Stoker [DVD] [2013]

Park Chan-wook's first Hollywood film shows that he's not about to join the mainstream. Part gothic family drama, part Hitchcock thriller, the film is a subtle, intimate character study of a peculiar family.Now first thing's first. If you haven't sen the film, watch it knowing as little as possible.Still here? Okay. This movie is a feast for the eyes and the ears - the score and final song and elegant, and the use of sound is effective at portraying the world of someone who's senses are suprsensitive. It all adds to the effective double-mystery of both India and the creepy but suave Uncle Charlie. The film hints throughout - eveb the title "Stoker" has many wondering if this is about vampires. It reminds me of a series of stories Ray Bradbury wrote about a strange family where they all had weird powers. The answer when it comes is perfect - a bit gothic melodrama, but then that fits with the mood as a whole.Not that it's without its flaws. The screenplay is a little clunky. The story itself is cracking but occasionally the dialogue is a bit wooden (though the actors mainly overcome this). Worst is the unnecessary exchange between Kidman and the aunt about Richard ("your husband, my nephew"). Some characters (all the teenage boys) suffer as a result of being sketchily written. And there are occasions (I'm thinking especially "letters") when an intriguing revelation is almost immediately followed by another that twists things around. These twists are good, but it's a shame the movie doesn't let these little timebombs sit for longer before revealing themselves as they could turn everything on their heads.But these are minor quibbles. The direction, look and excellent performances bring a depth to the story that elevates this into a striking film. Kidman's brittleness works well here, but this is Goode and Wasikowska's movie. Goode gives Uncle Charlie a spooky charm and an unwavering hunter's stare. And Wasikowska portrays so much of India's confused journey of self-discovery by revealing so little. We really can't be sure of her final trajectory because she plays it close to her chest and she's excellent.This film is not a case of style over substance: as I said earlier, the central story is already a strong one. One of my favourite films is "Don't Look Now" and it was only recently I realised that the dialogue is occasionally clichéd and wooden - but the story, direction and performances elevate above that and make it a clasic. "Stoker" isn't quite that good but it's still an amazing film to experience, and an intimate and self-contained chamber-piece, most effective when it's at its most claustrophobic.

This is a strange and stylish movie with a plot that is enjoyable once you engage the suspension-of-disbelief gear and park your need for a well rounded story at the check-out; at its heart is a stellar performance from Mia Wasikowska; standout, that is, unless she's like this this in every role [or God forbid, in real life] in which case she has been brilliantly cast and directed!Despite the name Stoker, this movie is only very very obliquely and tangentially related to anything vampiric - there is no garlic,no cape, no crucifixes though there is a lot at 'stake' for some of the central characters. Oh and I guess the bloody pencil you see Mia holding in her hand on the DVD cover is sufficiently stake-like to create one subtle vampire allusion. [I only spotted it as I sat down to write this review so maybe there are other subtly placed vampiric themes in the story.]The plot revolves around the central protagonist and her batty mum [both with the surname Stoker, hence the title) and their slightly sinister uncle who arrives during the family's winter of discontent, as Mr. Stoker (the father) has died suddenly.This leads to a kind of Richard the Third/Elizabeth of York relationship between uncle and niece, the bodies start to pile up and you watch a little mesmerised wondering who will be the next to bite it.I enjoyed this movie even if I found it a little unsettling at times.

Orson Welles wrote that when a director gets to Hollywood, he can finally "play with the WHOLE model train set", but I think it somehow backfired for director PArk Chan-Wook, who in Korea has developed a hyper-melodramatic style -- a Korean High Baroque -- that makes him one of the world's most interesting directors to follow (try Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, I'm a Cyborg), yet his one English-language film feels constrained, muted. Fo r example, the three main characters are each stuck with only one mask to wear: Mia Wasikowska as the teen daughter India is blocked in suspicion, cold hate in her black eyes (usually glaring at you sideways (see DVD box cover)); Nicole Kidman as her mom sustains a smoky scowl through an alcoholic haze (and the occasional phoney smile), and Matthew Goode as Uncle Charley, half smiling and glassy-eyed, forever hides a Big Something... but the whole movie is likewise static, a twisted psychological thriller trembling in aspic, struggling hopelessly to move ahead. It's typical of the film, I think, that the intrusive character in the family is named Uncle Charley, getting you to say "a-ha: Hitchcock!" but the allusion is an illusion: it doesn't lead anywhere. Likewise, I don't see what story-threads the climax of the film tie up: arbitrary blood-letting because you have to end it some time? Okay, so why three whole stars? Well, the photography is gorgeous, music is handled beautifully, and above all it's a film by Park Chan-Wook: watching him fall helps you appreciate it when he really flies.