In Review: Stoker

Directed By: Chan-wook Park
Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, Matthew Goode

What I Liked

Beautiful cinematography with pronounced, haunting imagery, great performance by its cast

What I Disliked

Unlikable / unrelatable central character, screenplay makes for an unnecessary length that makes the film feel slow with little to nothing happening.

Gist

Miller's screenplay allows for Park to practice beautiful cinematography punctured with haunting images, but it's a double-edged sword that hurts the film with turtle-paced storytelling that dillydallies too much to deliver imagery over story.

India Stoker is a privileged young lady who prefers hunting fowl over shopping. She also has a peculiar ability to hear the softest of whispers and see clearly even things faraway. On the day of her 18th birthday, her father died in a car accident of unspecified causes. Following her father's funeral, her father's only brother, Charlie, arranges to live with her and her mother. And while her mother finds Charlie an enigmatic and delightful company, India has nothing but suspicions that Uncle Charlie is up to no good.

Mia Wasikowska didn't exactly shoot to international renown after her major box office hit of a Disney movie, Alice in Wonderland last 2010. She has often chosen to do indie movies (The Kids are All Right) or movies that don't get released in this side of the globe (Albert Nobbs, Jane Eyre). Nevertheless, she starred in 5 movies more or less since. In Stoker, we find that Wasikowska is just as disturbed as someone who just came out of Wonderland. Mia's "India" is a sociopath who with an affinity for keeping herself looking vintage. Later on, this sociopath blooms completely to a psychopath, but I am getting ahead of myself.

The film is based on Wentworth Miller's script that made it to the list of best screenplays written in 2012. In a nutshell, it was based on Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, with Miller stating that it starts off similarly and goes a separate path. Spoiler alert: it goes full away to the direction that the Hitchcock film didn't take. This is braver, to be honest. But in such a case, the execution needs to be done extra carefully because you might end up having an unlikable lead, something that rubbed off to me. I don't like India Stoker and I don't understand her. Sure, her character was written to spawn mystery (was she in love with her dad? Were they having an incestuous affair? Why didn't she just finish off what she did in the end earlier, what's the difference between the stairs and the mother's bedroom anyways?). She just wasn't written in a way that would make one curious enough to know / dig deeper for the answers. And with that said, I think the vision was good but the execution was forced. 

Adding to that, the screenplay / editing felt gimmicky, lending a contrived vibe throughout the short playing time, as if forcing some sense of mystery to its audience. And in that attempt it made the movie feel longer than it is with little to nothing happening. Though to the screenplay / editing's credit, it allowed for Park's haunting cinematography which is one of the things that the movie has going for it.

On top of my mind, there is one scene among many that was filmed so well that it etched itself to my memory: The piano scene. In this scene, India starts playing the piano and was soon joined by an uninvited Uncle Charlie. For most of the scene, India is unwelcoming but Charlie is persistent. Eventually, India gives in and kept on going to the point that she was on the verge of a dry orgasm only to find the seat finally vacated. This scene: Amazing.

Anyways, I couldn't find fault with the acting as there was nothing explosive going on. If ever I would have any complaints with the characters, it is with how they were written not how they were performed.

Overall, It's an OK movie. There are pros and cons and I find it hard to feel that the pros outdo the cons or vice versa. I remember myself getting bored for a lot of the running time and I actually couldn't relate to any of the characters that I soon feel that I was disengaging from the movie if not for the beautiful cinematography. Miller's screenplay allows for Park to practice beautiful cinematography punctured with haunting images, but it's a double-edged sword that hurts the film with turtle-paced storytelling that dillydallies too much to deliver imagery over story. Would it have been better otherwise? I am not sure because the cinematography might get affected so maybe the only thing that can be fixed is the way characters were written. Maybe let the audience in on what they're thinking because from this point of view, I felt so blocked and eventually disengaged, watching pretty pictures.

Judgment: 3.3 out of 5 stars

For this movie, I'm willing to pay, 150 to 170 pesos. I paid 190 pesos.

In Review: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The Gist

Smartly scripted but poorly paced, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," the directorial feature of Stephen Chbosky--the author of the source material, will not feel overlong, but it will feel long. There's something about the film's tendency to be "quiet" and too sensitive that didn't sit well with me, but the lessons are deep and still relevant even to adults and the film itself is a bit of a charmer even if it may seem too teen-deep at times.

The Good

• Strong performances by Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller
• The serious tone of the film and its tendency to tackle issues with sensitivity and tact makes it feel more mature than its genre would normally allow
• Smart script and good casting

The Bad

• May feel long, pacing is not as flawless as the script
• Like most teen movies, it can get teen-deep
• Has a tendency to be too quiet and too self-involved, like its lead, not allowing you insight on what the characters think.

