Watch Stoker For Free

Touches You

Simply Perfect

Nice effects though.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Psychological thriller (with a touch of horror) set mainly in an impressive, large country house about the arrival of an unknown and mysterious uncle after the death of India Stoker's father. Visually this film was incredibly well shot and made great use of it's gothic location. Certainly touches of Hitchcock. None of the three leads are American but all are convincing (I suppose Nicole Kidman does count as one, but I've often found that Australian/British actors can struggle with American accents). There's lots of suspense and intrigue, and the film never drags. The violence is pretty brutal. I did have mixed feelings about the end, without giving anything away but I felt that it wasn't entirely satisfactory. Like my title says, this is no masterpiece but come on, guys rating this just 1/10. Really?? The majority of what I consider to be bad movies will get a 2 or 3/10, only the worst of the worst deserve a 1. And believe me I have sat through MANY bad films. And this is a million miles from them.

STOKER is proof, if proof were needed, of the old adage "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear". It's a film directed by Korean auteur Park Chan-wook, a man responsible for such classics as OLDBOY and SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, and he tries very hard here to breathe life and style into the material. It's a classically-shot film in which inventiveness and imagination are key in terms of the visuals, the music, and the like, but at some point I felt like Park was trying a little too hard to make his film ominous.The reason soon becomes obvious: this film's story turns out to be pretty poor, especially in the modern world. It might have worked in the 1960s or even the 1970s, but by the 2010s it all feels very obvious and all-too-familiar. It's a simplistic rip-off of Hitchcock's SHADOW OF A DOUBT; it feels an over-obvious storyline that feels dragged out endlessly and might have worked as a half hour short, but not at this length. And everything is so glaringly, blindingly obvious, I thought of half a dozen twists that would have made it a better film.The script was written by Wentworth Miller, best known as the actor in PRISON BREAK, and it's a definite case of "don't give up the day job". The dialogue is pat, the characters non-existent, the scenarios obvious from the word go. There are no real shocks or surprises to be found here at all. Matthew Goode is the best actor in it but has little to do other than be still and creepy, while Nicole Kidman is the usual Stepford wife. Worst of the bunch is Mia Wasikowska, who can inflect no character or feeling into her protagonist; she might as well be Alice in a brunette wig.

There are so many, so many things wrong with the film, I do not know where to begin. Why does the movie hint at suspense but reveal less than half way thru? Why are people helping (housekeeper) or not-outing (aunt) the madman? Why is it okay for people missing never to be reported or investigated? Why is this murder gene there and how does he know it is there in her? Why is the sheriff murdered? Why is Nicole Kidman playing another redheaded manic pixie milf? Why is the setting English with housekeepers and cooks and yet in the US? What are rich people doing going to govt schools on a school bus? Why are modern cars being driven but attire and bullies are from 30-40 years ago? Why are they hunting birds with rifles?

Stoker is Park Chan-wook first English-language film, which I found to be more on the tamer side of his usual work. Stoker is a psychological thriller, and the best kind you can ask for. The limited amount of characters and slow pacing of the movie gives the audience time to reflect and peer into the minds of the Stoker family.The story revolves around an 18-year-old girl India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska), whose father dies in a bizarre car wreck. Her Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode), who she never knew existed, comes to live with her and her unstable mother (Nicole Kidman). She begins to suspect this mysterious, charming man has concealed motives and becomes increasingly infatuated with him. The story isn't really that subtle or original but the film is stylishly made with Hitchcockian elements throughout the film. It was quite obvious 10 minutes into the film that the girl and her uncle are psychopaths. Thrillers usually build tension slowly throughout a plot until it gets to a point where everything unravels into a complete different direction. Instead of jump scares or whatever tricks that typical thrillers use, the film rather tests the anxiety of the audience and haunts the imagination. Mia Wasikowska really gives the film a beating heart, as she emerges from her innocence into her latent self. Matthew Goode had a quality about him that reminded me of Norman Bates in Psycho. I was quite surprised to find that the story was written by Wentworth Miller (Prison Break). This is he's first written and produced film on the big screen. I look forward to seeing more of his theatrical work including a prequel story to Stoker about the life of Uncle Charlie.