Talk:Stone (2010 film)

If you REALLY want to keep it simple, the plot summary could read: "a drama that revolves around a Michigan parole officer and a convict seeking freedom, is played against a background of soothing voices preaching Gospel truths, asking questions about man and God, and offering alternatives to established beliefs and religions." - which is lifted directly from the same MoviesOnline review quoted below. And yes, I could paraphrase that easily, but I think that is appropriate for a review but much too little for an encyclopedic entry. I haven't counted the words, but I think this summary is about the same length as the summary for Alien, which is also a 2 hour film. Beadmatrix (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Beadmatrix

--4677 words. Holy fucking shit, this is excessive.Cockneyite (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw this again today, happened to be starting when I got up. It's a very uneven film, but I think it's worth some discussion because of the themes and DeNiro's performance in particular, he has rarely disappeared into a character so well since his performance in Heat (my opinion, 100%). I am a relative newbie editing here, haven't learned to do footnotes yet, and I'd like to make lots more edits:

1. Reorder sections and put Reception ahead of Production. 2. Refine plot summary a little. 3. I think this review []  encapsulates the plot, and the problems with the plot, well; but I didn't see an actual author and the date of the review comes up today, not sure how that works for citations. Beadmatrix (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Beadmatrix

I want my 2 hours back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.70.172 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The plot summary is incoherent and very hard to read. Needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.206.248 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The page is fine! I just watched the film and the description is fine. The movie itself is not concise. Stop splitting hairs. keithy BX (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

--A synopsis isn't one if it's told in real time! Cockneyite (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. The plot summary is fine. I would use this page and the plot flag as an example of needy attention/power hungry overzealous Wikipedia editors, and the above complaining comment as an example of whininess in general. Sheesh. - G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.198.191 (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

'Whininess'? The plot summary reads like a 5th-grade book report. I haven't seen the film or I'd re-write it myself. WLight (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

AUG 2012 Yes, there was a period of vandalism (I loved Resident Evil, but that's another story) followed by superficial and tangled rewrites. I've restored the plot points that elucidate major themes which are a bit muddled in the film, I think, but still visible. Several reviewers were able to comment coherently on things I readily recognized, at least. Hope to write more on critical reception etc., at a leter date. This film is really flawed, not my favorite performance by Norton, but I thought DeNiro really disappeared into his role and Milla held her own in a role that could have easily become ridiculous. Beadmatrix (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Stone (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630222747/http://www2.journalnow.com:80/content/2009/jun/29/top-actors-film-maclachlan-screenplay/entertainment/ to http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/jun/29/top-actors-film-maclachlan-screenplay/entertainment/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)