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.

Lawless (2012)

No cheeky lead-in for this one, folks. Not feeling it. I'll just say that I wish snazzy suits like dudes wore back in the 30's were still hip. I'd wear the crap out of those things.

"Lawless" focuses on Prohibition era Franklin County, Virginia, a place notorious as "The Wettest Country in The World." In Franklin County back then all you had to do to stub your toe on a moonshine still was to walk 12 feet and kick blindly. I'm also assuming it was likely also known as "The Most Flammable County in the World."

The Bondurant brothers run a fairly successful bootlegging operation, and have an understanding with the local police that allows them to continue doing so. The understanding is slightly complex, but it involves moonshine and the continued decreasing health of the sheriff's liver. The oldest brother Forrest (Tom Hardy) and middle brother Howard (Jason Clarke) are manly men - tough and no-nonsense. Forrest in particular has a special talent of being physically impossible to kill, which comes in handy when the local competition decides to do things like murder him. Apparently the anti-pain stuff in Bane's mask must still be in Tom Hardy's system, because when Forrest gets his throat cut, he just kind of sleeps it off and lowers his voice for a few days. No big deal.

"Are you sure you don't want to at least lay down? I'm pretty sure he made contact with your spine."

"You know I never miss a Redskins game. Keep driving."

"How are you breathing?"

The more wimpy third brother, Jack, is played by everyone's favorite fast-talking geek with the stupid name and very punchable face, Shia LaBeouf. I'm just going to go ahead and admit that I dislike him. Quite a bit, actually. When he first came on the scene I thought he was alright, but as the years have gone by his schtick has gotten more and more insufferable - reaching the capstone with the "Transformers" series.

Fortunately for us, in "Lawless" he plays someone who is a hick. So because of that, he speaks slowly and without much "witty" LaBeouf banter. I have to give him credit for actually being able to shut his mouth for once, but at the same time he's still not that spectacular. But when you're dealing with him, it's really just for the best to call it a day when he's not teeth-grindingly annoying. But hey, he has proven he can play a person of low to middling intelligence.

If you have that haircut, you are required by law to have an IQ under 85.

Even though "Lawless" follows Shia LaBeouf's Jack around most of the time, it really doesn't feel like Jack's story. The real main character here is clearly Forrest, and for the life of me I have no idea why that character wasn't put more front and center, despite nearly every event revolving around him. From the start of the film he's in charge of the bootlegging operation, and only steps down temporarily once, and the only reason he did that was because he needed to give the sutures a chance to glue his head back on his neck. But after that, once he's healed he's back in the thick of things. And I'm having difficultly remembering an occasion where Jack made himself indispensable.

That's not to say that Forrest isn't in the movie a lot, because he certainly is. Tom Hardy gets the second most amount of screen time next to Shia, it's just a matter of perspective. I don't really see the point of having the movie be told through the viewpoint of Jack. It'd be like watching "Die Hard" from the perspective of Argyle, the limo driver who drops McClaine off and waits in the parking garage for most of the movie until he does that one useful thing at the end. Yeah, he did do something, but in the long run, it wasn't anything that McClaine or someone else couldn't have found a way to accomplish just as well. Jack is just nowhere near as interesting or as cool as Forrest is.

Also, Tom Hardy sounds spot-on like Tom Berenger in "Platoon" in this. I kept waiting for him to ask Shia what he knew about death.

But as awesome as Tom Hardy was in "Lawless," there are only two things you'll remember - Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce. These guy were both amazing, although one gets totally shafted.

Gary Oldman plays a Chicago gangster who Jack sees gun down a car right in the middle of the street. Jack is admittedly impressed and inspired by the act. I'm not quite sure if Oldman really had too much else to do with the plot, even though he spares Shia's life at one point for reasons I can't really remember since it wasn't made abundantly clear. I think he was there mostly to showcase the brutality of a true criminal and to inspire the brothers to step up their game.

Oldman is only in this movie for 5 minutes. Tops. It's really a damn shame because casting Gary Oldman in anything for just 5 minutes is just a stupid thing to do. I wanted to see more of him, especially after he bashes in a dude's head with a shovel. It's brutal, shocking, and really really awesome. And funny. And it's the last you see of him. Damn.

"Gary? Back up. If you want to shoot the barber pole...Gary...you're shooting...GARY! BACK UP!"

Guy Pearce plays Rakes, a Special Deputy who comes to Virginia to shake down the bootleggers and get a cut of their profits. Pierce, I must admit, is pretty entertaining in this movie. I've never thought too much of him as an actor but I'll give credit where credit is due - after Gary Oldman he's the most entertaining character in the film. Fortunately for us he functions as what is essentially the main antagonist, so we see a lot of him. He actually reminds me a bit of Gary Oldman's character from "The Professional." He's over-the-top and corny, so much so that you really don't think a whole lot of him at first. That is, until you see him work.

His hair looks like a Michigan Wolverines helmet.

There are several scenes where so you see Rakes become an absolute monster. The most memorable one being the time he gives Shia LaBeouf the epic beating that I've fantasized giving him myself. It's particularly fun to watch as Rakes is a bit of a fastidious clean-freak, what with his impeccably neat suit. surgically combed hair and spotless gloves. He doesn't really get "serious" about the beating until Jack has the gall to bleed on his suit. Then it's personal. And yes, it's a bit weird having a guy who seems like he'd be better off in a Bond movie in this period piece, but he injects some much needed life into what is otherwise an almost plodding script.

Other than that there's really not more to recommend "Lawless." It's not bad. It's just not that memorable. I will say it's better than the overly long and far more tepid "Public Enemies" from a few years ago. That's not a huge endorsement, but it's something.

Pretty much just watch for me. Yeah, pretty much.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Lawless" is notable for having Shia LaBeouf not being completely insufferable, for Tom Hardy doing an awesome Tom Berenger impression, Guy Pearce having a silly haircut, and Gary Oldman hitting someone with a shovel. That's about it. If you like period pieces about 30's America, it's worth a look. Otherwise don't kick yourself over missing it.