By Melissa Antoinette Garza
Over the last decade, there have been more positive reviews regarding South Korean filmmaker Chan-wook Park than nearly any other writer or director worldwide. Park’s work has been revered and appreciated by the harshest critics and most cynical bloggers. His loyal fans view him as a smarter and more original version of Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino, himself, is a huge fan and actually pulled for him to receive the Palme d’Or (a Cannes Film Festival award) for his crowning achievement Oldboy (2003). Oldboy is in the rare category of being both a mainstream success and a cult classic; and deservedly so.
Oldboy was the second installment of a trio of films known as The Vengeance Trilogy. All three movies were violent, gruesome and brutal. They explored the worst emotions of humanity. Many of the themes and actions that take place have been compared to the works and characters of Shakespeare. An important fact to note is that the films are not violent for the sake of violence alone. To put it plainly, we’re not dealing with Hostel (2005) or Saw II, III, IV, etc. Quite the contrary, in Park’s work an intricate and character driven story is always told. Generally speaking a very intelligent tale is woven and the brutality that is shown is necessitated by the plot. Like many modern movies, there are at times twists and turns. That said, unlike most modern films, Park’s productions are not predicated on the need for this type of shock element. The overall productions are shocking enough without any additional revelations.
Oddly enough, I only recently heard of Stoker (2013). I saw a trailer for it on Hulu and thought it looked very interesting. I didn’t even realize that it was directed by Park, until after I began to view it. I probably would have sought it out earlier had I known.
During the first 30 minutes, disappointment washed over me. The movie seemed destined to walk down a pretentious path rather than attempt to put forth a quality film. Everything was so affected. The meaningless transitions back-and-forth between the characters were distracting. The self-important dialogue just made the characters cringe-worthy. Worse than that was the amount of unnecessary silence in the movie. It was an attempt to show the angst of our main character, but instead came across as conceited garbage. The performances were intentionally underwhelming to such a degree that it screamed self-importance and superiority when absolutely nothing happened to merit that high of an opinion.
Thankfully, the movie did have a drastic change in tone. Once the plot was developed and the characters gained depth, Park’s passion was shown. Though the movie still wasn’t worthy of the high regard it bestowed upon itself, it was most certainly a watchable and at times quite enjoyable flick.
India (Mia Wasikowska) is an odd and introverted eighteen year old girl. When her father, Richard (Dermot Mulroney) unexpectedly dies she becomes even more reserved and withdrawn.
India’s mother Evie (Nicole Kidman) is unstable, unloving, and selfish. She doesn’t seem to be mourning her husband’s death at all. Instead, she becomes all too friendly with her husband’s brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) who moves in to help out.
Charlie attempt s to befriend India, but she isn’t interested. Soon, two women turn up missing. India finds out that Charlie has killed them both. She doesn’t turn to the police. In fact, the news excites her.
As if her life wasn’t insane enough, India is often bullied by the jocks in her class who draw naked pictures of her and try to torment her into having sex. The head jock, Pitts (Lucas Till) is a very unusual character for this type of movie. He was just extremely generic considering how unique every other character was. Pitts was the every jerk you would expect to see in any 80s film. He was like the jerks in Carrie (1976) or James Spader’s character in Pretty in Pink (1986). He pushes India too far, one day, and she stabs him with a pencil. Another classmate of hers, Whip (Alden Ehenreich) initially seems nice as he stands up for India.
One night, they disappear in the woods together and begin making out. India bites Whip’s lip drawing blood. This turns Whip on who becomes aggressive. When India tries to spurn the advances, Whip refuses to take no and tries to rape her. Charlie shows up out of nowhere and strangles Whip to death. Once again, India is excited by this.
Later on, she masturbates at the thought of the murder which shows not only the decent into madness, but the characters complete transition. No longer is she an introvert afraid of what is on the inside of her, but going forward she revels in those feelings understanding that they are what makes her unique.
There are so many theories behind this film. Some believe it’s a metaphoric vampirism tale. They point to evidence that Charlie drank red wine, he didn’t eat his food, the name of the film is Stoker, and India bit Whip drawing blood. It’s an interesting theory but not one that was ever developed enough to draw the connection.
Another bizarre theory is that Charlie is a figment of India’s imagination ala Fight Club (1999). Believers of this theory point once again to Charlie not eating his food and something at the end of the movie that seems to be done for artistic reasons, but some viewers read more into it. I won’t relay what that is here, simply because it involves spoilers. For those interested, just take a gander at a few message boards and I’m sure you’ll come across the theory.
Overall, I’m glad I didn’t start this movie knowing that Park was involved. Had I known, I would have expected far more from it. That said, it was a pretty decent flick. It wasn’t groundbreaking nor was it all that original. I’ve actually seen a similar movie that had a far lower budget and that was far superior.
Matthew Jason Walsh’s Bloodletting (1997) followed a similar premise. A young woman (Ariauna Albright) was intrigued and turned on by a sociopathic murderer (James L Edwards) so much so that she tracks him down and asks him to teach her how to kill. There’s a really cool and fun twist at the end that has left some scratching their heads, but personally I thought it was such a smart and surprising twist. I’ve watched Bloodletting at least 30 times. It was one of the first movies that I had my husband watch. The acting is great, the pace is fantastic and the movie knew exactly what it was. It was a smart, over-the-top, fun horror movie that delivered in every area. The acting was fantastic and the chemistry between the two leads was evident in every scene. Everything about Bloodletting is a treat. It’s what horror is supposed to be ; unapologetic, in-your-face, and sincerely crazy.
As for Stoker, it was hit-or-miss. There were some scenes where I was completely engrossed and then there were scenes that came right after, which were boring as hell. It was as if the movie was ashamed at being a horror or a thriller so it attempted to be artistic in areas where it didn’t make sense and was unnecessary. As a result, the artistic aspect failed on every level and rather than bringing it the intended respect, it actually diminished the value of what could have been a very effective thriller on its own.
Scared Stiff Rating: 5/10
