Review: Stuck (2008) ****
Stephen Rea gets Stuck
Stuart Gordon’s new film, Stuck, kicks off with a slow motion credit sequence of senior citizens in a rest home taking their medication as a profane rap by DJ Honda blares on the soundtrack. There’s nothing supernatural, but even audiences who’ve never seen the director’s cult hits, Re-Animator and From Beyond, will suspect something’s a little off - and they’re right. What unfolds over the next hour and a half isn’t literally a horror movie, but it’s close. It satisfies in many of the same ways and to greater effect than much of what passes for the genre these days.
What we have is simply the story of two strangers, Brandi and Tom, whose lives are traveling in opposite directions. Before long, they will collide - literally - and life will never be the same for either one.
For Brandi, played by a trashy looking, cornrowed Mena Suvari, things are looking up. She’s a nurse’s assistant at a retirement home and she’s good at what she does. She’s gentle, compassionate and hard working. All the patients like her and the smarmy boss is dangling the promise of a promotion in front of her.
Prospects aren’t so bright for middle-aged Tom, however. Played by a particularly haggard looking Stephen Rea, he’s a former project manager who has been downsized. Evicted from his slum apartment on the morning of a job interview at the employment office, he’s forced to sneak off with his meager belongings. Teetering on a tightrope with an uncaring system on one side and the abyss on the other, he has nowhere to sleep but a park bench.
This is how he finds himself crossing a street in a daze at 1 o’clock in the morning and this is how, after a night of drinking, drugs and dancing, Brandi hits him with her car. Instead of just bouncing off, he crashes up over the hood and flies head first through her windshield, lodging there. Panicking and in shock, she first drives to a hospital, but when the gravity of her situation becomes clear, she drives home and locks the car in the garage, Tom still sticking out of her windshield.
When he regains consciousness, the question of body disposal becomes a much bigger problem. She’s already guilty of multiple crimes and, rationalizing that he is just a homeless man and that no one saw the accident, she decides there’s nothing left to do but wait for him to die. Of course, he doesn’t die and the next 15 hours are a kind of tense, grisly and suspenseful game as Tom tries to save himself and Brandi tries to figure out how to clean up her mess without getting caught.
This is Stuck, a subverted horror story told mostly from the perspective of the monster instead of the victim. What’s more, the monster begins the film as a normal person. There’s a point, somewhere in her moment of panic, that something clicks inside of Brandi. One minute she’s a nurse and the next she’s a murderer. Disturbingly, I found myself almost sympathizing with her. Alternating between wanting Tom to escape and wanting him to just die, it’s not that I was rooting for Brandi exactly, but anything to relieve the macabre tension heightened by the film’s limited, claustrophobic setting. Stuck is a little like Alfred Hitchcock’s Lifeboat in hell.
Fortunately, as you’d expect from Gordon, there is some well-timed humor to ease the gruesome, squirm-inducing suspense. There are also some superbly ghoulish moments (a scene with a dog and a bone sticking out of Tom’s leg springs to mind), but there is nothing off the rails as in Re-Animator - i.e. nothing paranormal and no decapitated…er…head. In fact, the relatively modest gore and the lack of outrageousness in Stuck may disappoint fans of Gordon’s cult hits, but the film has a couple of secret weapons that raise it above average.
First, though it flirts with the ridiculous as one thing leads to another, the film always clings to a thread of credibility. This grounding in reality works to the film’s benefit, increasing the tension and making it all the more horrifying even if you forget that the whole thing is inspired by a true story.
Second, Gordon and his cast do a terrific job of getting you to feel for the characters from the very beginning. Though sympathy is quickly lost for Brandi, there is just enough humanity given to Tom before the accident to increase the pain and horror of his life or death struggle. While there is more than a bit of heavy-handedness in these opening scenes as Tom confronts a disinterested system, eventually it’s counterbalanced by the increasingly over-the-top tone of the rest of the film and by the sly glimmer Gordon seems to have in his eye as the film progresses. Ultimately, the satire and social commentary add a bit of gravity and bite to the film without ever overwhelming the horror/suspense aspects of it.
