Stoker fails to impress FT

Stoker poster

Oh dear. The FT really doesn’t like Park Chan-wook’s Stoker.

Stoker aims for enigmatic but bulleyes incoherent instead,” says Raphael Abraham, reviewing the DVD release in the Weekend edition on 6 July 2013. “Park Chan-wook constructs every shot with maximum flourish while plotlines appear fitfully and then die from neglect,” he adds, concluding that “after half an hour you’ll be bored, by the last reel you’ll be urging the killer on just to get it over with already”.

Mind you, at least he gives the release one star out of five. The review of the theatrical release by Nigel Andrews in February gave it no stars at all:

Stoker is a nightmare comeback for Nicole Kidman: art-horror, with oodles of useless style failing to fill the vacuum of its would-be spooky content. Straight-to-download is the deserved fate. Don’t hold it back by buying a ticket.

Harsh, but it’s certainly not one of Park’s best.

One thought on “Stoker fails to impress FT

    • Colette Balmain: I wouldn’t be quite as harsh, but I really didn’t like it at all.
    • Vee White: Park Chan-wook didn’t have a right lot to do with the script or the plotlines. I think there is just a mismatch of cinematic styles. Korean cinema is all about showing the story, filling each shot with both obvious and hidden information (Kim Ki Duk’s 3 Iron or Park Chan Wook’s Sympathy for Mr Vengeance) A lot is left to interpretation. American films like to be continually telling you the story with a running narrative or a plot filling dialogue. There seemed to be a clash between these two approaches and neither was really resolved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.