Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995


Have any of you seen it? What did you think?

I'll post what I thought--spoilers inside.

by Anonymousreply 4405/20/2014

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).

by Anonymousreply 103/20/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 203/20/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 303/20/2013


by Anonymousreply 403/21/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 503/21/2013

Why is this film off the radar? Because it has no appeal to teenage boys?

by Anonymousreply 603/21/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 703/21/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 803/21/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 903/21/2013

Nicole picks directors who are promising but rarely make 2 nd films

by Anonymousreply 1003/21/2013

R10, Park Chan Wook? Only promising?

by Anonymousreply 1103/21/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1203/21/2013

Agreed, r3.

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.

by Anonymousreply 1303/21/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1403/31/2013

No no, R14--this is a flop, by *any* measure.

by Anonymousreply 1503/31/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1603/31/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1703/31/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1803/31/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1903/31/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2003/31/2013

She's been developing a Dusty Springfield biopic forever. God help us.

by Anonymousreply 2103/31/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2203/31/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2303/31/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 2403/31/2013

Yes, Wentworth Miller wrote "Stoker." I am sure that Nicole "optioned" it after Keith gave him a blow job.

by Anonymousreply 2503/31/2013

[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:

by Anonymousreply 2603/31/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2703/31/2013

Does Nicole die?

by Anonymousreply 2803/31/2013

I don't know, but she definitely has horrible b.o. Stoker is being pulled from theaters.

by Anonymousreply 2903/31/2013

I didn't like his performance as "Stoker".

by Anonymousreply 3004/01/2013

I caught up with this on cable. I liked it. Why was it set in Connecticut but it clearly looked like Tennessee?

by Anonymousreply 3112/11/2013

Is this the screenplay written by Wentworth Miller?

by Anonymousreply 3212/11/2013

This is the first time I really noticed Matthew Goode. Tall sexy drink of water.

by Anonymousreply 3312/11/2013

Totally straight, R33, but likes to do a lot of nudity in his films. Has shown his ass and cock several times.

by Anonymousreply 3412/11/2013

Great Hitchcock tribute! Here comes "Shadow of a Doubt," with Uncle Charlie dropping in on updated family that includes a super-sexy newly widowed sister-in-law...

I was shocked...SHOCKED when the Uncle proxy-raped the girl, by strangling the rapist mid-thrust. The look on the girl's face, and her later scrubbing of her pubis, were disturbing.

Semi-consensual incestuous intercourse culminating in a necrophiliac cream pie.

by Anonymousreply 3512/12/2013

Matthew Goode looks like a Thunderbird in this movie. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

by Anonymousreply 3612/13/2013

Loved this movie. Watched it on HBO at like 2am because I could not sleep. Loved the looks of the film as well.

by Anonymousreply 3712/13/2013

Harmony Korine plays a neighbor lady. Amateurishly.

by Anonymousreply 3812/13/2013

I was extremely disappointed. I tried watching it a couple of times but didn't get any further than the rape-strangulation scene. I love Mathew Goode but even he could not sustain my interest and I hate the way Kidman looks so watching her was a real chore. it was not at all what I expected.

by Anonymousreply 3912/13/2013

I can't tell if it's a good movie or not. I DVRed a few weeks ago and every single time (5 times) I've tried to watch it I've fallen asleep about 40 minutes into it.

Is it worth it to keep trying?

by Anonymousreply 4012/13/2013

I did not like Heath Ledger in his role as "Stoker".

by Anonymousreply 4112/14/2013

This movie thinks very highly of itself for no good reason.

Unimaginative cinematography, frenetic direction, pretentious performances, self consciously "weird".

It is simply awful and not in a good way.

by Anonymousreply 4212/14/2013

I'd say r42's review is spot on.

by Anonymousreply 4312/14/2013

I just caught this on DVD and I enjoyed it. I really liked the stylized editing and cinematography - it didn't seem over the top for me, and it really contributed to the overall tension and atmosphere of the film. Although I admit sometimes I paused to admire the editing choices / camera angles, etc., instead of being immersed in the film, so maybe that's a count against it.

I thought Kidman was fine, and I especially enjoyed her over the top dinner speech. I can never take these types of horror films seriously anyway, so scenery chewing is fine with me. I liked Matthew Goode as well - his eyes are so intense that it really contributes to the creep factor. I did think the scene with him in the car with his brother was a wrong step and completely took me out of his character.

I've only seen Mia Wasikowska in Jane Eyre and in this, and I was impressed (moreso than in Jane Eyre). There's just something about her bone structure and profile that is very compelling to look at, even when she's not saying much. I did think the script shifted her character around a lot and the combination of sociopath / helpless ingenue was a bit hard to swallow. But overall, an interesting film that stayed with me a bit after it was over.

by Anonymousreply 4405/20/2014
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!