By anarelax
Written October 27, 2016
It was an intelligently put together classic psychopath movie with Nicole looking as stunning as ever for her actual age......Loved it
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Did you?


By Peneflix
Written February 23, 2017
It is March first and to this point “Stoker” reigns as the worst film of 2013! How and why do beautiful, gifted actors prostitute their talents for detritus; meaningless, nonsensical scenarios? South Korean director Park Chan-Wook (“Oldboy”) fills a luscious, enchanting landscape with nothingness... Saving the film from a zero rating is a daunting piano duet, composed by Philip Glass; seamlessly sensual, erotically enticing; fingers entwined, pulsating, caressing the keys, never has intimacy sounded more titillating, sublime, satiated... ONE STAR! For Now…..Peneflix ***For full review please visit peneflix (dot) com!!!
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Did you?


By SouthernNYCgal
Written May 27, 2016
The way this movie was shot and edited is really startling. I usually don't notice things like that, but here it's really purposefully jarring. Scenes freeze, and rewind and play again. Or they just freeze and pause before playing on. At first it was kinda annoying. I thought it was over stylized in a way that pulls you out of the story. It's hard to suspend belief when someone is playing with the pictures meant to pull you into their world. But after a while, you see that the film's weird and disturbing use of freeze frames and repetition is also telling India's story. And India's story is very disturbing. It reminded me a lot of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. It's a very blunt and unsettling look at a type of person that we all know exists but can't, or don't want to understand. I'm not sure Stoker really helps you understand, but it gives you a very intimate glimpse into their mind.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Did you?

Like Fine Wine, You Have To Give This One A While To Breathe.

By Al P
Written August 22, 2014
To say this film starts slowly would be an gross understatement. At first I thought it might have been poorly edited, then minutes later I decided it was just "slow." Soon enough though, all started to become clearer. To say this film is unique would be wholly accurate. While it reminded me of horror thrillers of the late 70s/early 80s, it's unique and stands alone. Bearing the "Scott Free" logo and carrying the names of both Tony and Ridley Scott on the opening credits, one should be clued right away that all is not as it appears. That would indeed be the truth. Don't be misled though. This film is NOT for everyone. First and foremost, patience is the key. Next, one must be willing to be led, seduced into constant wonder, in order to truly enjoy this film. Finally, this one's not for the squeamish either. Given my previous admonitions, see it. You won't be disappointed.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Did you?


By sunshine1295
Written May 06, 2016
One of the worst movies I have seen in a very long time. Surprised Nicole Kidman took on such a stupid role. Slow, Slow and extremely weak story. Also, did I mention a stupid plot? Save your money for Iron Man 3 to come.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Did you?