Have any of you seen it? What did you think?
I'll post what I thought--spoilers inside.
I decided I enjoyed it overall as soon as the lights came up, but while it was going it was pretty campy at times. It was stylistically gorgeous, and had some of the most exciting editing I'd seen in a long time (the piano duet scene is amazing), but it was so incredibly stylized that it seemed over the top.
I loved Mia Wasichowska who is so ambiguous in the lead part, but I thought both Matthew Goode and Nicole Kidman were miscast. Goode was quite fine in terms of his acting, but I think you needed someone handsomer and more charming to play that role, and he has no chin. And Kidman does what she always does in these kinds of parts: the slutty, selfish, bitchy ice queen. She needs to stop doing parts like this and accept that she's middle aged and that she's done these kinds of parts too many times before (she also needs to stop having so much Botox done--she claims she's off of it, but she's obviously not).
Um, you call that a spoiler? Spoil the shit out if it, like it was Suri Cruise! I haven't even heard of it but I love spoilers.
The only reason I think Nicole Kidman still does these kinds of roles she's done a million times before is that the producers must have told her things like, "You'll get to wear really sexy tight outfits and be serious competition for your teenage daughter," and she's so vain that at the prospect of still being seen as sexy she can't say no.
I was going to watch it but after reading all the reviews, I decided to wait for the DVD. It seems its all style over substance which can be fine, but I just haven't been in the mood to watch something like that.
Interestingly (or not) the actors on board before Kidman, Goode, and Wasikowska were Jodie Foster, Carey Mulligan, and Colin Firth. And Ridley Scott was going to direct, not Park Chan Wook. It would've been a different movie for sure.
Why is this film off the radar? Because it has no appeal to teenage boys?
Essentially, R6. What is so weird is that if it had been released in more theaters playing off the "horror" aspects, it might have broken to at least $10-15 million dollars. Now it's barely crawling to $1million.
They chose to advertise it based on the style rather than on the horror, which was a real mistake.
I also think if it had been a little less stylized it would have done better. There's something a little airless about the film--the characters just don't live in the recognizable real world (they seem instead to live in lemony Snicket's world). It makes the film stylistically fascinating but also offputting.
I really liked it, but I can see why people would hate it. So much of the plot is truly ridiculous, maybe it would have been accepted more if it was a Korean film.
Case in point - the attempted rape. They need someone for Charlie and India to kill and bond over. So they take the relatively less assholish guy and have them turn into a would-be rapist in the space of a minute, with lines like "You've opened this door, you're gonna walk through it".
Plus Charlie's whole backstory, psychologically speaking, was like something from a movie made in the 50s/60s. I could imagine the exposition scene in Psycho.
But I do forgive films that are often accused of favoring style over content - with some films, I think it's the point. A Single Man springs to mind.
Nicole picks directors who are promising but rarely make 2 nd films
R10, Park Chan Wook? Only promising?
Watchable while it lasts, but probably the silliest film I have seen in a while. Also pretentious in a Black Swan kind of way - stylistic overkill with lots of floaty dresses, slow motion, eye-rolling exposition, and undergraduate-level psychological symbolism with mirrors, doubles, repeated gestures etc. Mia Wasikowska is irritatingly blank and passive for most of the film; she's basically a really annoying version of Winona Ryder's character in Beetle Juice, and you never root for her or sympathise with her. Nicole Kidman just sleepwalks through it all in customary ice-queen mode.
It's hilarious how they still even cast Nicole Kidman at all. How many flops has this woman had in the last 10-15 years?
If you want your film to flop hard, cast Nicole Kidman in it.
Damn, is she annoying and overrated. Go away already.
I read somewhere that the director wanted Jodie Foster. I don't know how or why Nicole Kidman escapes bad press (this film has flopped). Maybe "speciality box office" has different rules or lowered expectations.
No no, R14--this is a flop, by *any* measure.
It's funny, because a similar low-bidget, star-heavy genre picture, "Side Effects," did very well recently. It's not just that the public didn't want something like this--this just was a genuine turkey.
Nicole Kidman has been backing some of these low budget films she's in, as a kind of a producer. Not sure if that's the case with Stoker, but it's one way she gets good parts.
Interestingly, she's doing what Sigourney Weaver started doing about ten or so years ago once Hollywood stopped calling - focus on indies, though Weaver has had more success.
Juliane Seriously Moore had her beginnings in indie films, so it's not as surprising that she still loves to do them.
I though Foster would be smart enough to focus indies instead of doing crap like Flightplan, but it turns out she's not all that interesting in acting anymore.
The director wanted Kidman. He even agreed to shoot it in Nashville so she could be home at night. She gets cast because she makes low budget films and they make money. Not $100 million but they don't have to. She's an international movie star.
Matthew Goode made me twitch at both ends during Stoker, but Michael Fassbender could have made the part more dangerous.
All 3 actresses were Australian, which I found quite interesting.
Nicole has been 0 for 3 with her last films: Trespass, The Paperboy, and now Stoker have all tanked. She pulled SAG and GG nominations for Paperboy and the Hemingway film, but both were pretty awful. And the Academy was NOT going to give her an Oscar nod for peeing on Zac Efron, or twiddling her cooch in front of John Cusack. She's kind of out there, and she seems to do better with Omega (selling Ladymatic watches). She has to be SEXAY all the time, and this, coupled with plastic surgery, is a giant turnoff to moviegoers.
She has The Railway Man with Colin Firth (supporting), and then she has her big showcase, Grace of Monaco out by the end of the year. Both of these will be specialty box office, and there is a lot of money riding on her appeal for Grace of Monaco (I think that one has a $35 million budget, but will cost a lot for P&A).
I don't think the negative box office impacts her because she is rich. For a few more years, there will always be a foreign producer impressed with Nicole Kidman, movie star. At a certain point, she would be better served by a good role on television.
She's been developing a Dusty Springfield biopic forever. God help us.
That project (Dusty Springfield) seems dead. She is filming a low-budget thriller in the UK with Colin Firth, Before I Go to Sleep. Very interesting actress, but cannot connect with audiences.
Nicole is pooping out so much cash now that she can back her own films. If that Oracle chick can do it, so can she. She earned it.
Never liked Kidman, even at her height of popularity.
Didn't Luke Macfarlane's ex write the screenplay?
Yes, Wentworth Miller wrote "Stoker." I am sure that Nicole "optioned" it after Keith gave him a blow job.
[quote](she also needs to stop having so much Botox done--she claims she's off of it, but she's obviously not).
One look at her forehead here and it's clear she's still getting massive amounts of Botox:
Physically, she is turning into Kelly Preston. I would love for her life to be a reality show ... the bodyguards, the doctors, the secrets, the conference calls with L'Wren Scott or Kevin Huvane while texting Keith to please pick up the child. Fascinating.
Does Nicole die?
I don't know, but she definitely has horrible b.o. Stoker is being pulled from theaters.