Stone
- 2010
- Tous publics
- 1h 45min
Afin d'obtenir sa libération conditionnelle, un pyromane condamné tente de manipuler un fonctionnaire de justice en usant de sa belle épouse.Afin d'obtenir sa libération conditionnelle, un pyromane condamné tente de manipuler un fonctionnaire de justice en usant de sa belle épouse.Afin d'obtenir sa libération conditionnelle, un pyromane condamné tente de manipuler un fonctionnaire de justice en usant de sa belle épouse.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Warden
- (as Peter Lewis)
- Guard #2
- (as Rich Goteri)
- Guard #3
- (as Ron Lyons)
- Pastor
- (as Dave Hendricks)
Avis à la une
I don't think they went far enough with Deniro's character. It wasn't written well enough. It starts off with a flashback on his broken relationship with his wife and what extremes he goes to keep her. But this ins't really paid off well in the film.
Interesting film. Not predictable. Good performances. Less than mediocre writing.
My verdict B/C
"Stone" sounds like a crime thriller on paper, but it just what it is not. It is so slow moving, that the first seduction by Milla Jovovich happens forty minutes into the film. Just when the seduction subplot starts to pick up, suddenly the film becomes religious. Then suddenly the wife has gone crazy. The plot is all over the place, lacking in focus and clarity. It cannot decide whether it wants to be a thriller or drama. As a result, "Stone" is so boring, literally making my eyelids as heavy as stones.
It's dialogue-heavy as Norton philosophizes his way to freedom, and it's supposed to be character-rich as we watch De Niro try to remain sane as both Norton and his wife Milla Jovovich work their angles on him. But these are just messed up characters that I knew less about at the end than I did at the beginning. The film has clear problems when the only somewhat likable character is the guiltless criminal Norton. But I would say it's bigger problems are with the fact that it's supposed to be a thriller, but all you have is De Niro and Norton jabbering back and forth until nothing is clear and very little of consequence or action occurs. There is even a religious undertone to the whole film, but I have no idea what they were trying to say with that.
I'm sure De Niro and Norton deliver great performances as they always do, but when their characters are poorly written and make no sense, you can't watch a film for the acting. The director was overly concerned with detail, framing every scene and adding nuance to each shot, which is great in some films, but in "Stone", it would have served him better to just try and tell a story from beginning to end.
Other reviews have called this film "pretentious" and I am going to follow their lead. I feel like the story was going to go somewhere and just did not go there, or the writer had a message to share with us, but it was either missed or not as big as I expected. So, maybe pretentious is a harsh word, but until shown otherwise, I am going to go with it.
My other big problem with the film is that it is clearly called a "thriller" by pretty much everybody, and I do not know how that was placed on it. There are no thrills to this film. Suspense maybe, tension maybe... but no real thrills. It is a pretty tame film, more a drama than anything.
I feel that the film tries to explore spirituality and fails. There is a background of church radio, Stone's search for understanding, and some Bible passages... but I was waiting for it to come together and it really just did not ever do it. There was no firm Christian or anti-Christian message. There was some talk of morality, but it was very jaded.
DeNiro gives a great performance, Norton's is not top-notch (I never really believed he was what he appeared to be). Milla is tough to pinpoint. Some have called her performance "raw", but I think that is just a polite way of saying she gets naked. She plays her character well, but it is a shame to see her so dumb-down when she can play such strong, independent women.
I think this film meant well, and they gave it a good shot, but it just fell short in a bunch of places. The performances were not what I wanted to see, the story has enough holes that I do not feel it is complete or tells a story that goes somewhere. In the end, I felt empty inside. Whatever I was supposed to get out of this, I did not get.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesEdward Norton spent time with real prisoners in the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility. He adopted his character's accent and cornrow hairstyle from the prisoners. Norton inserted phrases he heard from the prisoners into the dialogue.
- Citations
[last lines]
Radio Interviewer: [talking calls] Next up here is Gerald, from south west Detroit. Welcome, Gerald.
Stone: I, I just wanna say, I got this book. They say that when you experience a spiritual truth, that it comes to you through sound. If you let this sound go through you, it changes you, you know? Puts you back into harmony. You know, it makes you like a tuning fork of God.
Radio Interviewer: Okay...
Stone: Yeah. They say, they say, you can start with small things, like little vibrations. You know, sound of a bee, sound of a buzzing light, and then it grows.
Radio Interviewer: All right. That's interesting.
Stone: Well, they say that everything that happens to you is what was supposed to happen to you, for you to advance. But you gotta come back lots a times, cycle through many lives until you learn, so you can grow.
Radio Interviewer: Well, thanks for your input. Next time up here in the WDDL listener line is Kathy in Farmington...
[fades out]
- ConnexionsReferenced in Maltin on Movies: No Strings Attached (2011)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Stone?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 22 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 1 810 078 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 75 766 $US
- 10 oct. 2010
- Montant brut mondial
- 10 300 416 $US
- Durée
- 1h 45min(105 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1