Rated R for strong sexuality and violence and pervasive language
Cast: Robert De Niro, Edward Norton, Milla Jovovich, Frances Conroy, Enver Gjokaj
Director: John Curran
**This review may contain spoilers.**
**This review may contain spoilers.**
"Stone" contains plot elements that could easily serve a standard, B-grade potboiler, but director John Curran and screenwriter Angus MacLaclan alter the standard genre thriller approach, choosing instead to give these characters a bit more consideration. This imbues the film with an added degree of intrigue, though it does slow the story's pace a bit, and could easily put off audiences expecting to see a rapid-fire thriller. This movie did not score well with both critics and audiences, and while I appreciated the filmmakers' off-beat approach to the material, I can certainly understand others' frustrations.
The movie centers around four individuals. First, we have Jack Mabry (Robert De Niro), a case officer for a Michigan correctional facility who is a mere one week from his retirement. One of his final cases is that of Gerald "Stone" Creeson (Edward Norton), a corn-row headed ranting sociopath convicted of killing his grandparents. Like all convicts, Stone harbors no illusion that he'll be able to convince Mabry to secure his release, so he enlists the help of his girlfriend Lucetta (Milla Jovovich) to entice Mabry; earn his trust and perhaps even arouse his sexual desire. Mabry is married to Madylyn (Frances Conroy), a long-suffering soul who has taken refuge in her spiritual devotion to escape years of manipulation and neglect at the hands of her emotionally distant husband.
Right away we see how this movie could have played differently had it simply been a standard genre thriller. Mabry would be the flawed yet engaging hero. Stone would be the vile, manipulative villain who is constantly one step ahead of the protagonist. Instead, the film views these characters from far more complex angles. Mabry is a man embroiled in a lifelong, brutal self-loathing. We are given a glimpse of this in a shocking opening sequence, as we see Jack and Madylyn early on in their marriage. She confronts him about his neglect toward her, says that she is going to leave him. His response to her threat crystallizes the depth of his self-hatred.
Upon their first meeting, Stone senses this particular inner-demon. The reason, I think, he sends his girlfriend to Mabry's door isn't necessary to seduce him, but more to offer him a kind of portal of escape from the loathing that surrounds him. Simply throwing Lucetta into the mix for sexual pleasure would seem to run counter to his ultimate goal of manipulating Mabry into securing his release. Lucetta tells Mabry the same thing later in the film, when he accuses the two of them of "playing" him. ("I wouldn't f--- you if I didn't want to, Jack.") Jovovich plays Lucetta as a sexpot with the scatter-brained attention of a ten-year-old. Her sexual passion is mixed with a kind of ADD.
Stone, meanwhile, has begun his own trek toward a would-be spiritual reclamation. Is it legitimate? Hard to say because even if he himself believes it, Stone has spent so many years engaging in various bouts of manipulation that the truth is now the most alien of concepts. I'm reminded of Sean Penn's character in "Dead Man Walking" asking Sister Helen what exactly he needs to pray in order to guarantee himself a spot in heaven, as though there was some kind of skeleton key to the Pearly Gates.
At the center sits the self-hating Mabry, who does engage in a sexual relationship with Lucetta though never really falls for her. It only serves to harden his own inner-turmoil. So why, then, does he sign off on Stone's release? I think for the same reason Stone seeks spiritual guidance, Lucetta surrenders to her sexual passions, and Madylyn retires to her biblical teachings. All are seeking some form of restitution, though none know where to find it. That, I believe, is the point of the movie. It draws a line in the sand between true redemption and merely extricating oneself from a difficult situation. All the players find various ways to alter their current predicaments, though none really find the way toward sanctification. They're all on their own kind of emotional parole.
Is it a great film? Not really. It has moments of intrigue, but director Curran focuses so much attention on the eccentricities and possible motives of its characters, so much so that the narrative seems to pull itself apart. The story has a disjointed, unfocused feel. Both De Niro and Norton are brilliant here, and I understand Curran wanting to give both actors equal screen time, but that approach seems to be the film's undoing. Mabry's story is, to me, the more interesting, and I think it would have worked better had the story focused more attention on him. The scenes with Stone seeking his own spiritual redemption feel like a distraction. Especially since it's never quite clear whether those aspirations are legitimate. I enjoy a good character study, but sometimes it's better to focus the attention on one character rather than several.
