PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
5,4/10
43 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Un pirómano convicto busca manipular a un oficial de libertad condicional en un plan para asegurar su libertad poniendo a su bella esposa en el camino del abogado.Un pirómano convicto busca manipular a un oficial de libertad condicional en un plan para asegurar su libertad poniendo a su bella esposa en el camino del abogado.Un pirómano convicto busca manipular a un oficial de libertad condicional en un plan para asegurar su libertad poniendo a su bella esposa en el camino del abogado.
Peter Gray Lewis
- Warden
- (as Peter Lewis)
Richard Goteri
- Guard #2
- (as Rich Goteri)
Big Ron Lyons
- Guard #3
- (as Ron Lyons)
David A. Hendricks
- Pastor
- (as Dave Hendricks)
Argumento
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesEdward 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.
- ConexionesReferenced in Maltin on Movies: No Strings Attached (2011)
Reseña destacada
Filmmaking 101 has a rule; wait, Art 101 has a rule: Know your genre. A drama can have comic relief, but that works only in the framework of the genre that's been established. Comedies can have their dramatic, emotional moments, but if they then turn into dramas, audiences are confused and disappointed. If a screenwriter and director can't even tell their story competently within the confines of the genre they first set up, their movie will fail.
Yes, Stone is well acted. So what? Do you go to the movies to see good acting class exercises? If so, check this movie out. Norton and De Niro are entertaining, early on at least, and there's sharp dialog they have to work with (how else could they do their jobs? Don't you love people who praise the acting without acknowledging the script?)
But the story – the real reason most of us venture out to see a film – in Stoner is a mess. The movie starts off essentially as a thriller. The plot sets up a con working a con, with his sexy wife, on a prison case officer. But after putting the movie is thriller mode the movie then tries to be a drama about the meaning of life and presence of God. The movie tries to turn its main plot with the wife into a subplot, and then pretend that fun, salacious venture wasn't really what the movie wanted to deal with. No, let's talk about the meaning of life.
Stone, then, is a disappointment. Even as a drama it fails: the story dissipates into ambiguity with regard to the final action. POVs have jumped around all throughout the movie but in not showing us the final resolution between Stone and his wife, the whole fulcrum of the movie is left blank. As for the transformation of Stone – something Norton tries to act by occasionally calming his voice and widening his eyes – it's unbelievable, not fully formed or demonstrated and, like the rest of the movie, a pretentious attempt to take a fun dime-store novel's story and make it profound.
Don't waste your time or money with this one. If you have to see it, wait for video. The movie is shot in TV-like close-ups for the most part and it will play just as well there.
Yes, Stone is well acted. So what? Do you go to the movies to see good acting class exercises? If so, check this movie out. Norton and De Niro are entertaining, early on at least, and there's sharp dialog they have to work with (how else could they do their jobs? Don't you love people who praise the acting without acknowledging the script?)
But the story – the real reason most of us venture out to see a film – in Stoner is a mess. The movie starts off essentially as a thriller. The plot sets up a con working a con, with his sexy wife, on a prison case officer. But after putting the movie is thriller mode the movie then tries to be a drama about the meaning of life and presence of God. The movie tries to turn its main plot with the wife into a subplot, and then pretend that fun, salacious venture wasn't really what the movie wanted to deal with. No, let's talk about the meaning of life.
Stone, then, is a disappointment. Even as a drama it fails: the story dissipates into ambiguity with regard to the final action. POVs have jumped around all throughout the movie but in not showing us the final resolution between Stone and his wife, the whole fulcrum of the movie is left blank. As for the transformation of Stone – something Norton tries to act by occasionally calming his voice and widening his eyes – it's unbelievable, not fully formed or demonstrated and, like the rest of the movie, a pretentious attempt to take a fun dime-store novel's story and make it profound.
Don't waste your time or money with this one. If you have to see it, wait for video. The movie is shot in TV-like close-ups for the most part and it will play just as well there.
- SaMoFilmGuy
- 15 oct 2010
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Stone?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- Títulos en diferentes países
- Phạm Nhân Stone
- Localizaciones del rodaje
- Empresas productoras
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 22.000.000 US$ (estimación)
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 1.810.078 US$
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- 75.766 US$
- 10 oct 2010
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 10.300.416 US$
- Duración1 hora 45 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
What was the official certification given to Stone (2010) in India?
Responde