Chan-wook Park’s newest film “Stoker” is visually stunning, but lacks the kind of gratification and gusto that makes a movie worth the trip to the theater. Though an all-star cast backs the film, commendable actors cannot save it from an incoherent storyline, awkward pacing, and a lack of heart.

“Stoker” follows the story of a young girl named India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) who loses her father to a horrible accident. In the wake of her father’s death, India is left to live with her mother (Nicole Kidman), but soon they are joined by her father’s long lost brother named Charlie (Matthew Goode). The longer India’s uncle stays in the house, the more her world is transformed, leading her to discoveries and happenings that she never could have imagined.

Though it is apparent that Wasikowska is trying not to drown in the incoherencies within the film, she is, perhaps, the one redeeming aspect of it. Her performance is graceful and intriguing; she manages to mold an interesting and believable character that is self-sufficient and enjoyable despite an uninspiring film. She possesses an ethereal quality that is both chilling and absorbing.

While Wasikowska shined, Goode’s villainous role fell flat. His performance was indecisive, choppy and simply not well-rounded enough to foster an effective character. Even the evilest of villains possess some past, though Charlie’s seemed forced and one-dimensional. His character is disturbingly malicious, though it seems to stem from nowhere, leaving the audience in ineffective and upsetting confusion.

Kidman’s performance is similarly lackluster. It is unclear whether the audience is supposed to like her or not, though this dichotomy seems unintentional and confusing rather than purposefully muddled. Her performance is far too hesitant to satisfy an audience; it leaves them to have to draw the conclusions in all of the areas that they should not have to.

The overall onslaught of maliciousness in “Stoker” is too much to take. Some movies choose to overwhelm their audience with malice and do it pointedly and masterfully. In this case, though, it seems unintentional and awkward. The film tackles taboo themes and ventures into dangerous territories, which becomes almost offensive when it is not backed up with a thoughtful and meaningful film.

Though it does not excuse a poor movie, “Stoker” does possess some truly beautiful cinematography. It is unique, quirky and fascinating, though it is never distracting. While the content of the film is lacking, Park still manages to provide his audience with a film that is visually appealing and engrossing.

While “Stoker” does have its moments, its overall effect is simultaneously sloppy and tedious. With stellar actors and the beginnings of some peculiar ideas, it possesses immense room for potential but uses none of it properly. There is too much and too little going on at the same time, which cultivates a film that is both technically and intuitively poor. While “Stoker” does redeem itself in some ways, in this case your money is better spent somewhere else.