Heart of Stone (I) (2023) User Reviews

It's an action movie like any other action movie

[patyttafg · 6/10 · 21 August 2023]

I don't believe they were attempting to sell anything beyond a typical action movie here, so if that was their intention, they certainly succeeded! I went into it without expectations, and it turned out to be enjoyable, exactly what you anticipate from a movie like this.

The writing was a bit weak, which is a common trait in almost any action movies. However, there were two aspects that stood out and aren't typically seen in such films. Firstly, there was no excessively long fight scene where characters (especially women) are hit multiple times and keep on fighting. This was quite refreshing.

Secondly, they actually addressed the injuries sustained by the characters. In many movies, the main character gets hurt, but is miraculously fine just moments later. In this film they show the character's injuries and exhaustion throughout the entire movie. I thought this was well-executed, which is why I gave it a rating of 6.

Overall, it's a good movie if you simply want to switch off your mind for a few hours and not think about anything.

Gal Gadot is not a great actress.

[jeroen-106 · 5/10 · 26 August 2023]

Gal Gadot is not a great actress. She's a true beauty though - a 10 out of a 10. She seems to have a great real life personality and she has been an inspiration to young women.

The above are major reasons why she sells tickets. It's just that I want to see great artists at work. I want to see someone transform completely and take me on a journey. I don't need to see yet another Netflix filler with a forgettable story But once again, Netflix delivers exactly that.

Wake me up when the next Mad Men, Succession or Better Call Saul happens. This film confirmed I should be much more strict in what I watch, because I'm wasting my time otherwise.

It's Really Pretty Good!

[Maxax777 · 7/10 · 13 August 2023]

Look - unfortunately, there are a lot of negative reviews for this out there - but seriously - it doesn't deserve all the negativity, it's really NOT bad - I enjoyed it! It's loaded with action, it does have a little twist in there - it's just an action movie, simple. It's also not poorly done - it looks good, the action is great - it's really not bad! Could it have been better? SURE - the story is fairly predictable - the action is predictable - it's a little cheesy - but it definitely doesn't deserve all the negativity it's received. Again - I enjoyed it - it wasn't that bad! Pickles are made from cucumbers.

Mission Impossible on Budget

[ItsRobinTV · 6/10 · 12 August 2023]

The concept of the movie is actually kind of interesting. This whole heart thing catched me definitely. But besides that and a few nice action scenes the movie wasn't that good.

I'm sorry if I say this but Gal Gadot isn't Tom Cruise. CGI Stunts especially bad made CGI stunts look so much worse than real stunts and this is a huge problem when one of the best action spy movies with some of the most impressive stunts ever made, MI 7, is running in cinemas at the same time. Really bad timing. This movies isn't anywhere as good as MI 7 but maybe I expected a little too much.

Also I rarely watched a movie where the music annoyed me but this one manages it. The Music ruins so much scenes.

If this movie was really thought to be the beginning of an entire franchise Netflix should have put some more effort into it, but at the end the real factor that decides if there will be more movies is the money not the quality, sadly.

Good spy thriller

[LivingWitness · 7/10 · 11 August 2023]

I know this one has a low score right now, but honestly, I liked it. It's not my favourite spy thriller of all time or anything, but it's better than a lot of them.

It's not the smartest spy thriller, but by the same token, it's also not actively trying to outsmart the audience. There's twists, but they don't come out of nowhere and everything more or less makes sense given the general flow of the movie. I think this is probably going to end up being one of the more contentious points for this movie because people are probably expecting it to be like a James Bond movie, but this is one or two tiers down the intelligence totem pole.

The action scenes aren't the best ever made, and I wouldn't even argue they're the best action sequences in a movie this year. However, they're not bad, either. The tension is there, Gal Gadot's character never gets a free pass and has to struggle to win, and they all further the plot. So while the action scenes aren't exactly groundbreaking, they're also well constructed and well executed.

In terms of acting, this is probably the best dramatic performance Gal Gadot has ever given. While she's always been a better action actress than a dramatic one and probably always will be, I wouldn't be too surprised if this ends up being remembered as one of her better performances overall.

All in all, Heart of Stone is a good movie. Nothing about it is amazing, but it all gets a solid B. I think most of the people giving it a low score have set their expectations too high.

When you order Mission Impossible on Wish.com

[mattpeerless-376-865613 · 2/10 · 15 August 2023]

This is truly terrible. Gal Gadot plays a female Ethan Hunt wannabe and, while there's no harm in that concept, it needs to be backed up with credible effects/stunts. Unfortunately, along with the writing, directing and acting, the stunts in this movie are not even remotely convincing. It starts with a bad speedflying/speed riding scene, and don't get me started on the wingsuit nonsense.

