Who Convinced De Niro and Norton to Do Stone?

Nothing changes overnight. Which, I guess, explains why the sad decline of Robert De Niro’s acting has taken so long to witness. It’s been too many years to count since Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, and despite a few honorable but quickly forgotten roles in flops, this once-revered actor has done nothing worth writing home about. He chased money and women and remained an icon to wannabes who still think it’s a big deal to get into the Actors Studio. Then, like Brando, he sort of gave up on truthfulness in acting somewhere along the way, leaving his fans with the impression that he’ll do anything if the timing is convenient and somebody meets his asking fee. Result: He’s buried himself under a cinematic dung heap from which his talent rarely surfaces. This is not going to change with a horror called Stone.

Stone is really a double-barreled disaster, because it also wastes the talents of the gifted, versatile and generally clueless Edward Norton. (Seems like only yesterday that he was hooted off the screen in the despicable hillbilly pot-factory bomb, Leaves of Grass.) Maybe it’s their agents who convince otherwise reliable artists they can get away with anything the market will bear. I’ve got news. No market can bear a ridiculous performance by Edward Norton–jabbering like Stepin’ Fetchit with his hair tightly twisted in rows of shoulder-length dreadlocks–that is so bad it’s laughable.

The clean-cut Mr. Norton, covered with tattoos in his freakiest disguise since American History X, is a hard-case arsonist named Stone who torched his grandparents’ home after an accomplice murdered them. He shows no remorse, but after serving nine out of a 10-to-15-year prison sentence, he claims he’s in the middle of a spiritual rebirth that demands respect (and a parole). Mr. De Niro is Jack Mabry, the head case officer on the Michigan parole review board, who is counting the days before his retirement. Unimpressed with Stone’s trailer-trash filibusters and infuriated by his threats, Jack turns him down. So Stone hatches a different plan to manipulate the system by dispatching his sluttish common-law wife, Lucetta (another drooling, hip-grinding travesty of bogus acting by Milla Jovovich), to seduce the old cop with the sexual prowess of a Bourbon Street lap dancer. In the preposterous plot, cobbled together from half a dozen loopy stories by the late, unlamented cynic Jim Thompson (The Killer Inside Me), her undulating thighs do magic tricks, and the hard-boiled corrections officer is just the fool to fall for it. Mabry may be a monster in a bottle waiting to get out, but he’s not stupid. He knows a con men when he sees one, so falling for Stone’s sex bait never rings true. In the end, the point (if there is one) is that to save a bad man’s life, a trashy Lilith/Lolita/Lorelei in hot pants destroys a good man in the process. But save your sympathy. Everybody is bad in Stone–in more ways than one. There is nothing in the dreadful screenplay by Angus MacLachlan that matches even one priceless word of Charles Schnee’s Oscar-winning screenplay for the 1952 classic The Bad and the Beautiful, but it did remind me of Elaine Stewart’s memorable line, “There ain’t no good men, buster–there’s only men.”

Stone is so illogical that it’s hard to know where to place the blame. The ridiculous, religion-obsessed sin-and-redemption script, replete with a fake faith called Zukangor? The lazy direction by John Curran, who did a much better job establishing mood, narrative and character motivation in his last film, The Painted Veil, also starring Edward Norton? The actors, who walk through it in a state of glazed somnambulism? There are so many things wrong with this mess that it’s pointless to pick just one, when there’s enough vile stuff to go around. The Stone character is too reptilian for a smart cookie like Mabry to fall so easily into his obvious trap. And Mabry is so full of his own demons (an opening scene, irritatingly never referred to again, shows him torturing his cowering wife by dangling their baby outside an upstairs window and threatening to drop it on its head) that his dysfunctional marriage to a wasted Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under), punctuated by creepy right-wing music blasted from Christian radio programs played in Jack’s car, only serves as a portentous warning of things to come. Mabry is a nut, but the actual reason he begins his adulterous affair is never examined. Did Stone force his wife to sleep with the parole officer, or did Jack do it to experience a religious epiphany? Mr. De Niro fails to make anything about his miserable character poignant, and Mr. Norton’s overwrought intensity borders on hysteria. The desired moral dilemma never arrives. It is never clear what Stone is really about, or why anyone would want to make it in the first place. It’s an ambiguous look at the spiritual emptiness of Middle American religious conservatives that is dead on arrival. Wait for the DVD.

