‘Stone’ Review

Published 3 years ago by , Updated October 11th, 2010 at 11:44 am,

Stone movie de niro norton Stone Review

Screen Rant’s Kofi Outlaw Reviews Stone

Stone is a movie that at first glance appears to be a slow-burn erotic thriller, a la Body Heat. However, once it starts rolling, it quickly becomes apparent that this film is pure arthouse – a meditative look at identity, morality and spirituality in the modern age.

The film stars Robert De Niro as Jack Maybury, a veteran parole officer just a few days short of retirement. One of Jack’s final cases involves a longtime inmate named Stone (Ed Norton), who was convicted nearly a decade prior as an arsonist and accomplice to murder. Stone will be a free man if he can just convince Jack that he is a changed man – so to ensure his chances of release, Stone sends his beautiful wife Lucetta (Milla Jovovich), a walking man-eater, to seduce Jack.

As I said, at first glance that premise sounds like it has all the right ingredients to make for an interesting and engaging erotic thriller. However, it’s in the execution of this story that Stone takes on another shape entirely.

The story was written by Angus MacLachlan, who wrote the much-lauded Junebug, another film which took a familiar premise (yuppie city boy returns to his humble down-South roots) and stretched it into a great arthouse film that explored the themes of family and identity. The director of Stone is John Curran, who has turned in some highly-respected indie dramas like We Don’t Live Here Anymore and The Painted Veil (a film he also worked with Norton on).

stone edward norton as stone2 Stone Review

Stone combines a strong cinematic vision with well-developed characters who are brought to life by talented actors, in order to venture into waters that some might otherwise find too heady if not for these great guides who are leading us along. Much of what the film focuses on is spirituality, morality and how those concepts coincide (or don’t) with our respective roles in life. Stone is a convict who has a metaphysical awakening to morality and spirituality via a strange religion he discovers in the prison library; Jack is the man who decides whether so-called “evil men” have truly redeemed themselves, even while he is slowly being imploded by the spiritual and moral vacuum inside of him.

Most of the film’s greatest moments come from scenes in which the actors are simply left to interact freely with one another. Stone and Jack’s clinical conversations leading up to Stone’s parole review are especially great; Norton and De Niro play off each other wonderfully (the pair also had great chemistry in The Score), with Norton particularly taking hold of the reigns as Stone, who he portrays as a crude but moral man who is wise in his own simpleton way.

milla jovovich as lucetta Stone Review

The ladies in the film are equally as great (MacLachlan has talent for writing female characters – just ask Amy Adams, who got a Supporting Actress Oscar nom for Junebug). Milla Jovovich puts her Resident Evil action persona to shame playing Lucetta, a woman who is complex in every sense of the word. Just let me attempt to describe her character: a wild and beautiful schoolteacher nymph who is completely devoid of any spiritual or moral compass and operates by one singular code of ethics: “I do what I want.” While Jovovich certainly looks beautiful in the buff during many of the film’s erotic moments, certain scenes of her and De Niro I didn’t need to see.

Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under) is great as Jack’s wife, Madylyn, a marginalized soul who is slowly and silently withering away unnoticed (by either the characters or the audience) until she finally decides to reclaim her existence with a vengeance. It might seem like the men in this film are the focus, but it is the ladies who truly hold the power.

stone connroy Stone Review

Curran is a very smart and economical director, and while Stone might seem to some viewers like a jumbled assortment of slowly-paced scenes, the imagery that Curran presents is pure visual metaphor that heightens the story’s metaphysical themes at every turn. For those who are able to turn on their arthouse filter and open themselves to the range of levels Curran is working on, there is a lot to see here; movie goers who have more mainstream tastes are likely to get bored waiting for “something to happen.”

As for pacing, Stone builds slowly but succeeds in reaching a climax that turns all the philosophical and metaphysical themes at work into something thrilling, without the film losing its identity by slipping into your standard over-the-top movie melodrama. The drama that does unfold feels real, and more importantly, earned; the places in which these characters ultimately find themselves feels smart, logical and insightful in its commentary about the modern human condition.

Stone edward norton as stone Stone Review

I left this film with many new thoughts in mind, as well as that rare quality you only get from good cinema: a new (or at least revised) outlook on my own life and existence. A strange thing to receive from what seemed to be a standard erotic thriller – but for those hungry, Stone offers plenty of food for thought.

Our Rating:

4 out of 5
(Excellent)

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: stone

14 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. I loved reading this review, an excellent piece of work.
    I’m looking forward to “Stone” as it’s the kind of film I have to wait months for. An intelligent study with filled out characterisation and sturdy acting.
    I love my sci-fi/horror/action/fantasy flicks, but I crave films that caress your heart and fire neuron torpedoes across your synapses.
    I shiver with antici……pation!

  2. Hey Kofi

    I was wandering how Milla’s acting was in the movie? I know a lot of people criticize her but I think she’s a very underrated actress.

    Also, did Norton pull off the accent?

    • She’s on par with her co stars, which is saying alot.

  3. This review was extremely well written. Def going to see this. Good job Kofi

  4. By the review summarization of this film,it seems as though this is one of those rare gems of cinema (4 tha broadened scope). I am glad that edward norton returned 2 these types of roles (american history x anyone?)
    looking 4ward 2 this flick as well as what may come in the future…taking movies back to when it was all about a good story with memorable characters & good writing,aside from the metaphoric elements..those are some of tha traits of a good solid entertaining movie (Hence,keeping in mind these types of film aren’t 4 everyone)…….

  5. Kofi this was a great review, one problem though:
    Amy Adams did not win an Oscar for Junebug, only a nomination.

    • Thanks Jose, I corrected that :-P

  6. Did not read a word of this review. Looking forward to the film and the trailer spoiled enough of it that I can’t afford to ruin anymore. Glad to see a good review though always look forward to an Ed Norton film.

  7. Sorry, but this movie was awful.

    The movie itself wants to tell you that it stands for something bigger and makes it seem like its trying to tell you something very important but the message is idiotic, the characters are idiotic and the story is underwhelming.

    A lot of things happen for no reason whatsoever and DeNiro’s character does things that are completely uncharacteristic of his character.

    Overall, just a bad movie. Waste of 2 hours.

    • @ Feedback

      Sounds more like you didn’t understand it or expected something different. There are reasons for everything that happens in the film and everything the characters do. I dare you to actually prove otherwise, rather than just making unsubstantiated complaints.

  8. Kofi,
    Why did de niro’s character see a boy ride his bike up to a teenage girl when he was getting his mail, was that some sort of flashback? Also who burned down de niro’s house?

    • *************************************Spoiler********************************

      I believe it was pretty clear that the wife had staged the burning of the house, as it shows her coming up from the basement, and then later, talking about where she would tell the firemen the fire started. Even De Niro’s character seems to accept this, and is more upset about the divorce (ruining his life) than the burning of the house when he confronts Norton’s character. Mind you, I just finished watching it. I need to watch it again after a week, and I have let things settle. However, I do remember the young couple on the bike, and at first I thought it might be his daughter, as she hadn’t really been introduced as an adult (We don’t meet her again until the end). But De Niro almost looks enraged. The best guess I could say is that it is a symbol of his sexual frustration, his lack of understanding towards love, and his unwillingness to accept. It probably isn’t the couple on the bike that the director wants us to concern ourselves with, it is the reaction that De Niro expertly gives us… hope that kinda clears some stuff up for you :) Rob

  9. i didnt understand the movie I admit I was confused and I paid attention, I didnt not get the ending o_O

  10. Biggest load of crap I have seen in many years. I can’t believe I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this dull rubbish.

Be Social, Follow Us!!