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 [[1]] 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 one external link on Stone (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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