rreed@observer.com

 

STONE
Running time 105 minutes
Written by Angus MacLachlan
Directed by John Curran
Starring Robert DeNiro, Edward Norton, Milla Jovovich, Frances Conroy

1.5/4

Follow Rex Reed via RSS.

topics: movies
  • Isaac

    Well just to help you out, I observed that in the end of the movie the only person with a sense of self-peace and harmony was Stone. Everyone else was either dead inside (Mabry’s wife), lying to themself (Lucetta), or an asshole (Mabry, who didn’t believe in the good of actions even though he went to church every week). Stone noticed that he himself had an issue, and chose to find away to bring himself back into a harmony with the universe, and “let the vibrations take you and put you on the right path again.” Everyone but Stone were denying that they had a problem, or didn’t strive to solve it. This I think was the meaning of the story.

  • Thiago

    ‘Stone’ is about change. We can change and improve independent of the age or what it will come in the life.

  • Widow

    This movie is ridiculous, despite the “great“ casting.
    Stupid religions that drive humanity to dumbness.
    Hey people, stop praying, and read between the lines.

  • Ray

    I find this article spot on: “the spiritual emptiness of Middle American religious conservatives”.

  • lol@U

    Really I can get why someone might not like this movie, if they don’t have the intelligence and intellect to read in between the line and see the truth(s) that are being brought to light during this film. It is sad however that it is people like you that have access to the masses and influence the masses. This movie has some deep truth about good, evil, judgement and enlightenment, but it is obvious from your critiques that you don’t have the brain capacity or discernment to understand this. DeNiro, Norton and Jovovich are doing movies that move, inspire and make you think, you put poison out… What a sad excuse for an existence you have. In my opinion this was a great movie people which people with the brain power can/could enjoy, but sorry if I judge you and assume that you have this capacity.

  • Mrdadtastic

    other then the wife i experienced much of the same thing in prison. i completely related with stone trying to meditate in the noisiness and violence of prison life. i enjoyed the movie and found its subtleties and nuances to be worth the “waiting for something to happen” which i experience in a lot of movies leaving me feeling empty, here though they left me in a thoughtful place of poignancy and at the end with the feeling of being just on the verge of epiphany. an emotional state which is hard to achieve with even meditation, much less a film. i agree the cast were like being in the middle of an ambien trip, but maybe that was just the ambiance. (<—pun). i never did like rex reed though

  • Mermaidbronze

    Is Reed criticizing the personal lives and career trajectories of these particular actors or the film “Stone” difficult to discern since the vitriol directed at both are so intimately entwined. This review is so rife with subjective judgments having no foundation in critical analysis of film-making criteria, that is completely useless in assisting us to  formulate an opinion on this film. I will say that there were Edward Norton acting moments in this film that were utterly brilliant (echoes of Wes Bentley in “American Beauty”), and moments where Milla Jovovich’s eyes were so mesmerizing & hypnotic that it she became frightening. I kept expecting her human skin to fall away, exposing her as a reptile inside. Were I the director, I would have chosen a more bleak ending, but don’t take my word, or Rex Reed’s word for the quality of this film. This is definitely one you have to see, and judge for yourself.

  • Drivel

    DiNeros character does not change. Jojobovovichs character does not change. The moral of this movie is that most movies are 30 minutes too long.

  • Jmabraham35

    Boy. The dangers of a critic that really has no clue. This movie was very deep with a super powerful message. Similar to the movie, there is no use trying to explain that message to such a shallow film critic. Wake up you fool!