Synopsis

Charlie grew into highschool awkwardly. As a freshman, he finds out that the best way to survive high school is to keep to himself. Unfortunately, that only works to keep him out of trouble and admittedly he needs a friend to survive the loneliness of American high school. But as an awkward and unpopular kid, Charlie finds out that getting friends is not as easy as getting A's. As he struggled to keep himself from going back to depression due to events in the past he'd best leave forgotten, he soon finds himself tangled in the company of high school misfits--not so popular high school kids who are just like him and love him for what he is. And just as things get better for Charlie, his past finds itself slowly surfacing to the foreground forcing an unwanted confrontation.

Not Another Teen Movie

Teen movies, there will always be one every year, and every generation would always have one teen movie to summarize them: in the 90s, it was Clueless, 2000s, it's Mean Girls, and for the 2010s, it would be ...Perks. And my common complain for these teen movies is the same: how they portray teen problems in a way that only teens can relate to. I am not sure if I've just grown too old to appreciate them, but I feel like the way they portray teen problems in serious movies such as Perks.. is a bit overblown. Sure, the awkward feeling and needing to belong when you're a teen is a sad thing, but with the way it is romanticized here. For one, I find it hard to believe that girls won't take a liking to Logan Lerman. Sure, he's a nerd, but come on, he's way more decent than any other freshman, and definitely than any other nerd in campus. And if you think about it, all this feeling of not belonging would have been solved had he spoken up and tried to reach out to people. But instead, he sat alone in the cafeteria, waiting for the world to approach him. I know people like that, and they still stay alone in their cafeteria corner.

Out of Reach

I have to give it Chbosky for translating his novel into film with such finesse and sensitivity even at the cost of pacing. For most of the movie, I was able to make do with the pacing even if it hindered me at times. Similarly to my previously reviewed film, Perks has a very quiet lead. Although this one speaks, Charlie (Lerman) is rather too introverted.

I can not guess how they couldn't make them like Juno anymore--it tackles a serious issue but it allows its viewers to know what its characters think and is paired with a lively narration. And that is my problem perhaps with Perks. As it was apparently hiding a secret, it needed to keep the tone down to not spoil the surprise--and it didn't help people know what everyone is thinking. And I learned a thing or two about hiding secrets from your audience, it must be a have a big pay off for it to work. In this case with Perks, it did work, but the way it was narrated and handled afterwards wasn't so refreshing. It lacked something that would've given the ending more oomph.

The script has deviated from the book here and there and I do not completely understand why Chbosky felt this was necessary. If anything, I expected it to be a straight out translation, but that wasn't the case. Many funny dialog were missing from the film, and certain beautiful quotes were omitted. The performances that came with the script were pretty effective, giving life to the quotable lines and making them memorable. Sam's (Hermione Granger, I mean, Emma Watson) confrontation with Charlie before she goes for college is perhaps one of these years most memorable and heartfelt scenes, and I'd say the performance and the build up that lead to it were to blame. If anything, Watson's performance in Perks shows that she can do stand on her own better than her two Harry Potter co-stars and that she refuses to remain under a smart witch's shadow. Charlie was effective in playing a reserved-often-disturbed teenage boy with a chip on his shoulder. And Ezra Miller may have to be the scene-stealer in this film, having an arc and personality that only him owns--and of course the acting prowess to back it up, though it's unfair as he might be simply playing himself in this movie, still it's amazing how he gives life to Kevin and his quirkiness.

If anything, the quite silent treatment with powerful lines and performances worked for the message Perks... would like to impart--not sure if it did the same for storytelling. It was tender enough and not too in the face for its target audience, yet deep enough for adults to relate to. In a sense it is a movie that would like to let everyone know that we belong somewhere, and it is our job to find that place and that's only possible if we take action--and everything else should follow if you reach out.

I am divided with this film as I felt it sometimes tend to dwell on some things that are too teen deep, dwell in a way teens would only know how to, but isn't this what this movie is about and is made for anyway? Ultimately, I get the message and I enjoyed the empowerment it tries to send across. And it has it's charm, mostly worked on by the quirky Miller. The problem I have was with the way storytelling, which is made up for by above average performances of its cast and the solid script. So I guess

My verdict:

May feel too serious and quiet for something paltry, yet universally true and empowering with great performances--I know, contradicting. Couldn't give this movie a 4, but a 3.75 is warranted.

3.75 out of 5 stars. Passed.