Somewhat surprisingly, only a couple of people walked out on the film part way in. Those who remained were treated to a genuinely unconventional horror film that mixed suspense, ghoulish humor and gore in just the right amounts. In short Stuck is a twisted but finely honed stiletto of a movie. It draws blood, but leaves an audience properly attuned to Gordon’s peculiar mojo exiting the theater with a dazed grin and a feeling of $10 well spent.
Stuck. Canada/USA 2007 (released in 2008). Screen story and directed by Stuart Gordon. Screenplay by John Strysik. Cinematography by Denis Maloney. Music score composed by Bobby Johnston. Starring Mena Suvar, Stephen Rea, Russell Hornsby, Rukiya Bernard and Carolyn Purdy-Gordon. 1 hour 25 minutes. MPAA rated R for strong violence, disturbing content, sexuality/nudity, language and drug use. 4 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Related Posts: - Isaac Hayes, Musician: 1942 - 2008
- Review: My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) *** 1/2
- Ye Olde Watercooler: 6/2/08
- Review: Away From Her (2007) *** 1/2
- Weekend Forecast: 5/30/08
I hope it does well enough in New York City and Los Angeles to receive a wider release so I can see it theatrically. I went ahead and read your review, Craig, because it’s based on the real story. Sounds ghoulishly interesting to say the least. The fact that Stephen Rea is one of the two leads is enticing as well.
Rea isn’t given a lot to do, but he makes of it what he can.
Hopefully it’s obvious from the review that this isn’t for all tastes, but I think horror/suspense fans will like it.
I hope it makes it out of LA and NY too. It’s the kind of movie that’s more fun when you see it with people. Audience reactions add to the fun.
I’m skipping the review for now in the hopes this one might show up nearby in the near future. Fingers crossed.
I read up as I’m not planning on checking this one out. It’s not fair to compare it to something like Teeth, but the two are lumped in my head in the same genre: possibly great but still too personally disturbing for my taste.
I found it interesting that the actual Brandi is an African-American woman. What possible reason would there be, other than box-office concern, to switch it for the film? And at that, why give Mena Suvari cornrows?
It’s much better than Teeth, but yeah….there’s a definite squirm factor that some will be disturbed by.
As for the Suvari casting, I think Gordon intentionally left race out of it. A black woman running over a white man and not caring takes on whole other layer. Based on some of the other changes he made, his mission was to make a thriller more than a bit of social commentary.
It’s also possible Suvari was just the biggest name he could get. A consideration especially for a movie that will need all the help it can get to get any kind of theatrical release.
God I love Suvari so much! I long to see her in a film where her talent is on full display, like in American Beauty.
I want to check this one out sometime too.
Alright, but would people really flinch if he had kept it true to real life? Some would throw labels at him or try to make it social commentary, which I find ironic, but couldn’t it just be the story existing as it did? Did he back away because he thought it would be too distracting?
In any case, the switch doesn’t create a problem for the movie’s purpose. The heart of the story, from what you’ve explained, has little to do with the physical characteristics of the characters - but that may be all the more the reason why I find it interesting that he chose to switch it. It would very much surprise me if he couldn’t find a black actress interested in taking this role.
Incidentally, I remember when Mena Suvari was #2 on the Maxim or some other guy mag list of the hottest women in the world. This was like 1999 or 2000. #2…in the world…
Not having seen the movie or read Craig’s review, my opinion is only derived from the trailer. However, I do think viewers and critics would ascribe a racial element to the story had the casting been more true to the real story…or at least, they’d look for that political element to be addressed. By changing that detail, he diffused that issue and focuses on the real horror of the entire incident.
But then again, I agree it would have worked had he not made that change and simply ignored the entire racial issue completely, as though it didn’t exist. Ignoring the obvious politics and just getting at the characters worked wonderfully in The Band’s Visit.
I don’t know. He’s not telling the story as it really happened, it’s an “inspired by” deal.
I should’ve asked Mr. Gordon at the Q&A, but it didn’t occur to me and I never ask questions at those things anyway.
