Stoker has got an incredible visual sense, obvious from the elegant minimalist credits sequence. (An increasing number of Hollywood movies, of course, have no opening credits at all.) It's a film where the story is more a matter of shots than of plot, but those shots are so graceful it kind of works. The acting is mannered to the extreme. If you've watched as many episodes of old B&W anthology shows like Alfred Hitchcock Presents and Boris Karloff Thriller as I have, Nicole Kidman's performance will ring a few bells. (Actually you're about a half hour in before there's any indication this is taking place in the 21st century.)
[For context, a thumbnail description of the plot is as follows: A girl's father dies. Her uncle she never knew about moves in, then starts working his seductive charm on both her mother and her. With any experience of the genre you can fill in a lot of other things, but not all of it.]
The violence is treated mainly as another element of the film's visual design. And there are some troubling sexual undercurrents here as well. Or at least there would be, if "undercurrents" weren't such a laughably inapt way to describe them.
In short I'd say that Stoker is the kind of movie that David Lynch has apparently retired from making. That's true in the good sense and the bad.