“We don’t need to be friends, we’re family.”
The H-Bomb: After her father is killed in a car accident, the world of 18-year-old India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) is turned completely upside down. Not only because her dad was very near and dear to her, but also because she dreads the idea of having to live alone with her loopy mother, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman), who she’s never gotten along with. As if that prospect wasn’t dire enough, her father’s younger brother, Charles (Matthew Goode), who India never even knew about, is going to be staying with her and Evelyn at their secluded house in order to “help out” during this difficult time. Evelyn, who has taken an unhealthy liking to Charles, is delighted. India, who senses that something is a little off about the guy, is not.
As things turn out, India is right to feel leery of her newly discovered uncle, as something is most definitely not right about him… and I don’t just mean his rather creepy grin. He keeps showing up at her school, giving her weird looks across the dinner table, and perhaps most troubling, the few people in India’s life who are close to her, like the head maid at the house, and her dear old auntie, have been disappearing mysteriously. There is indeed something very wrong with Uncle Charles, and that’s all I shall say about the plot, as the less you know going in, the better.
I must confess, when I went into Stoker, I thought, just from reading the synopsis, that I had its number. I was sure that it was going to be the crazy relative moves in with family and terrorizes them type of movie, and that it was going to be 100% predictable from beginning to end. I can’t remember the last time I was so delighted to be so wrong. This genuinely intriguing, off kilter little flick turned out to be nothing like the stale, routine thriller that I was expecting. It’s not that Charles doesn’t turn out to be a psycho, because he does, big time, but it’s how India reacts to him, and how the relationship between the two of them develops, that came as a surprise. Again, I don’t want to get too much into it, I’ll simply say that there is nothing even remotely routine about the events that unfold.
Stoker is directed by Chan-wook Park, the macabre South Korean maestro who is making his English language debut, and while it isn’t as audacious or demented as his masterpiece Oldboy, it is every bit as stylish, with shots and angles that are artful but unpretentious, and a vibrant, hyper-real look to match the darkly comic, at times borderline campy tone of Wentworth Miller’s screenplay. Park, like Tarantino, has a talent for making violence potent, yet strangely beautiful at the same time, and that trait is on full display here. So many foreign directors who push the envelope in their native lands have a sad tendency to lose their teeth when they come to Hollywood, but that is not the case for Mr. Park. He hasn’t lost a single ounce of his brutality.
However, as stylishly adroit as Park’s direction is, another critical aspect of Stoker’s success is the cast. With the wrong actors in place, this thing would have been a disaster, but as it happens, this ensemble is nearly flawless. As India, Wasikowska is absolutely perfect. She has a hauntingly expressive face, which is vital considering the bulk of her performance is delivered through looks (disdain for her mother, intense-but-cautious curiosity towards Charles) instead of dialogue. She was one of the few things I liked about that Gus Van Sant wank-fest Restless, and she does an impeccable job of carrying this film. I can’t imagine it’s easy for a young actress to share the screen with a veteran like Kidman, but Wasikowska was clearly up to the task, and I can’t wait to see what she does in the future.
As for the Oscar winning Kidman, she is giving it her all as the vain, self-absorbed bitch of a mother who’s utterly hopeless when it comes to relating to her daughter. Some have said that she is over the top in the role, but I disagree. Given the calculated quirkiness of the film, she fits right in. In fact, I would go as far as to say this is some of her best work since she won her Oscar, and the scene towards the end of the film, where she has finally had enough of her daughter, and just rips her a new bunghole… fantastic. Then there’s Matthew Goode as Charles, and he, honestly, I wasn’t as keen on. He isn’t what I would call bad, it’s more that he shows his sinister side way too soon. It was never meant to be a great surprise that this uncle is a total nut-whack, but I felt that a hint of subtlety could have benefited the role.
While I’m bemoaning that which I did not care for, I should go into my one major hang up with Stoker, the one pesky grievance that caused me to knock at least half a star off the rating, if not a full one… the fact that it gave me no one to relate to or root for. This thing is completely bereft of any even remotely sympathetic characters, as even India is not exactly likeable, and that kept me at a distance and made it difficult to fully invest in what was going to happen when the shit inevitably hit the fan with Uncle Charlie.
It’s too bad, really, because that aloofness is the one thing keeping Stoker from being the excellent film that it almost is. It is, however, still a highly entertaining and original one, from a great Asian filmmaker making one hell of a Hollywood debut. When this came to theaters a few months ago, I didn’t pay it much mind, because it didn’t look all that interesting… that was a mistake. If you’re looking for a break from the bangs and the booms of the event driven Summer blockbusters, then this surreal, perversely romantic thriller may just be your poisoned cup of tea.