What I loved about the new Mission Impossible was the "almost" believable stunts. What I disliked most about this was the absurdity of everything Gal Gadot's character did.

Come on Netflix, you can do better - I hope.

Entertaining enough, skip the Netflix bashers

[JohnM63 · 7/10 · 13 August 2023]

Admittedly this is not the best MI inspired ripoff, but it's pretty entertaining. Just skip past the netflix bashers and the 'critics' out to get some of the actors.

The storyline is pretty thin, but it checks out and has enough in it for some decent action. Acting is more than fair and the stunts and their photography are good.

As a spythriller it has the same credibility issues as the next one, including MI. Of course it does, that's why it's called fiction. Yes there are some stupid decisions, but that doesn't affect the entertainment, unless of course you're out to find them all so you can give some superficial review.

If you're into spy thrillers like MI, then you will most likely have a fun time watching this one.

Terrible script and writing

[gabore9-428-222670 · 4/10 · 11 August 2023]

This was quite infuriating, decent cast and action sequences, but such an awful, boring convoluted script full of cliches and total lack of believable characters. It feels like nobody did any audience testing or editing, a lot like Sentinel (ok that was a show) another soulless action movie that is like a B movie from the video store but with a real budget and people you have heard of. Don't really get what Netflix is doing, for all this money couldn't they have spent some on a decent writer? Was this written by AI? Gal Gadot was great and did a good job, Jamie Dorman is as boring as in everything else so at least he is consistent.

A surprisingly good new agent movie

[moviemanager · 7/10 · 12 August 2023]

This movie was an interesting breath of new. This reminded me of many movies. At first it reminded me of the Mission Impossible movies. To some extent, the tradition of James Bond films was also respected. The film moved quickly from one continent to another. Surprising plot twists were seen and naturally a pretty good villain was also present. This also reminded me of the megalomaniac plans of the villains in the Bond films. Gal Gadot's charisma carried a lot in the film. She did a good role as a new kind of agent. I have some expectations if a sequel is decided to be made. This was just the beginning. What else can a possible new movie saga offer?

The Heart of Generic Mass Production

[Tweetienator · 3/10 · 16 August 2023]

These days, I guess, everybody who wants a job in the movie industry gets one. No matter if your talents are rather dim and hardly detectable, the machine needs staff to produce stuff. The result of those movie mass production factories are movies like Heart of Stone: generic, lifeless, shallow and boring but it fills the back catalogue of those streaming services, but to be honest companies still producing movies for the cinema are many times not much better these days. Heart of Stone is not a movie to apply to the worst movie ever award but, well, if you are not on your trip to watch everything that features Gal Gadot, you will be most likely bored to death: a generic plot and characters and the mediocre action sequences will put your brain most likely in sleeping mode, but maybe your are just in need for that... Tiresome - no match for movies like Atomic Blond, Salt or Anna.

Fun and entertaining - the bad reviews are bonkers

[bjorn-858-862909 · 8/10 · 13 August 2023]

This was a fun, high-energy, kinetic and well-executed movie.

No, the plot isn't water-tight, and no, the story isn't intricate, but it is entertaining.

Just like a James Bond movie it contains super-unbelievable technology, and quite a few "really?" moments. But it also has quite a few unexpected plot-twists, white-knuckle moments and some genuinely funny lines ("I believe she's ready for the field"). It also has quite a bit of heart and gets you involved in the characters (I really didn't want us to miss at least two of them).

The 1-3 star reviews just seem bonkers.

Go watch it with popcorn and enjoy!

Oh come on people, where's your sense of fun!

[mudheads · 7/10 · 1 September 2023]

What happened to kicking back on a Friday night, with a cold drink and a big back of crisps and just enjoying the ride.

As somebody else mentioned, it is a bit like mission impossible on a smaller budget. Still plenty of action, one or two surprises and a feel good factor.

Will people just please stop whinging about every single film ever made and just enjoy them for what they are.....entertainment I thought the film was fun and I enjoyed it......the stunts and CGI on their own made it worth watching.

The characters were good and it left the viewer on a high ready for a sequel.....provided all the negative reviews don't kill it stone dead

Raise a cold beer to this one and enjoy it.

Heart of boredom

[karinahatem · 1/10 · 13 August 2023]

Barely 10 minutes passed, and I stopped counting the number of mistakes. Netflix keeps acquiring or producing stupid action movies, not sure why ! And having Gal Gadot didn't make it any better, in fact Gal was very annoying. The movie had too many elements from James Bond and Mission Impossible. Stupid story, silly dialogue, poor performance and lame action scenes. They had an Indian character, just to make it more diverse. The movie was so bad, that it took me 3 trials to be able to finish it. Please Netflix, stop making and producing bad movie, and just stick to making original tv shows and good documentaries.

