In these last few years, the Eastern cinema got more powerful. From the other side of the globe we received the most interesting film of the last decade, showing the mastery of the most talented directors of this second millennium. This helped the distribution in spreading the knowledge on this specific sector, often victim of prejudice (some people think that Eastern cinema is boring and too much philosophical) and ignorance.

And, as often happens, the new talents are noticed by the eye of the major distributors. It is not a coincidence that many filmmakers then decided to make their American debut. Recently we had the release of The Last Stand, the action movie with Arnold Schwerzenegger, directed by Kin Jee-woon, author of the masterpieces I Saw the Devil and Bittersweet Life; in 2014 (as we have already announced) even the prolific director Takashi Miike will work under and American production. But today I’m here for the Stoker review, talking about the last effort of Park Chan-wook, the cult director of the famous Vengeance Trilogy – the second episode of the trilogy, Oldboy, won the Grand Prix at Cannes Festival of 2003.

The hype was incredibly high, because with his Vengeance Trilogy Park deconstructed a complex feeling, showing it with strange and grotesque stories filled with action and drama. In fact, it is fair to ask ourselves if the USA audience is ready for such a psychologically violent movie, but also if Park himself is able to write a screenplay which can avoid falling in the blacklist of Hollywood.

The problem doesn’t exist with Stoker, because its script was written by the actor Wentworth Miller.

The film talks about a family, the Stokers. They are facing a serious drama: the man of the house died in a car accident. The young and apathetic India, along with his mother, tries to overcome the drama, when suddenly in the house arrives a young and attractive uncle, of which no one seemed to remember. India has very mixed feelings towards this person, being at the same time attracted and disgusted by him. Too many mysteries, however, revolve around that figure, and India ultimately discovers the truth about him and also about herself.

The plot is not original at all, but this doesn’t necessarily translates in a bad movie. With the right treatment a good result is still possible, but chaos rules in Stoker, contributing to the overall mediocrity.

The script has severe issues with the characters. All of them, without exceptions, are really frigid and disagreeable – in some aspects, even annoying. The film is based on the protagonist’s psychological hatch, and this central focus is narrated in the worst way. I appreciate the combination of his thin figure with the role of the hunter, the sign of a terrible ferocity repressed, but how this ferocity actually grows during the plot is quite ridiculous. This is a story about a girl that discovers herself, her sexualities and her basic needs, but all of these themes are overexposed to become mirrors of themselves. None of them is actually explored in-depth, everything seems confused and many scenes are put in the movie just to make it last longer.

The cast enjoys the beautiful presence of Nicole Kidman (Eyes Wide Shut, The Others) in the role of the mother, the crazier and, ironically, more useless character. I have to note, however, the remarkable maturation of Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, Lawless), in spite of the poor script. The least convincing of the trio remains Matthew Goode (the Ozymandias of Watchmen), who manages to make his character even more irritating and ridiculous; ultimately he’s a soulless antagonist and provides a fairly predictable twist.