I'm torn here. Movies like this are hard to review. I'm glad the filmmakers opted not to make a standard genre thriller, even though the end result isn't completely successful. If nothing else, it's an occasionally fascinating character study and a showcase of the tremendous performances of De Niro and Norton, playing two men shielded from purification by their inherent need to manipulate their immediate environment.
* * 1/2 out of * * * * stars
The movie centers around four individuals. First, we have Jack Mabry (Robert De Niro), a case officer for a Michigan correctional facility who is a mere one week from his retirement. One of his final cases is that of Gerald "Stone" Creeson (Edward Norton), a corn-row headed ranting sociopath convicted of killing his grandparents. Like all convicts, Stone harbors no illusion that he'll be able to convince Mabry to secure his release, so he enlists the help of his girlfriend Lucetta (Milla Jovovich) to entice Mabry; earn his trust and perhaps even arouse his sexual desire. Mabry is married to Madylyn (Frances Conroy), a long-suffering soul who has taken refuge in her spiritual devotion to escape years of manipulation and neglect at the hands of her emotionally distant husband.
Right away we see how this movie could have played differently had it simply been a standard genre thriller. Mabry would be the flawed yet engaging hero. Stone would be the vile, manipulative villain who is constantly one step ahead of the protagonist. Instead, the film views these characters from far more complex angles. Mabry is a man embroiled in a lifelong, brutal self-loathing. We are given a glimpse of this in a shocking opening sequence, as we see Jack and Madylyn early on in their marriage. She confronts him about his neglect toward her, says that she is going to leave him. His response to her threat crystallizes the depth of his self-hatred.
Upon their first meeting, Stone senses this particular inner-demon. The reason, I think, he sends his girlfriend to Mabry's door isn't necessary to seduce him, but more to offer him a kind of portal of escape from the loathing that surrounds him. Simply throwing Lucetta into the mix for sexual pleasure would seem to run counter to his ultimate goal of manipulating Mabry into securing his release. Lucetta tells Mabry the same thing later in the film, when he accuses the two of them of "playing" him. ("I wouldn't f--- you if I didn't want to, Jack.") Jovovich plays Lucetta as a sexpot with the scatter-brained attention of a ten-year-old. Her sexual passion is mixed with a kind of ADD.
Stone, meanwhile, has begun his own trek toward a would-be spiritual reclamation. Is it legitimate? Hard to say because even if he himself believes it, Stone has spent so many years engaging in various bouts of manipulation that the truth is now the most alien of concepts. I'm reminded of Sean Penn's character in "Dead Man Walking" asking Sister Helen what exactly he needs to pray in order to guarantee himself a spot in heaven, as though there was some kind of skeleton key to the Pearly Gates.
At the center sits the self-hating Mabry, who does engage in a sexual relationship with Lucetta though never really falls for her. It only serves to harden his own inner-turmoil. So why, then, does he sign off on Stone's release? I think for the same reason Stone seeks spiritual guidance, Lucetta surrenders to her sexual passions, and Madylyn retires to her biblical teachings. All are seeking some form of restitution, though none know where to find it. That, I believe, is the point of the movie. It draws a line in the sand between true redemption and merely extricating oneself from a difficult situation. All the players find various ways to alter their current predicaments, though none really find the way toward sanctification. They're all on their own kind of emotional parole.
Is it a great film? Not really. It has moments of intrigue, but director Curran focuses so much attention on the eccentricities and possible motives of its characters, so much so that the narrative seems to pull itself apart. The story has a disjointed, unfocused feel. Both De Niro and Norton are brilliant here, and I understand Curran wanting to give both actors equal screen time, but that approach seems to be the film's undoing. Mabry's story is, to me, the more interesting, and I think it would have worked better had the story focused more attention on him. The scenes with Stone seeking his own spiritual redemption feel like a distraction. Especially since it's never quite clear whether those aspirations are legitimate. I enjoy a good character study, but sometimes it's better to focus the attention on one character rather than several.
I'm torn here. Movies like this are hard to review. I'm glad the filmmakers opted not to make a standard genre thriller, even though the end result isn't completely successful. If nothing else, it's an occasionally fascinating character study and a showcase of the tremendous performances of De Niro and Norton, playing two men shielded from purification by their inherent need to manipulate their immediate environment.
* * 1/2 out of * * * * stars
