Stoker (2013)

Writing a review of Korean director Park Chan-wook’s first English language film Stoker is a tricky task. It is the type of movie that will be enthusiastically enjoyed by the sort of people who have watched The Master multiple times. Most others will find it repulsive for reasons I don’t dare mention because that might deter potential fans from discovering it, make the movie sound unpleasant and spoil everything. In fact, I can’t discuss the plot of the film almost at all for how many spoilers would probably be revealed, yet I must also avoid the temptation to simply make a list of comparisons to the great films it emulates. I will say that if Alfred Hitchcock were making movies today, they’d probably turn out sort of like this. For those of you still reading this review instead of running to a redbox to get Stoker, this probably isn’t your movie.

You may have seen Mia Wasikowska in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. She is used to much greater effect here as a young girl named India Stoker whose father just died and whose mother (Nicole Kidman) might be a little nuts. At the funeral, India notices a man she’s never seen before who turns out to be her Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode). The movie’s underlying complexity may be best demonstrated in these early scenes when we just know there is something off about Uncle Charlie without the movie overtly suggesting it. Matthew Goode is crazy good in this role. Reminiscent of Anthony Perkins in Psycho, he has the kind of face that in a different movie could be described as friendly, but here it’s menacing. Multiple times, Goode completely steals the show without doing almost anything, or at least not anything immediately noticeable. The greatness of the performance lies in the frightening, soft-spoken calm. When we find out the truth about Uncle Charlie, it is no big surprise, but remains shocking because it was Goode who did these things and in the way he does them.

The other leads are equally worthy of praise. For how young she is, Wasikowska has great patience and understanding as an actress. She keeps her performance effectively simple, even in moments that could have been read with more ferocity, a style that would not have suited the character. Kidman is a little more off the charts, which might not have worked if she was on screen much longer than she is. However, when she does show up it is with a snarling, steely-eyed viciousness that somehow works. Stoker works on more than just a performance level, though, also reaching a psychological and cinematic perfection that is rare in modern films. This is the sort of movie that takes advantage of being a movie, using everything at its disposal to full extent. The way the camera moves, how the images blend together, where people and things are placed in each scene and the use of foreshadowing sound effects all take on a special significance. Who would have thought a mere piano recital could have such disturbing implications?

Park Chan-wook is an astonishing filmmaker. His Oldboy is only a decade old and is already legendary. Stoker is an exhilarating experience, one full of originality, purpose and precision. Its meticulous design deserves to be studied by budding filmmakers, but I’m afraid the movie is destined to be forgotten. Even now, its unique direction, alarming content and incorrect advertising as a more typical horror movie have done nothing more than alienate those few who are aware of it and weren’t prepared. Stoker came as a delightful surprise to me. This is why I go to the movies, to see things no other medium can offer made by those people who have an earnest desire to create and not just imitate. Although, I must again stress that this movie is not for everyone. I recommend it with a warning label.

10/10