Fun , action packed spy thriller with the usual mod cons

[julymermaid · 7/10 · 13 August 2023]

I've no idea whats wrong with people and all the negative reviews here ... I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film. Like any self respecting modern day spy thriller it has all the essentials (MI6, Europeanfilming locations , car chases , trains ... etc etc) but isn't that to be expected? Sure no one is getting an Oscar here but neither is Tom Cruise for Mission Impossible. Gal looks stunning and caries this well.

Yes the whole Charter thing is a bit meh .... but the action alone makes you want to see it. Leave your brains behind and just watch it for what it is and now what others expected it to be.

If you're trying to launch a female-lead version of a Mission Impossible-type franchise, Gal Gadot is a safe bet.

[Top_Dawg_Critic · 7/10 · 12 August 2023]

Yes, this film is heavily flawed, especially in this genre's cliched-riddled writing department, but was it fun? Was is watchable? Were there impressive and expensive sets and locations? Did Wonder Woman's Gal Gadot deliver the high-octane convincing action? Absolutely yes to all. Especially when you consider the latest A-list female lead action films that have come out lately, such as The Mother with J-Lo, and Ghosted with Ana de Armas, that were all disappointing and cringeworthy flops.

And let's be honest, as cliched, generic and predictable as this was, it's not far off from the same tropes and use of "AI will rule the world in the wrong hands" theme in the latest Mission Impossible, of which was my least favorite of that franchise. Sure Tom Cruise did his own stunts jumping off a cliff on a motorcycle, so more props to him and less to Gadot for all her impressive action scenes that were stunt-doubles or computer generated - in the end, the wow factor is equally still there in the action department.

But both films suffered the same generic cliched writing, this one has just a little more cheese in it's dialogue and writing, but at least it didn't have a Part 2 cliffhanger. I gave M. I. an 8/10, and feel very comfortable giving this one with similar action and similar writing, but not as good directing a 7/10, mostly all going to Gadot for being the first female lead in this genre to convince me she needs to be in this franchise. Hopefully if there are more Stone films to come, there will be better filmmakers attached to them.

More dumbed-down dreck for the brainded masses

[BLAlley · 3/10 · 11 August 2023]

Less then three minutes in and it's already painfully obvious this is yet another entry in the minimum-effort, disposable TV show category.

We start with some breathtaking scenery flying over the Schnals Glacier toward the Alpin Arena Schnals Senalesatop ski resort, at least until they decided to point the camera into the sun once we switch to the party. There we learn some agents are conducting an op, but just like recent DOA shows like Citadel and Fubar, trained agents are speaking on their "secret" coms openly among crowds of people. Worse, they are further risking exposure by extending those exchanges into casual conversations about (insert unimportant topic).

Then something goes wrong with their remote computer access (which also never makes sense), yet no one on the team seems alarmed that they might have been discovered and cut off. Instead they casually seek another way to access the network.

Besides the fact secure networks don't broadcast a signal through which they can be hacked, even if that was a thing the team would have already had an alternate plan in place.

Adding to the dumbness, the "hacker" needs to be within ten feet of the head security guy for... reasons, but the rest of the team opposes the plan because she's "not a field agent". Uh, they are all in a foreign country operating from a van parked outside the resort. That's the field. If she was merely a computer tech she'd be at their headquarters since their concern seems to be her lack of field training, even though she's in the field.

It's a shame moronic garbage has become the norm.

Lifeless...

[Xstal · 1/10 · 11 August 2023]

A computer called 'The Heart', an all seeing eye, a wonder of a thing high in the sky, can predict future events, wisdom, knowledge to dispense, alas there's one thing that it's failed to classify; as its intellect, its genius and its brain - has not considered that it's here to entertain, so it's patched and dialled out, a film with very little clout, leaving no pulse, no vital signs, although there's pain; so in the end, all that you'll do, is moan and groan, as it sinks like the proverbial thrown stone, with no moss for it to gather, it's just a rotten, rank cadaver, you'd be better off distracted by your phone.

Way better than Citadel

[willz187 · 7/10 · 12 August 2023]

This is way better than Citadel the series. Every time I was ready to write this movie off, another excellent action sequence drew me back in. This stunt and production team deserve an award. Really fresh and realistic action. Never found myself rolling my eyes, saying 'as if'. They really sell it. Gal Gadot holds the movie together and moves convincingly. Dialogue is good but the script is weak. I immediately thought of Chris Hemsworths' Extraction 2, which is a modern action classic, for blowing my mind with camera and stunt work. Jamie Dornan is not as convincing as Gal, and kind of brings the movie down. Better than I thought it would be.

