seat for someone else who will appreciate the many layers of Stoker. There's no happy ending as such, so be prepared for the worst in people.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Dark and Strange
mycannonball4 November 2021
If you like dark, strange, creepy little stories, this one is for you. It's a little hard to care about any of the characters (for me) in a story like this where everyone is unsavory or eventually becomes that way. But if you're in a mood for that kind of story, this delivers the weirdness and the dark atmosphere. So I appreciate it for what it is, even though I find myself watching the spectacle of it more than actually caring about the outcome of the main characters.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
DARK. MOODY.
andrewchristianjr24 June 2021
Dark, moody and aptly shot, Stoker nestles in a secretive plot that doesn't quite deliver in its conclusion.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Eerie, Creepy, but Not Quite Everything it Tries to Be
rsj62417 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
--WARNING: There may be some spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the film, so just a heads up. In order to accurately review this film, it may be necessary to talk about some key moments.--

Sometimes a movie tries to do a little too much, and Stoker is a great example of such a film. I feel as if I am one of the few who while watching this movie wasn't very impressed by anything it tries to do. It's a story about a girl who grows up shying away from society and all it's norms, and begins to become inspired more or less by her charismatic, yet outwardly creepy uncle, who shows up to comfort her mother after a tragic car accident takes her husbands life, who also happens to be said uncle's brother. He in turn is infatuated with her.

The obvious things about this film that should be creepy are as eerie as can be without gore and disturbing imagery, but what keeps this from being a good watch is more due to the ever widening gap between blockbusters and indie films. These middle of the road films that try to look big budget with modest financing all to often grant themselves a campy and dated vibe, almost having a made for TV type gloss to their finished product, and when this movie in particular chooses to be stylized from time to time it often ends up looking amateur and even cliché. The flow of these stylized moments also lack good pacing as they occur either in quick succession or disappears all together for extended periods only to start showing up in troves again at a later time. It's far more distracting than it could ever been seen as a means to accentuate the film; and it makes things feel less serious and organic.

It's other weakness is in it's decision to favor the less than plausible over sensibility and logic. One would assume for entertainment reasons, yet it's a mystery to me how any entertainment could be found most of the time during this film. Mia's character gives a good hour run just buying into this mans insanity, only to pull a complete 180 in the last fifteen minutes. It's also beyond hard to believe that no one single authoritative figure could pieces together how suspicious it is that her father just happens to die the exact same day that he picks up this mentally ill uncle from an institution he was committed to for something very similar in nature when he was growing up. Don't people have to sign release forms and stuff at those places?

It's almost as if is movie was written without a clear intent or a consistent motive planned throughout, and in the end a jumbled up puzzle of confusion and creepiness prevailed without any solid message. It's clear why everyone's the way they are, yet their resolves, their choices, and even their actions throughout the film feel forced from an illogical world of ridiculousness, as if the only reality that exists is within the perimeters of their house, a highway, and a restaurant type place. When Nicole Kidman, who plays Mia's mother, begins to piece everything together, why would she call the uncle she suspects of foul play into the bedroom upstairs of all places? Again, in terms of logic, it couldn't feel more like a sandbox film.

Maybe if this film was deliberately shot low budget as a showcase of a friendship between the uncle and niece that budded into a unique understanding of one another through not accepting society and people, it would've been a much more interesting movie, or even more so as a period piece during the 1800s or something. But instead, it's a messy blend of style and eerie atmosphere that lacks proper pacing and feels very haphazardly put together. It tries to empathize with it's leads and give reason for their madness, but instead it comes off as relentlessly grim and faithless all too often, as it doesn't give much of a chance to things like hope or even common sense as plausible tools to pull a character through a situation. It paints a picture of the introverted and angst-ridden individual as a kind of 'different' that automatically rejects all basic human reactions to norms and situations, like no one trait could exist without all the rest of an assumed identity or label to be present, inevitably leading to the worst.

Case and point: **Biggest Spoiler** Mia's character ultimately becomes her uncle in the end by taking his life and begins her pursuit of freedom by following in his footsteps, which is all the more evident that he understands this by smiling at her before she offs him. This could've been a unique and creative film moment even if disturbing, but instead the film's aforementioned grim and faithless interpretation of introverts makes this an eye roller rather than an "Oh My God!" moment. Fortunately, you will find some moments of resolve if you stick this one out till the end; where you may go "yes! thank you!", but those moments are short lived, as it's clear they only exist as a way make sure in the end that more people enjoyed their experience watching this than hated it. Color me jaded; I did't buy most of Stoker.

Anyways, just to clarify, the subject matter and the story on a whole had potential to tell decently disturbing tale, and the ideas on display where not the worst, nor where they the ultimate problem. It's depth just suffers serious sense and direction, and it's surface seems like it would've been much more suited for a gritty horror film, or even a lower budgeted blatant indie type art thriller more so than this unfortunate throwback made-for-TV-meets-straight-to-DVD fare it tries to pass off as something much more grandiose in the end.
25 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed