The 1976 film 'Trauma,' also known as 'Exposé,' was "nasty" in legal terms and certainly in terms of its violent content, but well made and enjoyable such as it was. Modern remakes of older genre flicks are always dicey in one way or another (most often by needlessly being bloodier, or simply More), but to revisit a concept doesn't mean new renditions can't be worthwhile on their own merits. I think there are some promising aspects of 2010's 'Stalker' - but on the other hand, it also begins to form an impression rather quickly, and I can't say it's a good one. I had mixed expectations in the first place, and regrettably I think those were pretty spot on.
There's little need for comparison, except perhaps to note that for however harsh 'Trauma' got at any point, the plot progressed with natural fluidity. That is absolutely not the case here. There's nothing inherently wrong with starting out with the same root premise (an author with writer's block, a tumultuous relationship with a personal assistant), then taking the story in other directions; there's nothing inherently wrong with fashioning additional narrative elements beyond the core. There are some good ideas in the screenplay. But as the director overseeing the production, Martin Kemp approaches the material with astonishingly blunt, heavy-handed, club-footed indelicacy, and this is reflected in most every element. The plot development here is curt, blocky, and unconvincing - so bare-faced that we can easily predict the outcome before there's any sort of reveal. There's not a trace of nuance in any of the performances, and as a result chief stars Anna Brecon and Jane March become sad points of aggravation. We're treated to a few would-be "gotcha!" moments or jump scares in early scenes for no reason, a tack which is subsequently dropped.
I actually quite like the notions that are put into 'Stalker,' flavors that lightly recall yet certainly diverge from antecedent 'Trauma.' I love psychological horror; it's one of my favorite genres. It is also, however, a genre that emphatically requires finesse, and without it the resulting picture all but falls apart and becomes boring. Even more to the point, any story that culminates with a "twist" needs to keep the truth hidden away until a singular precise moment, or at least dole out only miniscule kernels for the attentive spectator to pick up on. Here the lack of subtlety is so prominent and glaring that there effectively is no twist, and what we're left with comes off as merely a hollow trope.
It didn't need to be like this; 'Stalker' could have been a good movie. It's not just Kemp's direction, though, because even the screenplay as written would have needed significant rewrites to paint over the neon lights that inform the predictability. I hoped to enjoy this, but I really can't say that I did. Whether you're a fan of someone involved, of the 1976 film with Udo Kier and Linda Hayden, or just a cinephile generally, there's no real need to check this out. I wish all on hand the best of success, and hope lessons have been learned from the mistakes, but as it stands 2010's 'Stalker' is just a big lump of coal.
There's little need for comparison, except perhaps to note that for however harsh 'Trauma' got at any point, the plot progressed with natural fluidity. That is absolutely not the case here. There's nothing inherently wrong with starting out with the same root premise (an author with writer's block, a tumultuous relationship with a personal assistant), then taking the story in other directions; there's nothing inherently wrong with fashioning additional narrative elements beyond the core. There are some good ideas in the screenplay. But as the director overseeing the production, Martin Kemp approaches the material with astonishingly blunt, heavy-handed, club-footed indelicacy, and this is reflected in most every element. The plot development here is curt, blocky, and unconvincing - so bare-faced that we can easily predict the outcome before there's any sort of reveal. There's not a trace of nuance in any of the performances, and as a result chief stars Anna Brecon and Jane March become sad points of aggravation. We're treated to a few would-be "gotcha!" moments or jump scares in early scenes for no reason, a tack which is subsequently dropped.
I actually quite like the notions that are put into 'Stalker,' flavors that lightly recall yet certainly diverge from antecedent 'Trauma.' I love psychological horror; it's one of my favorite genres. It is also, however, a genre that emphatically requires finesse, and without it the resulting picture all but falls apart and becomes boring. Even more to the point, any story that culminates with a "twist" needs to keep the truth hidden away until a singular precise moment, or at least dole out only miniscule kernels for the attentive spectator to pick up on. Here the lack of subtlety is so prominent and glaring that there effectively is no twist, and what we're left with comes off as merely a hollow trope.
It didn't need to be like this; 'Stalker' could have been a good movie. It's not just Kemp's direction, though, because even the screenplay as written would have needed significant rewrites to paint over the neon lights that inform the predictability. I hoped to enjoy this, but I really can't say that I did. Whether you're a fan of someone involved, of the 1976 film with Udo Kier and Linda Hayden, or just a cinephile generally, there's no real need to check this out. I wish all on hand the best of success, and hope lessons have been learned from the mistakes, but as it stands 2010's 'Stalker' is just a big lump of coal.