  • guest

       I work as a case manager with persons in the correctional system. I know many (not all certainly) case managers that claim to know a con man when they see them or have some sort of heightened insight. They too, believe me, have blind spots. I look at some people working in corrections and they are lost yet clinging with all their might to a neat definition of people- “good” vs. “bad,” that never seems to fit anyone. There seems to be a lot of fundamentalism amongst the staff as well. I was actually just talking about this the other day with my interns who noticed it.
         If there was an absence of religiosity in the film, I feel, it would not be authentic. There is an intense religious drama that is at the center of incarceration. Volunteers come in of every religious stripe to “save” the inmates. The inmates, with much time on their hands, tend to have explored religious and spiritual issues pretty exhaustively. I have learned about so many obscure religions through my work with the incarcerated.
         >>>>>”In the end, the point (if there is one) is that to save a bad man’s life, a trashy Lilith/Lolita/Lorelei in hot pants destroys a good man in the process.”<<<<<<<<                                                                                                                                                               I really don't follow your logic here? I know you go on to say they are all bad but it's almost like you clinging to a very black and white interpretation. I don’t read critics often but maybe they like more obvious or direct fare.  I see these grey areas play out in people lives everyday. Finding someone grounded and centered in the world of corrections on either side of the bars is rare. There is so much manipulation, past trauma, addictions, lack of education, quiet desperation, issues of systemic poverty (financial, emotional and spiritual poverty) and more both with the incarcerated and those who work with them.
        I was just talking the other day with the interns, they noticed some people seem to find comfort by clinging to a very black and white view of things, meaning inmates bad other people good. Other staff seem to take a more philosophical or a more nuanced spiritual outlook. I felt the film did an incredible job of capturing what I have seen and issues with which I have grappled without making it so easy and trite.
       Just for the record, both Deniro's and Norton's characters are spot on: Norton's speach, difficulty getting to point and then saying something so profound, what could be a preppy kid who is wearing corn rows and tattoos. That is real, fims always make incarcerated people unrealistically hard and never show how much like lost adult kids they are. People love to focus on the 7-9% of incarcerated persons that are complete sociopaths. I guess it makes better film. The other 90 ish% are just troubled kids that have lived for years behind bars. They are just as vulnerable, scared and lost as we are at times.
       I actually watched a deputy who had worked in the courts for 24 years, she was in her last year before retirement  and was reassigned to work her last year across the way at the detention facility. She had an affair with an inmate. The inmate was the most manipulative person I have ever met and clearly targeted her. She crossed a major boundary though. She thought she was seasoned and had good judgment and she didn't. It was my first year working in corrections and I saw the inmate for what he was. So, your assertion that Deniro's character would not be played so easily by Norton's. I guess I see it differently.
      I also like that the opening scene is not referred to again. How many of us have had traumatic experiences that have shaped our lives that we never discuss again and yet keep us in our own prisons. She dealt with her prison through alcohol and religion. She numbed out to her own life living with a man who would terrorize her in order to keep her locked up with him and it was never even discussed, exactly.

  • Sdfgsdfk_1211

    More movies are showing these  messages right now…….
    Wake up , people!!!

  • God’s Little Brother

    This movie was moronic and drivel.  The comments on this site are moronic and drivel.  A match made in heaven.  Have pleasant lives, wasted though they may be.

  • Broadwaylights260

    Dude you are horrible, really fucking close minded as well, really not all believe what you believe but that doesn’t mean you have the right to condessendingly talk down about anything really. Who are you? I thought the movie was great, really well done, made in a manner to help people have a sufferer perspective. This review is horrible.

  • Movie Lover

    I think you are being overly critical. Robert DeNero is not a fading actor nor is Edward Norton’s talent wasted in this film. The way I see it this film explores the uneasy border between right and wrong, between good and evil and between the spiritual and the carnal. None of the characters in this movie are all good or all evil. They all experience levels of bad and good, left and right, up and down, etc. The made up religion has Eastern inflections which stand in contrast with the Western bible thumping religion of the movies back drop. I think this makes perfect sense because eastern religions don’t focus on sin as does western religions instead they focus on balance, which ultimately all of the movies characters have to do. The part of the movie that really drives this point home is at the very end when DeNero’s character is sitting in his empty office eerily aware of the emptiness of his life now that his routine is gone. I guess the movie posts the universalized question, “What exactly do we do if we are not balancing the good and bad in our lives?” I do agree with you that the movie was slow but other than that I think the story was well told and you are being a bit harsh. Thanks!

  • Overlook360

    holy fucking shit, easy to tell who’s the enemy of what is indeed a powerful message.

    says more about you than it does about him. and your employers.

  • Marty

    I agree. Just watched it and it id indeed crap!

  • Almak875

    I believe, for MANY reasons, that this movie has exceeded your very limited mental capacity. I don’t feel the need to insult you though, because this ill researched repute of yours is a testiment in and of itself. I’ll continue to enjoy this movie and keep people such as yourself in my good graces. Not only do YOU need it, but I believe humanity as a whole would find it useful too.

  • V3r0nica

    they killed the bug but the bug came because fire is teaching you something. and stone knows aint nothing but walls on the inside and on the outside, and how do you deal with that. i don’t know what it means and what you are supposed to do when a the animal inside the wall comes out i quess everything burns, mabey stone is kind of sadistic in a way, having this spiritual awakening he wants to share it and the only way he can is by watching someone else burn so that he knows it is real, and that all this judgement that the state places on him in the act of acting like god wanting the criminal to attone and admit responsibility is kind of hypocritical and demeaning to the whole spiritual process and in this battle justice got served because instead of falling in line and putting in another brick, they came down instead, moking the unreal.

  • Mwjjohnson84

    Obviously you are an idiot who cannot read between the lines of a good movie. Yes, it wasn’t the best movie, but each actor and actress played an important part to create a life changing parts to bring the movie together. Since you’re such a great critic, step back and look at yourself. You can critique such a fine film like this, but can you find all of your own flaws. As a STONE headed critic, I’m sure you’ll find something.

  • ReedNeedsToSTFU

    Here, here! I am SO with these guys. This critique is pathetically devoid of any rational sense, empty and clearly misses the mark. How can you have no concept or clarity on what is offered through this film? Cutting down the life’s work of one of our time’ great actor’s and his co-star, another undeniable great?!!! You can’t be serious. If you are then you’re an idiot. Not to mention showing no appreciation for the rest of those who’ve made this film possible. 

    Stop writing. Get your head straight. Try learning something before cutting down the obvious brilliance and experience of others. Or better still, find other work. You must be good at something other than making an ass of yourself publicly.

  • Arios316

    Reed should know better. I get some of the points he was trying to make, but he’s way off base. I think this is one of the best films that explores the fine line between guilt and innocence ever made and the casting is spot on. Reed is forgetting that good scripts are hard to come by and if actors want to keep working they take what they can get. Not that this was a bad screenplay. Far from it. 

    This film, deftly directed by John Curran, has shades of a classic (as in Taxi Driver, dare I say) written all over it. To those who appreciate good writing and performances that bring even more to a raw script, this is a masterpiece.  If Mr. Reed can’t see that, I suggest he retires or gets real and calls it like it is next time. 

    I’m sure the actors in this film are proud of it and they certainly have nothing to regret.  I loved the movie. Probably Norton’s best. 

  • dready

    Just a piece of information Reed, Edward’s hair style is cornrowed he’s not no dready.

  • Whealey

    Try it on weed, Rex…you take your gig far too seriously. This flick is far too subtle for your pop-driven sensibilities. The genius in this film lay in it’s ironic subtleties…none more thought-provoking than Stone’s parting shot to Mabry when, his release secured, he whispers to Mabry “I know you were f—ing my wife”. Pure genius. Here’s a con telling a grizzled veteran on his way out that he has been played, a fine “happy retirement” gift to send DeNiro into his meaningless, mindless, loveless golden years, alone without a wife who, her home destroyed literally as well as figuratively, finally summons the courage to leave her husband. I won’t argue that DeNiro has fallen far from his halcyon Tribeca golden standards, but this is no occasion to pile on. In an age when the masses seem to respond to cinematic art only when the special effects or pre-destined star-driven romantic pairings provide the necessary stimulus, here is a nugget that harkens back to the celluloid script-centric film noir roots of cinema that distinguish America’s finest art form from it’s current Nintendo and Disney-inspired overt commercial Appeal.

  • Lucetta

    OMG! Rex Reed! I didn’t even know you were still alive!  I suggest you consider practicing some of that meditation the movie touches on because you seem to have a few issues that need resolving. Why so angry and bitter, Mr. Reed? And why so far off base? Did you even watch this movie? My goodness! Cornrows are not the same as dreadlocks! Get it right, man!

    Just watched this movie last night, and I’ve been curious about people’s reactions, because I enjoyed it a great deal.  For anyone who has experience with our country’s prison system…whether as an employee, an inmate, or the loved one of an incarcerated individual…this movie had some very realistic moments. 

    The fact that you find it unbelievable that Jack Mabry could fall for Stone’s “plot” shows your own naivete. There is a game constantly being played in prison and the corrections officers and other staff are merely keeping watch over a world that’s actually ran by the prisoners. The staff is in a constant state of “catch up”…trying to catch up to what’s already been plotted and/or carried out. And even the most seasoned staff members are subject to being duped. A tired, lost, guilt-ridden man like Jack, on the brink of retirement with nothing to look forward to other than a numb, alcoholic, bible clinging wife is perfect bait. Even the smartest cookies and some of the most powerful men have fell prey to women who know how to use sex to get what they want.  The “monster in a bottle waiting to get out” is exactly why Lucetta was able to seduce him with such ease. He hadn’t allowed himself to feel anything in so long and she knew exactly how to make him feel alive. He was in a very vulnerable place in his life. He had just lost his “good” brother and was about to leave the career which distracted him from his own self-built prison. He was going through the motions, believing he could knock out a few more cases and avoid thinking about his own miserable, empty existence for just a while longer. But believing you’ve seen it all and can read every con who passes in front of you…that’s when you slip.

    And there were so many things that rang true with Edward Norton’s portrayal of Stone and his dilemma of being so close to release and still having to survive his current situation.  When Lucetta showed up for a visit sans panties, Stone struggled with handling the very strong and basic desire for sexual contact with the desire to stay ticket-free as freedom became a real possibility. He struggled with trying to find moments of clarity and peace in an environment that promotes anything but those things.  When Stone was reading the Zukangor literature and the lights were shut off on his cell block, his frustrated statement of “I’m trying to improve myself!” was both comical and a very real commentary on the irony of expecting rehabilitation to come out of such a chaotic place. Stone even struggled with his own identity, as do many young white men today, adopting hairstyles, fashion, and even stereotypical black speech. Norton actually portrayed that phenomenon quite well. And, as a family member of someone who is incarcerated, the scenes where Stone mentioned his suicidal thoughts and dreams to Lucetta were so very real to me. While very few men would risk being seen crying in the visitation room, as Stone did, there are rare moments when even some of the hardest individuals break down and take their masks off with those they trust.

    And, as a previous comment touched on, the prison environment was a perfect fit for what you called “the ridiculous, religion-obsessed sin-and-redemption script.” Whether someone is using religion to hide behind in hopes of appearing to be reformed, or if it’s something they have immersed themselves in and truly believe, or something they’re simply curious about, religion is indeed a major part of prison culture. 

    Anyway…glad to see you’re still hanging in there, Rex. I have to give you props for being able to make a living at getting things wrong. I’m about to go watch the movie for a third time and see what else you missed.

  • critic of criics

    you clearly have no depth to your mind nore heart this movie is a betwee n the lines type and they have alot of the life of prisoners down the thinking i know this as a prison counselor , the movie shows the human race is indignant its all about pleasing yourself and somtime struggling with your decision or maybe not but this is i very good movie why you would even say those things ABOUT DENERO JOJOVITCH OR NORTON ASTOUNDS ME THEY ARE  VERSITIL AND AMAZING ACTORS AND NOT EVERY MOVIE IS PERFECT  I PERSONALY THINNK 9 OUT OF 10 MOVIES EACH OF THEM HAVE DONE WERE EXCELLENT.

  • Pepperaverage

     Really?  It’s kind of scary how far off a “professional” review can really be.  Watching this movie really made me feel that I was literally inside of the mind of the criminal and the veteran officer–which if you think about that…..deep within the “real” darkness, uncertainty and trauma that hugely exists  in this life.  So real….the psychological struggles we all face and how we  are  all connected in so many ways..no matter who we are…  The movie was simply fantastic = enlightening really–a journey toward meaning, purpose and survival…..

  • Shy

    Maybe you are the clueless one. First of all stone wore french braids not dreadlocks second of all every religion was made up by someone. Henry the Eight  made up the protestant religion. Different ethnicity’s enjoy different approach in the movie industry. Maybe you did not like stone,   but I did. Try to be more objective, and open your mind to new and different things. The world no longer excepts the black and white outlook any more. There are grey areas, and  just thinking about that can tune you into a new growth of the mind.

blog comments powered by Disqus