Movies

The current cinema, "Stoker" fallacy edition

By February 28, 2013No Comments

Stoker

There’s also the slight mat­ter of the movie’s cent­ral fal­lacy, which is a belief that all a work of art needs in order to com­mune with The Irrational is merely to make no damn sense. ”

From my review of Stoker for MSN Movies. Discuss. If you like. 

No Comments

  • Chris L. says:

    Very much wanted this to be great. But when it comes to Korean auteurs and US debuts, I sup­pose the smart money was always on SNOWPIERCER. Hope that one shows up at Cannes.

  • mw says:

    I am a little unclear on what you think of Park’s cine­ma­to­graph­ic meth­ods? in the end, you seem to describe them as vir­tu­osic, but earli­er in the review I got the feel­ing you found them over­wrought and dis­tract­ing. Personally, I love great cine­ma­to­graphy and hate to see it wasted on ter­rible stor­ies. Not sure if you think that’s the case here or if it’s ter­rible cine­ma­to­graphy mak­ing a ter­rible story worse.
    I’m also a bit con­fused about your take on Kidman’s per­form­ance. You write that she comes off as though she’s got­ten pretty good at mak­ing bathtub quaaludes as if that were a bad thing? I think Kidman’s a meth­od act­or, no? Sounds like an inter­est­ing method.

  • Lex says:

    Wasikowska shows her feet like NONSTOP in this.
    It is amaz­ing. Well, not the movie, just her. The movie is okay and that kid from TETRO ought to be cast in THE BALTHAZAR GETTY STORY someday. But some­thing her­met­ic and LOWWWWW RENT about “Stoker,” like it has tons of great shots, but it’s like it was filmed in my Uncle Dan’s back­yard in rur­al Pennsylvania.
    Also 99% of GK’s read­ers prob­ably have a screen­play that’s bet­ter than this, but they don’t hap­pen to be a super-good-looking TV act­or and don’t have Korean dir­ect­ors on speed dial.
    Also some old fuck chomped his car­a­mel corn at EAR-SPLITTING volumes all the way thru this at L.A.‘s “premi­er” theat­er, and the movie is PINDROP quiet and that sure took the mood out of the whole thing.

  • Graig says:

    Hey, friends, ques­tion time: What’s Park Chan Wook’s best movie? OLDBOY? Or is there some­thing bet­ter out there? And I know I’ll see this, since it’s in my wheel house, though GK’s reviews and oth­ers have me anti­cip­at­ing a mixed bag.

  • John says:

    Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is prob­ably his best movie. But do see the oth­er Vengeance Trilogy movies (Oldboy and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance), Thirst, and Joint Security Area.

  • jesse says:

    Way late on this and I doubt Graig is going to be check­ing back ten days later to see if any­one else chimed in here, but a big WAIT, WHAT to John’s des­ig­na­tion of Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance as Park Chan Wook’s best. Even if you think Oldboy is per­haps a touch over­praised (I do!) and a little remote (yup!), it’s leagues bet­ter than Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, which is well-composed but utterly inert. If Old Boy feels a bit schem­at­ic, more con­cerned with the grand tragedy of revenge than the char­ac­ters it’s actu­ally hap­pen­ing to, Mr. Vengeance is even worse in that regard – it’s kind of joy­less and not par­tic­u­larly insight­ful, even though it looks pretty.
    I prefer Thirst and, for that mat­ter, Stoker, to both of them.