The weird thing is you could claim he was making it more commercial or more “appealing” to a white audience by casting Mena Suvari, but then he gave her corn rows which seems to fly in the face of that.
Oh, and Daniel already pointed that out…duh.
I was tempted to make the “appealing” claim, Joel, but this is such a niche film that targeted marketing strategies probably don’t include race. In other words, it’s likely something other than the casting choices that are preventing people like me from rushing to theaters for this one.
If Oprah, Queen Latifah, Mo’Nique, or Tyler Perry didn’t want to make this movie, that pretty much would leave the filmmakers out of options.
It does raise a question, though, which is why take away a “layer” of a story if the potential layer was there in real life? If it were a purely fictional story, then I could see a racial component being a distraction, but if it was already there, despite it being a “based-on” conception, why change it? I’ve been wondering about that since I first heard of the film.
Still really looking forward to it, however.
I’m sticking by the idea that Mena Suvari was the biggest name they could get for the part and by having her attached it helped attract money or any of a number of reasons that all boil down to it being a small film needing every advantage it can get.
But I have no idea if that’s the reality.
And it’s not like Gordon is one to shy away from a racial component. Exhibit A) the under-seen Edmond. Of course I’m sure it was built into the Mamet play, but still.
I’m fighting to keep a straight face.
Danny, is what Maxim thinks (God help me) really relevant in the real world? It’s actually a rhetorical question. I know you well enough as a person to be fully cognizant of the fact that Maxim is not your personal bible of influence.
Mena Suvari IS a very beautiful woman. So I’d much rather have someone like her (that’s genuinely gorgeous) at the top of some meaningless list than a lot of people that I don’t think are attractive at all - that still ended up on some of these lists anyway. Not to mention a ton of people that end up on these lists (PERIOD) and I have no conception WHATSOEVER of how they got on there in the first place.
For someone as sharp as I am, the concept of HOT was rather elusive. I always assumed it meant someone (male or female) with a kind of smoldering sensuality. Someone that you would see or meet and want to start booking the hotel room right away.
But I found it rather disconcerting when I discovered that the word HOT means as many different things to as many different people as there are concepts of attractiveness and what constitutes a good looking person.
I am acutely aware that I’m going OT. So perhaps this discussion is best saved for another day.
Plus we’ve got mostly guys here - and I’m positive that we wouldn’t necessarily agree on much…
Yeah, Craig, your point makes sense. It may have been a purely financial choice, although having Tyler Perry play the role in drag would have been a daring selection (hat tip, Jeff).
as i think was mentioned at boxofficeprophets re ‘a might heart’
could a part of the reason for any potential controversy is well could a black female get casted in role based on white female or whatever ???
admittly getting tyler perry in drag (hat tip,jeff/joel) would rule. ’stuck’ would get $20 million plus opening weekend…
regardless i’ll likley see ’stuck’ this weekend. and from the trailer i saw it seemed more comdey/weird situtions/ than horror….and that’s what i’m hoping for. :)
Let’s put it like this: in the absence of a really compelling story necessity to have the character be a specific identity, the filmmakers went ‘default’ - white/Caucasian/blonde. It’s just the nature of the business and the world we live in.
m. if you think those other topics are better for another day thread.ok…
but don’t ever think we’re not interested on you take on things….. or alison’s or jennybee’s etc. :)
thanks jeff. :)
Thanks, glim. Glad you approve…
Just to comment, Miranda, I bet you that the People magazine list of Sexiest (blank) each year is pure nepotism. In other words, they know who is “popular” with the public that month and who they need to put on the cover for the next 12 months. So they pander to their audience, the stars’ egos, their agents, and magazine sales. It’s completely arbitrary, as was (I’m certain of this) Premier’s list of the “most powerful” people in Hollywood each year.
I’m sure Maxim is/was simply trying to build the same cachet with their own list, which would be equally arbitrary and based off whatever is hot at the moment.
