Stoker (2013)

I was told that "Stoker" was a work of some impressive skill, which was something I found no cause to doubt given that the directer, Chan-wook Park is a man whose works I have greatly enjoyed in the past, particularly "Oldboy" and "Thirst." Comparisons to Hitchcock were rampant and thrown around so much when discussing "Stoker" that I felt like ducking lest I be struck by a fat man flying through the air. With all the praise, I was expecting something pretty solid.

Man was I not on board for this one. I hated "Stoker." I hated it hard. I hated it nearly worse than any other film I've seen this year, and it almost made the very exclusive "I hit the STOP button club." This film was insufferable.

The best way I can describe "Stoker" is that it's what would happen if Terrence Malick made a thriller and was forced to include a plot, I"m sure against his will and kicking and screaming the entire time. Like Malick's films it has similar flowery prose, glacial pace, cryptic storyline, baffling performances, and ham-fisted symbolism that would be a bit more effective if it weren't so overt. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it pretentious, as that's probably too harsh of a word, but it most definitely is obtuse and quite pleased with itself. So it's parked down the street just a couple doors down from pretentious.

Holy crap! Uncle Charlie is the kid's mother!?

I'm not saying it's terrible, though. It's just not my kind of movie. I suppose this is one enjoyed by people who like to throw out to phrase "I like movies that make me think," whatever that's supposed to mean. Personally I don't need a movie to be pretentious or artsy to get my brain fired up because I always think about whatever it is that I'm watching, often to my own detriment. Those that are artsy I usually find to be obnoxious because they're trying too hard. Again, that's just me.

Um...symbolism?

"Stoker" is about an 18-year old girl named India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska), whose father has just died in a car crash. At the funeral, she meets her uncle Charles (Matthew Goode), who then proceeds to stay with India and her mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). Charles is a man of the "I am obviously a psychopath" variety, which is most telling because he comes across like a mash-up of a Killbot from Omicron Persei 8, Dracula and Norman Bates. Actually there's not a small amount of Anthony Perkins in Goode's performance, something I'm sure wasn't unintentional.

As with every movie with the same kind of "The Stepfather"-ish setup, I am always intensely annoyed by the fact that nobody seems to be concerned that the clearly crazy person is crazy. Most of the problems presented could easily be solved by someone noticing that Charles is a creepy whack-job. But "Stoker" addresses this by basically having everyone be crazy, so Charles' weirdness gets a bit lost in the fold. Touche, I suppose.

"Oh hey, India. What's up? I'm just going to tap on the glass with these here pruning shears and then open and close them really quickly in your face while staring straight at you and smirking like "OH MAN I'M GOING TO DICE YOU UP WITH THESE LOL." That's what people do, right? I'm acting normal right now, aren't I? Hey where are you going?"

We learn in a twist that India is also insane, and that the arrival of Charles essentially coxed her inner psycho out, which is the lynchpin of the film. I guess crazy runs in the family. This would have been somewhat shocking had Mia Wasikowska not also played her part as an alien who learned human behavior by observing mannequins and Damion from "The Omen." I really don't know why I'm supposed to be surprised by India pleasuring herself in the shower after snapping a guy's neck. Hell, I was waiting for her to rip out a random passerby's entrails with her teeth and play jump-rope with them at any minute from the start of the damn movie.

No, I don't feel bad for not posting "Spoiler Alert" for that. She is clearly psychopathic.

And that's about it. Clearly crazy uncle shows up, rich white people problems happen, clearly crazy main character becomes more crazy, people die, nobody is surprised. I really don't know what the whole point of the damn thing was. To be honest I'm not a huge fan of Hitchcock, but there's no way "Stoker" is worthy of comparisons to his work. And that's taking into consideration that "Stoker" is a rip-off of "Shadow of a Doubt."

The trailer makes this film look far more thrilling than it really is.

THE BOTTOM LINE - It may have pretty things to look at, including some creative transitions between scenes, but the fact that "Stoker" is admittedly stylistically pleasant doesn't change the fact that it's dull and plodding with performances too weird for it's own good. I can see someone liking it but I very nearly couldn't finish the damn thing.