sábado, março 02, 2013

Hollywood Buzz #197

O que se diz lá fora sobre STOKER, de Chan-wook Park:

«The final act of Stoker walks a fine line between the sensational and the silly. Mr. Park is less interested in narrative suspense than in carefully orchestrated shocks and camouflaged motives.»
A.O. Scott, The New York Times.

«Park's unsettling visuals and his handling of the cast make the occasional holes in Wentworth Miller's script practically irrelevant.»
John DeFore, The Hollywood Reporter.

«The movie wants to be Hitchcockian, but it's the flat-footed Hitchcock of MARNIE that Park evokes. His filmmaking here is hermetic and lugubrious, with each physical movement meaninglessly heightened and every line hanging in the air with (empty) significance.»
Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly.

«STOKER is Park's darkly funny, deliciously depraved riff on Hitchcock's SHADOW OF A DOUBT.»
Peter Travers, Rolling Stone.

«STOKER, which plays something like a remake of THE ADDAMS FAMILY mixed with THE PAPERBOY — but without the laughs of either – belongs in a special category of movie badness, or perhaps two different but overlapping categories. It’s a visually striking but fundamentally terrible film made by a good or (some would say) great director.»
Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.

2 comentários:

Daniela Carvalho disse...

Toda esta divergência de opiniões que por aí correm sobre este filme andam-me a deixar cada vez mais curiosa. Começo a criar grandes expectativas.

Daniela Carvalho,
Requiem for a movie

there's something out there disse...

Concordância total com o comentário acima. Porque é que, quando a imprensa mainstream norte-americana fala mal de um filme que anda à volta do suspense ou do terror, dá logo vontade de ir ver?