This isn’t to say Mena Suvari is a worthy candidate for the list, but once American Beauty exited the zeitgeist stage right, so did her celebrity power. She’s big enough to headline a small movie like Stuck, but otherwise considered B-list at best by the powerbrokers (regardless of talent, beauty, sexyness, etc).
Celebrity is a fickle beast.
You know me well, Miranda. For the record, I’ve never subscribed to or purchased Maxim. I just thought it was interesting that she was once at that pinnacle, whatever the definition is. Really it goes to what Joel says about the fleeting fame. Thora Birch was around those lists at the same time, and now she’s considered a “whatever happened to,” though I doubt she’s any less attractive than she was then.
Just read this wonderful and enthusiastic review, Craig. I love that “LIFEBOAT in hell” simile, and the anticipation of absorbing satire and social commentary (not to mention “well-timed humor”)in this “horror film”
Craig, your star review system allows for five stars as the highest rating…..is that right? In any case your four-star rating here, which is relatively rare does speak volumes.
STUCK is playing here at the Angelika is lower Manhattan, and I will make it a point of seeing it soon. The reviews have been largely favorable and match up to the observations made by Craig.
As for Mr. Gordon, I personally remember him for DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS, an atmospheric horror piece, rather than for the more popular RE-ANIMATOR and FROM BEYOND.
joel and Danny, I’m on the same page as you both…
joel, I made a few points that were slightly similar to yours when I discussed one of these prominent lists at my site some weeks ago. We all know that the industry is publicity driven and it really is about survival of the fittest.
As you say, for the magazine people it’s all about building an audience (or pandering to one that they all ready have to keep the circulation numbers heathy), keeping access open to various famous people by cultivating them (and their particular entourages) etc.
This is a very old game. It goes back to the 30s and 40s when agents pushed their clients into various types of ads or had them seen at certain nightspots in town so that columnists would be sure to write about them.
It reminds me of a list that a particularly well known fashion magazine had for years. This list ran well into the 90s until it was discontinued. My aunt and my cousins kept their old issues around (for years on end) so it was always fun to go back and revisit them.
Annually they would take a strikingly gorgeous pristine photograph of one of the women that had made it. Emblazoned on the cover in big letters would be THE 10 MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN AMERICA. There would always be at least several females (sometimes as many as 5) where you could genuinely say that they were deserving.
But there were definitely prime head scratchers EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Almost inevitably a large percentage of those would be women that had just broken through big time in their respective careers, were on a hit TV show, planning a big concert tour, were just in a blockbuster movie/interesting arthouse film that everyone was talking about - and on and on…
So, yeah. Totally obvious…
I guess I was talking more about the choices out of left field that seem rather nebulous or don’t have a definable explanation. I don’t want to mention any names, but I was speaking more about people that are generally C or D list (if that), have no upcoming interesting projects in the works, haven’t been connected with anything newsworthy in quite some time - and they’re STILL not remotely good looking or sexy. At least to my mind.
When Maxim does these lists, they’re made up of 100 women. So I imagine that they can’t all be big deals or stars in waiting? If I’m not mistaken, #1 on their hot list just the last little while was a young woman named Marisa Miller. (I think.) Didn’t get a decent look at her but she appeared to be attractive. She was supposedly a model but I had never heard of her before. Ever - AND SHE CLOCKED IN AT #1.
So I’m just kinda musing out loud.
But there is NOTHING that you two said that I disagree with. We’re all on the same side of the fence on this one…
Sam, I have to say I will be fascinated by your response to this movie. My first instinct is that you will not like it, but I also think your tastes run furher and deeper than I’ve seen so far….so we shall see.
Wasn’t Marisa Miller the SI Swimsuit cover model? Yawn.
Maxim is an insult to anyone with a pair of testicles and a double insult to anyone without.
You’re right about Marisa Miller, Craig. To be honest, now that I’ve seen some pictures of her I can totally understand Maxim choosing her.
If you’re #1 on a list of 100 that’s a fairly big deal, with a lot of preconceived expectations to live up to. But she’s a very fine choice in my estimation.
Thanks so much Craig!
Thank me after you see the movie if you don’t hate me for it.