(Long Island, N.Y.) The first ten minutes or so of Stone, directed by John Curran and starring Robert De Niro, Edward Norton and Milla Jovovich, are actually pretty incredible. I was all set to write what I knew would be a gushingly positive review, but – at the eleven minute mark – that idea slowly started going down the tubes.
Jack Mabrey (De Niro) is a world-weary (and possibly mentally ill, since flashbacks showed him threatening to toss his daughter out a window Michael Jackson-style when his wife once threatened to leave him) correctional officer who handles parole reviews, and Gerald “Stone” Creeson (Norton) is an arsonist who’s next on Mabrey’s list. Creeson, desperate for release, attempts to manipulate Mabrey, and enlists his wife Lucetta (Jovovich) in the cause, and to that end she starts stalking Mabrey and his wife, and…well, that’s really about it. There’s this side-plot about Creeson having some kind of religious awakening in prison during all this, but it’s just too goofy for words.
The problem with Stone is that it starts off strongly, with large doses of grit, realism and intrigue, but without warning, it suddenly goes boring out of nowhere. And from that point on, it just kind of grates on you, never letting up until the closing credits. I’ve seen far worse movies, but those first ten minutes of Stone really set up a far better movie than it finally delivered, and I guess that’s gotten me somewhat angry.
What upset me the most was the promise of yet another defining role by Norton, who, after a brilliant early acting career, has come across as phoning in his performances in recent years. Yet in Stone, Norton initially melts into his role so convincingly that you really do believe he’s this whacked-out street weirdo as he rambles on and on at his parole hearings. It’s seriously brilliant. It also helps that De Niro actually shows a tiny bit of the fire he possessed years ago, and that Jovovich is not playing a super-human fighting machine in a movie for once, giving audiences a rare glimpse of her greatly-underrated acting skills.
But, as Stone progresses, Norton and De Niro seem to lose their focus and intensity, the plot starts to drag and meander, and pretty soon the movie is reduced to strange slow-motion scenes where Norton is trying to find somewhere quiet in the prison to practice the humming his new religion requires while De Niro sits on a porch boozing it up with his depressive wife. Jovovich is the only one who holds it together throughout the entire movie, but one has to question if her effort was worth the end result that you see up on the screen. I don’t think it is, but I appreciate you giving it the ol’ college try, Milla.
I have to admit, I’m having a problem padding out this review…there’s just not too much to talk about. Stone is not memorable, nor is it not engaging, and, aside from the first ten minutes that I keep blabbing on endlessly about, it’s not even that well acted (again, aside from Jovovich). I don’t think I’ve ever reviewed a movie that I’ve turned against is such a way before; considering the load of talent involved, Stone is a movie that should have been a landmark picture, but in the end, it’s just a waste of time.
So pass Stone on by. I hear Megamind 3D is a good movie…try that one instead. I know it’s a CG kid’s flick, but I doubt it’ll have you leaving the theater filled with apathy like Stone will, and that’s the worst crime any film can commit. I’d rather walk out hating a movie with all my heart and soul and just forgetting it instantly.
