[critical] Stoker

On the death of his father in a strange car accident, India, a teenage girl, experiencing a return of his uncle, a mysterious man whom she did not know the existence, and moved in with her and her mother. India begins to suspect that the motivations of this man, a charmer, are not without ulterior motives and does not take long to feel for him mixed feelings of distrust and attraction.

Author’s Note

[rating:7/10]

• Release Date : May 1, 2013

• Directed by Park Chan-Wook

• With Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, Nicole Kidman, Dermot Mulroney, Alden Ehrenreich

• Film american

• Duration : 1: 45

• Original title : Stoker

• Trailer :

ARVE Error: id and provider shortcodes attributes are mandatory for old shortcodes. It is recommended to switch to new shortcodes that need only url

After Evil Dead, Only God Forgives, Django Unchained, Antiviral and other consors acts that are unhealthy, we are no longer that close. The proof of this is, the public is so used to this now, we can still him again. Not severe, the viewer will be more so shocked than before. And Park Chan-Wook will give heart to joy with Stoker. At times, one wonders if they are brothers Ridley Scott and Tony Scott, who have produced such a thing.

Notice to sensitive souls all the same. You get rid of a maximum of dialogues for the benefit of well unhealthy. And Park Chan-Wook did not go dead hand. Between a simple pencil and hold in the hand and a belt at multi-usage, the filmmaker’s american-Korean is given to heart joy in the trials gores. Nothing is more normal, it is the leitmotiv of two of the characters in the film. Even that one of them does not live (almost) for that. At least, we will not be able to blame the first scene we are lead immediately to the expected. A first that leaves the viewer skeptical, like all the rest of the film.

Indeed, beyond the side unhealthy assumed and fully wanted to (since the film is made for this side, unhealthy), the film is totally ambiguous. There is an advantage and a disadvantage here. The advantage of these mysteries is that they are found both in substance and in form. Using saturated colors and a camera is cold and shy in her movements, Park Chan-Wook insists we put pressure and don’t reveal us too soon. In the background, nothing more complicated : each of the characters, we cache one (or more) secrets, and we’ll never have no clue.

This is the great problem of the film. While the ambiguity of form is remarkable, Park Chan-Wook goes too far in its mysteries in the background. A force never to say anything to his audience, the filmmaker comes to dragging out his story. The pace is tasteless, because almost non-existent. The secret scrolls and the revelations are struggling to appear. It is appalling the way to believe that the continuous mystery is a guarantee of total concentration and a perpetual spectator. And with a twist end, it comes back to the same system as in Side Effects by Steven Soderbergh. A real movie hypnotic where it says, at the end, “is that it ?”.

And even if the spectator tries, both good and bad, to solve each mystery of the story, it will get stuck elsewhere. Because giving no hint, Park Chan-Wook comes to make a meditative film. Of course, not being able to solve any puzzle, a single doubt, the viewer is dedicated to look – in the most simple way – the film that is offered to him. But be careful, this is a happy consequence of the ambiguity constant. Because the achievement virtuoso Park Chan-Wook plays in his favor. The visual remains highly enjoyable, even no worries with the side of unhealthy.

Moreover, with its achievement very virtuoso and very given to the ambiguity of the film, Park Chan-Wook don’t forget the poetry of the narrative. It is primarily a fable of the family. And so, every décor, every camera movement, or each replica is a moment of poetry. The film, beyond the festival unhealthy of which it is evidence, is a fresco of the feelings and of the family as we have rarely seen. And it is here that the mysteries played in the favor of the viewer : we never know what the end is for each of the characters. Even if the end may leave some viewers on their hunger. This depends above all on the expectations of each…

But in any case, one thing is certain with this film, despite all the expectations that are made, do not expect to come out unscathed. This film is very disturbing. In the proper sense of the term. This film will play on the mind, not to become psychological. On the one hand, the soundtrack and a little realization can make us think of Hitchock. The way that he had to play out of his audience to better divert him a moment later. On the other hand, there’s this evocation of the emancipation in the young female character. Emancipation pretty violent and gritty, showing us an adult world of a very crude and not very friendly.

To interpret all this, one has the right to Nicole Kidman. Rather satisfactory in widowed mother, but very far from here the role of his life. At his side, Matthew Goode impressive in his role of uncle is not very normal, and very enigmatic. I will not say more, no spoiler. But, notice the very personal level, I still can’t stand Mia Wasikowska. Either in his manners or his way of talking, you’d see a Sissy Spacek, but in a very bad. Fortunately, the viewer can count on Nicole Kidman and Matthew Goode to address the scenario. Despite the “twists and turns” rather predictable, but well brought, the replicas do not fly high at all. Need to re-enter Wentworth Miller !

Ultimately, Stoker is a film that is unhealthy, ambiguous, virtouse, contemplative, poetic, disturbing and rather played. Big black point, the story drags a lot and the viewer is left aside. Park Chan-Wook believes that by placing of the mystery everywhere without giving the shadow of an index, the spectator will be all the time concentrated. In vain, the film-maker can count on its fulfillment to the very height, where it shows a contemplative poetry and lyricism unhealthy impressive. In a few words : it is beautiful but it is (almost) empty.