Comments on: Sundance Review: Silly & Cartoonish ‘Stoker’ Is A Garish Misfire For Park Chan-Wook

By: Miguel

Miguel — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

This kind of review happens when you, The Playlist, send someone like Rodrigo PÃ©rez to Sundance. Why didn't you send someone like Kevin, Cain or Joen? I want to see this movie reviewed again.

By: yer

yer — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

I didn't know Park had so many fanboys. I actually think it's Kidman's fanboys trying to justify another crap film by her.

By: Oogle monster

Oogle monster — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

Wow, I didn't expect it to suck THIS much. Really really disappointed. Twitter seems to be divided, but this is the most extreme reaction I've read (I don't trust Wells judgement on anything as he is a ball of hyperbole). The trailers were pretty damn amazing- I honestly thought this would be a return to form for Kidman and co. Too damn bad.

By: wes

wes — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

fucking fanboys!

By: Z

Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

"tendencies for the histrionic and overly operatic…"

Hmm. You mean, like the Gothic tradition? To which STOKER (being inspired by BRAM STOKER, of DRACULA fame) firmly belongs?

Chan-Wook's style is both appropriate and, indeed, stylish for this genre.

By: Richard Schitz

Richard Schitz — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

What a piss poor review…

By: AE

AE — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

The film may be bad, but your reviews are worse, I mean talk about overwrought and plot heavy.

By: Anne

Anne — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

Thanx for the spoiler. If Rodrigo Perez snubbed the movie, it means that will be AMAZING.

By: 34567

34567 — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

" logic goes out the window, and the visual chaos and soapy melodrama overwhelm the offended senses" — Oldboy, anyone? It's all a matter of taste. Some like the grotesque sillyness Park Chan Wook offers up, some don't. Yes, this is a terribly written review, but — to my tastes — surely accurate

By: Mr Anonymous

Mr Anonymous — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

Very annoyed with the spoilers! Jesus Christ! What is wrong with you people? Do you not know simple, basic, common sense etiquette when it comes to reviewing movies? No point in going to watch it now you've basically given away and told us almost EVERYTHING!!!!

Absolutely shocking reviews like this are allowed to be printed without being double checked first by someone in charge.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

Avoid this review at all costs; riddled with spoilers and a preconceived bias. Might want to think about quitting the day job Rodrigo!

By: Lumen

Lumen — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

So far we have 7 positive reviews (from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The Guardian, Screendaily, Fangoria, HitFix, Indiewire) and 1 negative one (from "Rodrigo Perez").

By: LUI

LUI — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

WhatÂ´s wrong with you guys!?!?! A D-??? LMFAO!! To all The Playlist readers, go and read Guy LodgeÂ´s review for Variety, that guy knows how to write a decent review

By: A

Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

Spoil much? Thanks a lot.

By: mpbstereo

mpbstereo — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

I can't help but wonder if there is some resentment at work in this review, all of The Playlist's prior articles on Stoker seemed to champion the film on speculation alone.

Tempered expectations go a long way.

By: edt005

edt005 — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

Erm, SPOILER ALERT?! You give away about a million plot points in the review. All of the other reviews manage to sketch out the basics and still give a decent opinion on the movie.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

A rave from Variety : "a splendidly demented gumbo of Hitchcock thriller, American Gothic fairy tale and a contemporary kink all Park's own."

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

[D-] ? That's weird. So far, "Stoker" got good/great reviews from IndieWire (Eric Kohn), Screendaily, Fangoria and The Hollywood Reporter.

By: paul

paul — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

this review is extremely simplicistic…
you are not supposed to compare this kind of movies in traditional ones..

Park chan wook is not easy…not for all…not for you…

By: gert

gert — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

d- ? seriously ? even movies like piranha 3d get better scores 🙂

By: emily

emily — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

To quote Cher Horowitz "That was way harsh".

By: grant

grant — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

I agree more or less with your thoughts on the film. There was not a single character to empathize or relate to. I loved the style of the film, but the script was just terrible at bringing you onboard. I actually thought that the movie finally got interesting after the masturbatory scene, thats the real film, but the pre-amble was so impossible to get on board with, that by the time i arrived there I was not interested.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

I finally got around to reading this review. Forget whether the reviewer liked or didn't like the film, the review is really poorly written and way too literal in it's focus for what "Stoker" is dishing out. I suggest trying to send a reviewer to a film who has the mental equipment to at least relate somewhat to what's going on. You don't send a man to do a boy's job.

By: dori prnce

dori prnce — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

The worst use of Mia's talent imaginable! What a dog of a film. No suspense or entertainment value. Nicole Kidman should retire if this is the only kind of role she can get at this point.
I want my money back! Thumbs down.

By: profoundly sad, also rabidly angry

profoundly sad, also rabidly angry — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:31 +0000

i'm trying not to take this review personally because i loved this film, but it's not working and I kind of hate you a little bit.