Stoker has the promise of being a strong, dark twisted tale of family intrigue, forbidden fruit and the old sex and death double act mixed with that most terrifying of times, adolescence. It is directed by the Korean master of twisted tales, Chan-Wook-Park, and it has very effective and creepy trailers and promotional posters. But does it live up to the promise?
Stoker, written by actor Wentworth Miller no less, blends many influences and narratives. The name drop reveals the Dracula inspiration, with a dark and irresistibly seductive handsome stranger coming into a closed bourgeois family bringing repressed lust and death with him, and a young girl caught up in his spell (India is part Lucy and part Mina here, and even has the same super human senses without need of a bite) However there's also Hithcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" as inspiration, leading to much suspicion and hidden past revealing, and also a lot of "Heathers" too, as repressed bland girl India is seduced into amorality and murder by a seductive teacher and takes bloody revenge on her schoolmates. However, like say "Skyfall", it ends up as a sort of patchwork quilt of totally different scenarios and stories, with no one strand ever becoming the dominant theme. It covers all the above aspects, but never really says anything about them.
Rising star Mia Wasikowska is centre stage here, fast becoming this generation's Wynona Ryder – Like Ryder she was launched in a family fun project by Tim Burton (Alice in Wonderland) and now plays a "Heathers" role (as well of course as a Mina Harker one!) Apart from the apt coincidences, Waskiowska here displays a lot of talent, but in the service of what? India is a strange girl who doesn't fit in, has unnaturally developed senses, and a penchant and aptitude for killing (Her father taught her to be an ace hunter, as it turns out in order to redirect her homicidal tendencies) we learn this almost right off the bat, and her character doesn't have much of an arc. She ends up becoming a killer, but we know this from the very beginning, so where have we gone with that? As a central character, we need more from her, and Mia deserves more too.
Nicole Kidman, as India's widowed mother, just hangs around the house being rather sad and pathetic, and then disappears from half the film, and returns being sad and pathetic again. Again she has no real arc, and her character is passive and one dimensional. Kidman plays her well, but there's so little there to play.
The real revelation is Matthew Goode, who had already essayed a cold dark soul as Ozymandias in "Watchmen", playing the mysterious Charles Stoker with style and menace. Here is a true Vampire, suave, charming, yet creepy, unsettling, with nothing beneath the façade, a beautiful walking corpse feeding off others. For the first half of the movie he comes close to being the greatest ever screen Dracula. However the plot takes hold three quarters in and his powerful character is diminished and reduced to a sad pathetic joke, which is a true shame. The rapport he has with Wasikowska is spellbinding and strong (until said silly plot revelations) and the "vampire seduction" working slowly yet effectively – They even have their own Phillip Glass penned "Vampire Rhapsody" piano piece that draws India into the darkness and Charles embrace.
The story offers hints at things it then ignores, principally the idea of a legacy of evil in the noble, rich Stoker family (House of Usher in the mix too?) It is implied that Charles is, like India, naturally attuned to murder and violence, and he somehow recognises this in her despite never having met her, seeing her as his "soul mate" in evil. He also shares her unnaturally advanced senses, so is this a family inheritance? He seems to know India will carry the "evil seed", and so does his brother/her father, so there has to be some family legacy of darkness twinned with superior abilities for them to reach this conclusion. It would have added a lot of weight to the story, but I guess they simply left it implied.
With the story strands such a mess, it's left to Park to infuse the story with his trademark unsettling poetic style, which he does with aplomb. It is a beautifully shot, beautifully choreographed, beautifully scored mess and won't bore or not satisfy on some level.
Stoker is not a bad film, and a refreshing one in these times of creative austerity, but it also one of those films where you feel you've been somehow short changed by what could have great but instead is merely OK.
Stoker, written by actor Wentworth Miller no less, blends many influences and narratives. The name drop reveals the Dracula inspiration, with a dark and irresistibly seductive handsome stranger coming into a closed bourgeois family bringing repressed lust and death with him, and a young girl caught up in his spell (India is part Lucy and part Mina here, and even has the same super human senses without need of a bite) However there's also Hithcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" as inspiration, leading to much suspicion and hidden past revealing, and also a lot of "Heathers" too, as repressed bland girl India is seduced into amorality and murder by a seductive teacher and takes bloody revenge on her schoolmates. However, like say "Skyfall", it ends up as a sort of patchwork quilt of totally different scenarios and stories, with no one strand ever becoming the dominant theme. It covers all the above aspects, but never really says anything about them.
Rising star Mia Wasikowska is centre stage here, fast becoming this generation's Wynona Ryder – Like Ryder she was launched in a family fun project by Tim Burton (Alice in Wonderland) and now plays a "Heathers" role (as well of course as a Mina Harker one!) Apart from the apt coincidences, Waskiowska here displays a lot of talent, but in the service of what? India is a strange girl who doesn't fit in, has unnaturally developed senses, and a penchant and aptitude for killing (Her father taught her to be an ace hunter, as it turns out in order to redirect her homicidal tendencies) we learn this almost right off the bat, and her character doesn't have much of an arc. She ends up becoming a killer, but we know this from the very beginning, so where have we gone with that? As a central character, we need more from her, and Mia deserves more too.
Nicole Kidman, as India's widowed mother, just hangs around the house being rather sad and pathetic, and then disappears from half the film, and returns being sad and pathetic again. Again she has no real arc, and her character is passive and one dimensional. Kidman plays her well, but there's so little there to play.
The real revelation is Matthew Goode, who had already essayed a cold dark soul as Ozymandias in "Watchmen", playing the mysterious Charles Stoker with style and menace. Here is a true Vampire, suave, charming, yet creepy, unsettling, with nothing beneath the façade, a beautiful walking corpse feeding off others. For the first half of the movie he comes close to being the greatest ever screen Dracula. However the plot takes hold three quarters in and his powerful character is diminished and reduced to a sad pathetic joke, which is a true shame. The rapport he has with Wasikowska is spellbinding and strong (until said silly plot revelations) and the "vampire seduction" working slowly yet effectively – They even have their own Phillip Glass penned "Vampire Rhapsody" piano piece that draws India into the darkness and Charles embrace.
The story offers hints at things it then ignores, principally the idea of a legacy of evil in the noble, rich Stoker family (House of Usher in the mix too?) It is implied that Charles is, like India, naturally attuned to murder and violence, and he somehow recognises this in her despite never having met her, seeing her as his "soul mate" in evil. He also shares her unnaturally advanced senses, so is this a family inheritance? He seems to know India will carry the "evil seed", and so does his brother/her father, so there has to be some family legacy of darkness twinned with superior abilities for them to reach this conclusion. It would have added a lot of weight to the story, but I guess they simply left it implied.
With the story strands such a mess, it's left to Park to infuse the story with his trademark unsettling poetic style, which he does with aplomb. It is a beautifully shot, beautifully choreographed, beautifully scored mess and won't bore or not satisfy on some level.
Stoker is not a bad film, and a refreshing one in these times of creative austerity, but it also one of those films where you feel you've been somehow short changed by what could have great but instead is merely OK.