Stoker
2/4
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, Nicole Kidman
Rated R for Disturbing Violent and Sexual Content
"Stoker" is one of those movies that makes you want to take a shower. A long, hot shower with lots of soap. Or, considering how creepy this movie is, something stronger. Like hydrochloric acid.
Despite its title and the surname of the majority of the characters, Chan-Woo Park's film has nothing to do with Bram Stoker, the author best known for writing "Dracula." Instead, it's about a very rich, but very disturbed, family living in what looks like New England. Richard Stoker (Dermot Mulroney in a small role) has just died tragically. His wife, Evelyn (Kidman), is saddened (supposedly). His daughter India (Wasikowska), who was reportedly close to Richard, doesn't seem to care one way or another. After the funeral, in walks Richard's brother Charlie (Goode), whom India never knew existed. Evelyn warms up to him too quickly for India's taste, but Charlie's interest is mainly with India.
Whether or not you will enjoy this movie depends on two things. First, you have to be willing to spend 90 minutes with three equally repulsive individuals. In a perfect world, these three would get hit by a bus or something. They're that creepy. India is an emo who doesn't say much and rarely smiles. She looks like a more twisted and malevolent Samara from "The Ring." Evelyn is self-absorbed and doesn't seem to really grieve once she finds Charlie's open arms. And Charlie is just creepy. He only has to look at one of the characters for a feeling of intense discomfort to set in.
The second critera is that you have to be able to tolerate a level of artsiness that approaches Steve McQueen's work in "Hunger" or "Shame." While the film is significantly better than either of those films (excepting the scene in "Hunger" with Michael Fassbender and Liam Cunningham), it has the same "look what I can do!" feel to it. Admittedly, some of the visual flair and editing tricks that Chan-Woo Park does is cool and the film is always atmospheric. But there's too much of it; there's hardly a scene where Park doesn't try something like mixing with the timeline or using show-offy camera movements. Sometimes it works, but usually it doesn't. There's also a frustrating lack of dialogue. In principle, I don't automatically hate movies with little or no dialogue (the two "Fantasia" movies and "The Triplets of Belleville" are some examples) as long as there is a story to be told and characters to develop an interest in. That doesn't really happen here.
That's not to say that the film is completely without merit. The three performances by Wasikowska, Kidman and Goode are terrific. Wasikowska radiates intensity and unpredictability. You never quite know what she's thinking (which causes some trouble in the film's final act). Nicole Kidman is underused; Evelyn isn't as developed as either India or Charlie, but Kidman makes the most of it. And Matthew Goode makes for a perfect psycho. Goode first came to my attention as Tom Hewitt in the criminally underrated masterpiece "Match Point." Tom was as charming as he was handsome, and the ability to play a character like that suits him well here. He's both of those things as Charlie, but it's all a facade. It's going to be a long time before anyone will think of him as a stud again (although considering his talent, maybe not...a good performance can erase any feelings about a previous one).
There are good things about this movie, I will fully admit. But I don't think it works. Regardless of whether or not it "works," it's been made for a very select audience. Apparently, I'm not a member of that select group.
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, Nicole Kidman
Rated R for Disturbing Violent and Sexual Content
"Stoker" is one of those movies that makes you want to take a shower. A long, hot shower with lots of soap. Or, considering how creepy this movie is, something stronger. Like hydrochloric acid.
Despite its title and the surname of the majority of the characters, Chan-Woo Park's film has nothing to do with Bram Stoker, the author best known for writing "Dracula." Instead, it's about a very rich, but very disturbed, family living in what looks like New England. Richard Stoker (Dermot Mulroney in a small role) has just died tragically. His wife, Evelyn (Kidman), is saddened (supposedly). His daughter India (Wasikowska), who was reportedly close to Richard, doesn't seem to care one way or another. After the funeral, in walks Richard's brother Charlie (Goode), whom India never knew existed. Evelyn warms up to him too quickly for India's taste, but Charlie's interest is mainly with India.
Whether or not you will enjoy this movie depends on two things. First, you have to be willing to spend 90 minutes with three equally repulsive individuals. In a perfect world, these three would get hit by a bus or something. They're that creepy. India is an emo who doesn't say much and rarely smiles. She looks like a more twisted and malevolent Samara from "The Ring." Evelyn is self-absorbed and doesn't seem to really grieve once she finds Charlie's open arms. And Charlie is just creepy. He only has to look at one of the characters for a feeling of intense discomfort to set in.
The second critera is that you have to be able to tolerate a level of artsiness that approaches Steve McQueen's work in "Hunger" or "Shame." While the film is significantly better than either of those films (excepting the scene in "Hunger" with Michael Fassbender and Liam Cunningham), it has the same "look what I can do!" feel to it. Admittedly, some of the visual flair and editing tricks that Chan-Woo Park does is cool and the film is always atmospheric. But there's too much of it; there's hardly a scene where Park doesn't try something like mixing with the timeline or using show-offy camera movements. Sometimes it works, but usually it doesn't. There's also a frustrating lack of dialogue. In principle, I don't automatically hate movies with little or no dialogue (the two "Fantasia" movies and "The Triplets of Belleville" are some examples) as long as there is a story to be told and characters to develop an interest in. That doesn't really happen here.
That's not to say that the film is completely without merit. The three performances by Wasikowska, Kidman and Goode are terrific. Wasikowska radiates intensity and unpredictability. You never quite know what she's thinking (which causes some trouble in the film's final act). Nicole Kidman is underused; Evelyn isn't as developed as either India or Charlie, but Kidman makes the most of it. And Matthew Goode makes for a perfect psycho. Goode first came to my attention as Tom Hewitt in the criminally underrated masterpiece "Match Point." Tom was as charming as he was handsome, and the ability to play a character like that suits him well here. He's both of those things as Charlie, but it's all a facade. It's going to be a long time before anyone will think of him as a stud again (although considering his talent, maybe not...a good performance can erase any feelings about a previous one).
There are good things about this movie, I will fully admit. But I don't think it works. Regardless of whether or not it "works," it's been made for a very select audience. Apparently, I'm not a member of that select group.
Comments
Post a Comment