Recently, I've become aware that certain films are able to transcend the medium by being completely self-assured in their atmospheres…
After India's father dies, her Uncle Charlie, who she never knew existed, comes to live with her and her unstable mother. She comes to suspect this mysterious, charming man has ulterior motives and becomes increasingly infatuated with him.
Does for belts, sand castles, staircases, pianos, pencils, pencil sharpeners, ice cream, freezers, phone booths, shoes, duck hunts, dinner, garden shears, shovels, metronomes, and showers what Psycho did for showers.
At 98 minutes, this is my dream length of movie. I have said it all my life.
After leaving this screening, and using the facilities, I could quite easily have jumped straight back in to watch the whole movie again. That doesn't happen to me often.
Stoker is phenomenal.
It's as dreamy as it is taught. As beautiful as it is horrific. It's The Tree of Life with A screenplay. An outstanding screenplay at that. It has been said that the director Park Chan-Wook has made a Hitchcock movie. You can't make a Hitchcock movie without a Hitchcock screenplay, and Wentworth Miller and Erin Cressida have made one. It's my favourite scenplay in recent memory. It keeps enough under wraps…
I’ve noticed a recent personal trend of being out of step with public and critical opinion. It’s certainly not a case of becoming contrarian or even more difficult to please in my old age but I am finding it harder to enjoy some modern films in the way so many other people clearly are. Unfortunately, Chan-wook Park’s Stoker is another one to add to this growing list of recent disappointments.
Maybe my contrasting view this time around is a little less surprising as I have always had a volatile relationship with Park’s films of either utter devotion (Oldboy, Thirst etc.) or deep loathing (Lady Vengeance, I’m a Cyborg...). The key differentiating factor between these sets of films is a robust…
Tantalizing tension, as far as it's concerned for Park Chan-wook, is an ingredient that can do wonders. Stoker, as it just so happens, is seasoned to perfection with it. It's a taunt, whimsical and magically creepy film that would make Alfred Hitchcock (who does get his fair share of credit for much of it) stand up and applaud. Gothic, playful, chilling and darkly funny in each otherwise terrifying set, and perfectly applying its own strange scape to capturing a dark world view of eclipsing sanity and childhood all rolled into one; it's a breathtaking little film.
Stoker is the kind of a film a daring Tim Burton would make now in his carrier - mature may not be the word…
A daring, modern re-telling of Shadow of Doubt. I couldn't take my eyes of this film even when nothing was happening, the attention to detail is astounding and the intense sound work really perfected the pacing. Really loved this film.
First time I watched this was before ever seeing Hitchcock's great Shadow of a Doubt. Now and after finally seeing the classic thriller, what were already noticeable Hitchcock influences, in virtue of association with films like Psycho and themes tackled by both directors, became even more evident in Stoker on a second viewing and thoroughly enriched the impact of the experience. But rather than just paying tribute to one of the most important and cunning film-makers in cinema history, Park Chan-wook further explores Hitchcockian themes in a more extensive manner, adding his own distinctive voice and creating a twisted offspring of incestuous coupling that inherits the best of both worlds.
Loss of innocence, sexual awakening, self-discovery, liberation, maturation, all are…
Overrated. Beautifully shot but very boring. Not suspenseful. ...sorry, with all due respect to its illustrious director, Stoker sucks.
An unxepected masterpiece, Stoker is an effectively subversive take on the Hitchcock thriller only because of the enormously talented people in front of and behind the camera. It would be unfair to mention the brilliant elegance of any one aspect of this film's production without mentioning how each and every one of them is equally worthy of praise.
Uncle Charlie stokes the embers in India's longing heart and pushes her beyond the precipice of adulthood. She awakens both mentally and sexually, blossoming into a person far stronger than any of her elders and yet, like she says in her opening monologue, "I'm not formed by things that are of myself alone. I wear my father's belt tied around my mother's blouse, and shoes which are from my uncle. This is me."
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
From what I remember, dank movie. Incesty vibes with a budding blood thirst gave me some spooky chills that I oh so enjoyed. Handsome actor, no Bradley Cooper but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Five ways that Stoker could be better.
1.Bradley Cooper as male lead.
2.The chemistry between Bradley Cooper and literally any other actor is impeccable.
3.Imagine Bradley Cooper killing old ladies... Hot.
4.Bradley Cooper as all male and female actors.
5.Bradley Cooper having sexual chemistry with Bradley Cooper.
Could have easily gotten a 5/5 if casting was had any thought put in.
Pretty much still feel how I did the first time I saw this. Beautifully shot gothic atmosphere.
I don't know who sound designed this film, but woah. Give that person a medal. And then give Mia Wasikowska a medal too because she's awesome.
Stoker is as silky and wonderful as it is haunting and demented. Chan-wook Park has a unique brush. This being my first of his films, I can't speak from much experience, though I hear this stylistic discomfort is typical of his works (Oldboy as an example).
A lot can be said towards the success of this movie's lovely aesthetic, and the obvious creativity put into it. Superior camera work and a powerful restlessness are some of the best features of the film as well, as it weaves an unsettling and creepy tale, linen with dark humour and deep themes. The script doesn't quite do the actors justice, and I can't help but think that while the performances were truly excellent,…
As someone who loves to cap films that are remotely striking or beautiful, I hate credits that roll over the actual film. No matter how clever they think they're being, they still ruin great shots, a dull, rote reminder that this isn't a snapshot of somewhere beautiful or interesting, but a construct. This isn't a real concern, though; just a minor irritation. The cold, clean visuals of this film did have a depth and style to them that was at times impressive and gothic, and there was energy to it as well. Still, some moments felt overwrought, screaming when a whisper would have served, such as close ups of spiders (really).
It was impossible a few years back to avoid…
That was by far the weirdest movie I've seen in a while. Also had the best opening scene i've seen in a bit as well.
But don't asked me what happened because I'm still trying to figure it out.
It took me almost 98 minutes to realise this is not a vampire film.
[after his parents have left, thinking he is ill] "They bought it. Incredible! One of the worst performances of my…
a list that is trying to contain every horror film made that is not lost and is found on the…