AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,4/10
43 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um incendiário condenado procura manipular um agente em um plano para assegurar sua liberdade condicional, colocando sua bela esposa no caminho do homem da lei.Um incendiário condenado procura manipular um agente em um plano para assegurar sua liberdade condicional, colocando sua bela esposa no caminho do homem da lei.Um incendiário condenado procura manipular um agente em um plano para assegurar sua liberdade condicional, colocando sua bela esposa no caminho do homem da lei.
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)
Enredo
Você sabia?
- 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.
- ConexõesReferenced in Maltin on Movies: No Strings Attached (2011)
Avaliação em destaque
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 de out. de 2010
- Link permanente
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Stone?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 22.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 1.810.078
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 75.766
- 10 de out. de 2010
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 10.300.416
- Tempo de duração1 hora 45 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
What was the official certification given to Homens em Fúria (2010) in India?
Responda