Movie Review: "Stoker"

It's funny how many critics complain that summer blockbusters exhibit a "style over substance" method of filmmaking. While such claims are certainly true for a majority of those films, it is easy to forget that, occasionally, an art house film can fall into the same category and be just as unbearable- or perhaps, even more. While I don't want this review to be mistaken for a tirade against critics for showing a bias towards less mainstream films (most critics don't), it's baffling to me that 67% of film critics have deemed the film "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe I missed something. Stoker is a mess of a film, where any beautiful shots, strong performances or interesting themes are drowned out by filmmaking that reeks of pretension.

Right from the opening scene, two things about Stoker become abundantly clear: the film is absolutely beautiful, and the major theme being explored is the loss of innocence. We're introduced to India Stoker, a teenager so mellow and unaware of her burgeoning sexuality that she would definitely be found only in the movies. Writer Wentworth Miller infuses India's maturation from girl into woman with a gothic mystery about her mysterious uncle, her oddball family and a steadily increasing list of missing persons. Mixing these two themes together is an interesting notion, but the film never explores the themes fully enough to make it work. Even worse, the film abandons logic for the sake of exploring said themes. India may not be fully aware of her sexual (and potentially incestuous) desires, but why does she seem like a shell of a human being before discovering it? She just sits, like a statue, as her classmate harasses her or, in a particularly bizarre scene, reacts violently to it. Both scenes come off as odd and both scenes also prove that India is not a fleshed out character but, simply, a device Miller and director Chan-wook Park can use to make the film feel "weird." When India masturbates in the shower shortly after a particularly violent moment, it didn't come off as "shocking", "edgy", or "thought provoking"- it came off as silly. Maybe if the film explored this theme more thoroughly, as opposed to simply presenting it while convenient, this scene would have worked. But, as it stands, it just comes off as one of many unnecessary moments in the film.

The script also presents major problems as the intentions of India's Uncle Charlie (and much of the plot itself) are left shrouded in mystery, with the film teasing the viewers with possible scenarios for its first two thirds. But once the mask comes off and the "big twist" is revealed, I was left disappointed. As a whole, the film's plot was remarkably average. If you were to strip the film of its glorious visuals and A-list actors, you'd be left with a Lifetime Movie of the Week. While Miller didn't have to write an amazing twist on the level of The Sixth Sense or The Crying Game, choosing the simplest answer to the audience's question is a major letdown. Which brings us back to the first problem with the script- the film has been made in a way that practically begs for the audiences attention, with dozens of gothic, moody shots that will keep the audience glued to the screen. But if the story being told and the themes being explored don't live up to the cinematography, is the film really worth celebrating? If I wanted to admire the cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung, I'd search for the film on Google Images.

But I will spend time praising his cinematography anyway. The film looks wonderful, with a style that feels both unique and old fashioned. The camera is always placed in the perfect location to evoke a feeling of dread. While the film takes place during modern day, the Stoker residence is photographed in a way that feels reminiscent of classic horror films set during the Victorian age, with corridors of the house obscured in mystery, and Matthew Goode's slender Charlie resembling the classic depiction of a vampire. Even the more pretentious shots, like a completely unnecessary scene where India surrounds herself with boxes of shoes (it's a symbol of her growing up and losing her innocence, duh!), look beautiful.

The acting is also worth giving notice to. Mia Wasikowska constantly impresses me in the films I see her in due to the way she constantly feels believable yet never seems to play the same part twice. Whether she's a modern teen struggling with boy problems and the sudden reemergence of her biological father (The Kids Are All Right) or dealing with her beloved Rochester's terrible secret (Jane Eyre), she is wholly convincing. I only wish she had better material to work with. Matthew Goode also gives his mysterious part his all, walking the dangerous tight rope between charming and terrifying. But Nicole Kidman absolutely steals the film as the manipulative Evelyn Stoker. Kidman is one of the finest actors working today, and I love how she doesn't stick with Oscar bait or blockbuster pictures. Her work in Stoker may not be the best of her career, but it's certainly up there with her best performances. Unfortunately, her best scene is featured in the trailer, so the film isn't really worth seeing just for her.

Had the script gone a bit more in depth while analyzing the slightly clichéd but still interesting themes at the center of Stoker, it could have been great. Had the film featured a plot that was a bit more surprising or inventive, it could have been great. But Stoker is not great. It's not even good. And adding insult to injury, the film presents itself as being profound or unique. But cinematography doesn't make a movie. As a whole, Stoker is one of the best looking messes you'll see this year.

OVERALL GRADE: D+

"Stoker" is currently available on DVD, Bluray and Video on Demand