« Cut your throat in your sleep |
| More Iceland »
"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.
Posted at 11:02 PM in Movies | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e5523026f58834017c372f2eb4970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The current cinema, "Stoker" fallacy edition:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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.
Chris L. |
March 01, 2013 at 01:19 AM
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.
March 01, 2013 at 08:34 AM
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.
March 02, 2013 at 04:43 AM
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.
March 03, 2013 at 08:31 PM
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.
March 11, 2013 at 02:55 AM
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.
March 14, 2013 at 01:10 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.