It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what’s wrong with Stone. The pieces all seem to be in place: great actors, a script full of deep ideas, beautiful photography and solid direction. But it’s a film that never really comes together– one that desperately wants to become bigger than it actually is without actually knowing how to do so.
Stone focuses on a trio of characters: Jack Mabry, (Robert DeNiro), a Parole officer with a less than warm home life, Stone (Edward Norton), a cornrowed arsonist up for parole, and Stone’s wife Lucetta (Milla Jovovich), who Stone tries to use to seduce Mabry and aid his case. In prison, Stone seems to find religion while Mabry is losing what’s left of his, which is reflected in his chilly relationship with his wife. Much of the film is just scenes of dialogue between Stone and Mabry or Mabry and Lucetta, as each try to extract information from the other. It wants to unravel like a classic thriller, but the fact is that there isn’t enough yarn to begin with. Halfway through the film we seem to know everything about the characters, and nothing really changes by the film’s end. It’s a slow burner that never gets the spark that sets it aflame.
The acting, however, is clinical. DeNiro is solid (a nice change from his current comedy streak), and Norton is instantly convincing with his street talk and accent. He becomes sympathetic to us almost from the minute he comes on screen, not so much because we feel for him, but because we are fascinated by the words he chooses, the questions he asks and the way his voice shakes.
But the real standout, and the true pleasure to take away from the film, is Jovovich. She bounces around in her role with such a vicious joy that it’s impossible not to watch her, even as we’re repulsed by what she does and distrusting of all that she says. It’s a real shame that she ends up spending so much time in the Resident Evil films, because when given the chance (like she is here) she can really bring it. And to outperform DeNiro and Norton is no easy feat.
As much as I would like to say that the acting is able to save Stone, I can’t. The film spends to much time pondering, meandering around different ideas of faith, damnation and redemption but never really making a statement on any of them. This ultimately comes back to the writing. The direction and photography are appropriately handled and at times actually very affective in a subtle, restrained manner. The landscapes and actors speak for themselves without much interference.
But the screenplay spends too much time stepping around the subject, relying on radio broadcasts to remind the audience that the movie is about faith, but never letting the characters really dig into the subject at all. They all play at it, hinting at what they believe (Stone goes the furthest into this, Lucetta the shallowest) but at the same time we’re never truly sure what Stone really believes, because he could be playing Mabry the entire time. Mabry himself is left almost entirely unexplored, there are a few scenes of him hinting that he doesn’t feel a deep spiritual presence in his life, but we never find out why he is the way he is, and at the films end he isn’t really any different. The ideas are all in place, but the passion never emerges.
Stone wants to make you think, but in the end it leaves you scratching your head, wondering what, if anything, you were supposed to take away from the film. I could try to end with something clever or witty, but perhaps the man sitting in front of me said it best when the lights came back on:
“That’s it?”
Stone does more thinking than it does thrilling, and often leaves the viewer out of the loop: C
One Comment on “‘Stone’ Review: Or, How to Squander Your Cast”