2013 Directed by Park Chan-wook
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…
Tonight, India joins the hunt.
Gothic, surreal, unsettling, and of course, tremendously gorgeous. Not surprising since I expect nothing less from the master Park Chan Wook. A frame is always connected to the next, transition between scenes are so smooth they're almost invisible. Every shot seems to have a life of its own. Instead of being a medium to carry the plot, they gracefully became the story itself. Mia Wasikowska gave her best and so does everyone else. Without a single doubt, I say Stoker is as good as an English debut gets.
things Stoker invented:
- the word "hello"
- freezers
- blood splatter
- slow fades
- piano duets
- garden shears
- visual ingenuity
- saddle shoes
(this film only gets better and better when you rewatch it)
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…
Same thrills and awe as the first time. Any shortcomings of the screenplay are more than made up for in style and ambiance. That comb transition is still among the best in all of cinema. Mia Wasikowska in this is everything. Everything.
i loved the eeriness of this film and how each character felt so fleshed out despite the fact that there wasn’t much conversation happening.. i think the acting was really well done and i enjoyed the way the themes were dealt with :)
it’s my birthday and i’m gonna watch a film about young women’s rebirth into monstrosity and thorny motherhood, damn it!
Continua sendo um dos meus filmes preferidos pela beleza estética da fotografia, assim como, também, na atuação magistral de Mia Wasikowska. Surpreendentemente macabro e muito bem conduzido até seu desfecho incrível construído pelo lendário Chan-wook.
what - and I cant stress this enough- the fuck
back in 2014 when I was 14 this was my first exposure to Park Chan Wook and I remember never finishing Stoker because I found it boring. with my newfound love of Park’s work and encouragement from two people on Twitter I decided to give it another go and wow, 14 year old me’s taste was definitely..different. the pacing, the tangible tension in the air, the sound design, even the casting, its all unrealistically perfect. is calling movies masterpieces corny? well. masterpiece
side note: for years I thought this turns out to be about vampires in the end because of the title and it both does and doesnt, depending on how loosely you take ‘feeds on others to survive’. but if you do put limits on that definition, good news is theres always Thirst
the shot of nicole kidman’s hair turning into a grassy plain will literally haunt me with its excellence for eternity
the first time i saw this movie i was 14 years old and i remember that i felt too frightened, amazed and impressed at the same time. i don't remember if i finish seeing but i have memory of all those feelings, that desire to never get out of my bed.
sarah 🌙 136 films
(Read the notes or else none of these recommendations will make sense!)
A curated list of pre-1967 movie recommendations based…
Hungkat 202 films
Yea, reeling stuff. This is not necessarily about movies having the best endings but these are the ones that leave…
mary🦋 261 films
It was hard but I put a stop at 99 minutes (constantly updated)
