and i thought i had fucking problems

and i thought i had fucking problems

All style but no substance.

I was hoping I’d like this as much as The Handmaiden, but that wasn’t the case. Sorry Park Chan-Wook.

All style but no substance.

I was hoping I’d like this as much as The Handmaiden, but that wasn’t the case. Sorry Park Chan-Wook.

Park Chan-Wook's Stoker is very fun, showing the great filmmaking of this man but also becomes horribly flawed by the hour mark.

Positives first.

This is a vampire movie without any vampires. It makes sense when you look at vampires, particularly those old stereotypical Dracula vampires; make sense based off of the last name of the characters. Charlie enters India and Evie's home, secuding the family, inflicting violence and other forms of seduction. Thinking this makes the film better honestly. It adds a layer of interest to this film.

Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, and Nicole Kidman, while not perfect in any other film, works because of the environment that Park Chan-Wook presented with some genuinely great editing at times and camera movements that adds complexity for the role.

Here is the huge negative.

While the twist was unsurprising, it still was fun and made sense. But, the manner in which they kept revealing what happened between two specific characters, it becomes nonsensical when thinking logically. It was entirely distracting and made the film made more goofy. Oldboy gets goofy but it made sense for the story and it turned out great.

I've heard good things about the Sympathizer so I'll watch that, I think he made another English language TV show but I don't want to look now.

Conclusion.

The direction is good. Acting is good. Script is weak. Film is fun. I wish they didn't cut out thirty minutes of the film to make other things that ahopened in their film with Nicole Kidman's character make sense (please have there be a director's cut).

Park Chan-Wook's Stoker is very fun, showing the great filmmaking of this man but also becomes horribly flawed by the hour mark.

Positives first.

This is a vampire movie without any vampires. It makes sense when you look at vampires, particularly those old stereotypical Dracula vampires; make sense based off of the last name of the characters. Charlie enters India and Evie's home, secuding the family, inflicting violence and other forms of seduction. Thinking this makes the film better honestly. It adds a layer of interest to this film.

Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, and Nicole Kidman, while not perfect in any other film, works because of the environment that Park Chan-Wook presented with some genuinely great editing at times and camera movements that adds complexity for the role.

Here is the huge negative.

While the twist was unsurprising, it still was fun and made sense. But, the manner in which they kept revealing what happened between two specific characters, it becomes nonsensical when thinking logically. It was entirely distracting and made the film made more goofy. Oldboy gets goofy but it made sense for the story and it turned out great.

I've heard good things about the Sympathizer so I'll watch that, I think he made another English language TV show but I don't want to look now.

Conclusion.

The direction is good. Acting is good. Script is weak. Film is fun. I wish they didn't cut out thirty minutes of the film to make other things that ahopened in their film with Nicole Kidman's character make sense (please have there be a director's cut).

❝Just as the skirt needs the wind to billow, I'm not formed by things that are of myself alone. I wear my father's belt tied around my mother's blouse, and shoes which are from my uncle. This is me. Just as a flower does not choose its color, we are not responsible for what we have come to be.❞
𐄁──── ｡ﾟ☆: .☽ .* :☆ﾟ.────𐄁

I understand the vision behind Stoker, but for me it unfortunately falls a bit short. The performances from the cast, especially that of Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode, were brilliant, with the latter standing out to me a lot due to his almost robot-like acting. I really liked the camerawork; there were a lot of close-ups and geometric shapes within compositions that along with the very fluid transitions gave the film an unsettling atmosphere that matched the main plot points well. The colour grading/palette was also pretty dark without becoming bleak, which again accentuated the psychological tension felt by India. The main issues for me were with the actual story and pacing; the first forty minutes or so were incredibly dull filler that began building up to the better second half quite late, and Charlie's motivations were revealed very near the end, which meant that the majority of the film was spent wondering why certain things were happening. I also just wasn't a fan of the incest vibes I was getting from Charlie, so a lot of his scenes with India were very uncomfortable to watch. So, on the whole, while I really like Park Chan-wook's other works, Stoker isn't for me.

❝Just as the skirt needs the wind to billow, I'm not formed by things that are of myself alone. I wear my father's belt tied around my mother's blouse, and shoes which are from my uncle. This is me. Just as a flower does not choose its color, we are not responsible for what we have come to be.❞
𐄁──── ｡ﾟ☆: .☽ .* :☆ﾟ.────𐄁

I understand the vision behind Stoker, but for me it unfortunately falls a bit short. The performances from the cast, especially that of Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode, were brilliant, with the latter standing out to me a lot due to his almost robot-like acting. I really liked the camerawork; there were a lot of close-ups and geometric shapes within compositions that along with the very fluid transitions gave the film an unsettling atmosphere that matched the main plot points well. The colour grading/palette was also pretty dark without becoming bleak, which again accentuated the psychological tension felt by India. The main issues for me were with the actual story and pacing; the first forty minutes or so were incredibly dull filler that began building up to the better second half quite late, and Charlie's motivations were revealed very near the end, which meant that the majority of the film was spent wondering why certain things were happening. I also just wasn't a fan of the incest vibes I was getting from Charlie, so a lot of his scenes with India were very uncomfortable to watch. So, on the whole, while I really like Park Chan-wook's other works, Stoker isn't for me.

sigh…

sigh…