‘Heart of Stone’ Review: Gal Gadot Plays a Rogue Agent in a Joyless Thriller That’s All Rote Logistics
By Owen Gleiberman
In his latest film review for a spy thriller “Heart of Stone,” Owen Gleiberman provides a scathing critique of the movie’s uninspiring plot, lackluster characters, and overindulgence in convoluted logistics. Gleiberman argues that the film’s numerous MacMuffins – objects or events that are integral to the plot yet fail to evoke any genuine interest – contribute to its lackluster and joyless nature.
The MacMuffins of “Heart of Stone”
Gleiberman coins the term “MacMuffin” to describe a MacGuffin that fails to captivate the audience. In “Heart of Stone,” there are multiple MacMuffins that serve as plot devices without offering any meaningful impact. The first MacMuffin is the Charter, an international group of agents that the protagonist, Rachel Stone (Gal Gadot), belongs to. Gleiberman points out that the film never delves into their purpose, operations, or relevance, rendering them utterly abstract. As a result, the audience is unable to invest in their significance.
The second MacMuffin is the Heart, a powerful device of artificial intelligence. While it may sound intriguing, Gleiberman highlights that viewers never witness its usability or witness it working. Instead, it feels like an abstract threat created by an unimaginative screenwriter. Lastly, the film introduces Keya, a mysterious hacker, as the third MacMuffin. However, Gleiberman argues that the character fails to elicit investment due to the actor’s portrayal.
A Lack of Substance
Gleiberman criticizes “Heart of Stone” for its lack of substance, describing it as a derivative and aimless film. Clocking in at a laborious two hours, the movie fails to deliver a cohesive plot and instead presents a series of digressive events that offer no real storytelling value. The director, Tom Harper, tries to compensate for the film’s shortcomings with action-packed sequences and visually impressive global locations. However, these are ultimately distractions from the film’s lack of narrative cohesion and thematic depth.
A Commentary on Spy Thrillers and the Bond Genre
In his review, Gleiberman draws a parallel between “Heart of Stone” and the James Bond franchise. He suggests that the film is a degraded descendant of the Bond thrillers, attempting to emulate their formula but falling short in terms of plot and character development. Gleiberman implies that the film’s failure lies in its inability to capture the charm and wit that characterize the best spy thrillers, especially those featuring Bond as the protagonist.
The Enervating Experience
Gleiberman’s most scathing criticism of “Heart of Stone” is that it ultimately feels empty and inconsequential. The film’s bombast, noise, and hollow logistics overshadow any meaningful substance, leaving viewers with a superficial and unsatisfying experience. Gleiberman suggests that the film’s flaws are not a result of incompetence but rather a lack of substance that makes it forgettable and devoid of impact.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity
In his review of “Heart of Stone,” Gleiberman aptly captures the film’s shortcomings and missed opportunities. While it attempts to emulate the conventions of the spy thriller genre, it fails to deliver a compelling narrative or engaging characters. The film’s reliance on MacMuffins and convoluted logistics detract from any genuine emotional connection or intellectual engagement. Ultimately, “Heart of Stone” is a forgettable and joyless thriller that fails to leave a lasting impression on its audience.
<< photo by Brock Wegner >>
The image is for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual situation.