Netflix just don't get blockbusters

[masonsaul · 4/10 · 11 August 2023]

Heart of Stone is yet another huge Netflix blockbuster that's so desperate to get a franchise going that just doesn't understand how these films should work. The marketing is so ready to brag that it's the executive producers of Dead Reckoning but this makes every wrong decision that film didn't make.

It's dull, it's derivative, it's forgettable and somehow even worse than all of the previous attempts to get a spy franchise going from Netflix (please don't let this get a sequel). Every CGI action set piece is bad, lacking any weight and is only laughable opposed to thrilling.

Gal Gadot is definitely capable of leading something like this but Rachel Stone is such a boring character with no depth and spends most of the film refusing to connect or open up which only makes it worse. Jamie Dornan is way better though, he's allowed to have fun with it whilst everyone else is overly serious.

Whilst Tom Harper really can't direct action scenes the film generally looks more vibrant than something like The Gray Man and avoids the excessively grey colour palette for 90 minutes at least. The music by Steven Price feels like it belongs to a completely different movie but definitely sounds like a better movie.

Roller-coaster ride with Gal Gadot

[Maverick1962 · 8/10 · 14 August 2023]

I really enjoyed this fantasy thriller with it's excellent and likeable cast led by Wonder Woman Gal Gadot. I'm rather surprised by the low rating on here as I thought it was an entertaining two hours.

Action for most of the time is at break neck speed and the plot is relatively easy to follow. The actors can be heard for a change and lacks the current fashion for mumbling which I hate. I think it's better than the last Bond movie "No Time To Die" and miles ahead of "Wonder Woman 1984".

The cinematography is great and often panoramic. I'm no expert in the technology of modern movies but it looked just as good as any Marvel, Star Wars or other fantasy flick to me.

These films are mostly the same anyway, heroes and villains carrying out ridiculously impossible feats so just go along for the ride. The writing is not great but some jokey one liners have always been thrown in to these since the early Bond days.

Gal Gadot has the charisma to carry a film and I thought Jamie Dornan was quite good and less bland than he's been up to now. He's starting to look a bit like Colin Firth as he gets older.

A fun two hours well directed by Tom Harper I thought.

Boring....and Embarrassing

[kingstechreviews · 11 August 2023]

Boring....and Embarrassing

Ten minutes in and bored out of my Mind. The acting is atrocious and embarrassing.

One of the worst movies of 2023 if not the worst movie of the 2020s so far.

Caught it on netflix and wish I didn't start watching it, they're trying to pass Gal gadot off as a female James bond but it really doesn't work. The whole movie is insulting.......................................

My wife turned to me and asked me if I was watching this and I said are you? We both said it just feels so cheap. Shame really. What a waste of.money. Maybe use the money spent on this movie for something more productive like give it to families in need?

Not so bad

[MazzyMayhem-117-544511 · 6/10 · 12 August 2023]

The reviews are pretty bad so far, but I totally disagree. I thought this was quite an entertaining film. Yes, plenty of far fetched action, but then what is that great success, James Bond??

The plot is easy to follow, which I like and the storyline is plausible in a James Bond/Mission Impossible kind of way; the only difference being a woman is the action hero. It's a times like this you realise how sexist the world is.

Gal Gadot is perfect for the role. She is so naturally beautiful, it works without having someone caked in makeup/altered by surgery . Ably supported by Jamie Dornan and Sophie Okoneyo this is an action packed romp.

It's actually terrible and I'm being polite

[jon_anderson77 · 3/10 · 27 August 2023]

It genuinely angers me to think how much money was spent on this movie. Right from the start the pre credit set piece is lame and unengaging. It thinks it's Bond but it's more like a bad Alex Rider story . Dialogue is cringey, special effects are some of the worst you will see in recent times You won't care about any of the characters. Both protagonist and antagonists are one dimensional. Gadot is completely unconvincing as a secret agent despite her history in the action genre and her poor acting bring the rest of the cast down. The female antagonist is about as threatening as a call centre scammer. Jamie Dornan is instantly identified as the bad guy because why would he be in this movie playing 2nd fiddle on an Mi6 team so when the reveal happens quite early on that he's a baddie it has zero impact. Even the music in this movie sucked. The annoying theme music they play constantly any time Stone does anything remotely hi octane will get on your nerves repeatedly and it happens a lot. In case I'm not making myself clear here I hated this movie. It's offensively terrible and anyone reviewing this saying it's actually good obviously hates cinema or themselves

If films like Sharknado are the B movie equivalent of Jaws, Heart of Stone is this to James Bond. This feels less like a Netflix / Sundance production and more like a bad 6 part action drama you'd find on the British TV channel ITV.

I don't give 1 star reviews for movies as there is always something redeeming about a movie no matter how bad it is (usually music). In this case it's Paul Ready who I always watch baffled whenever I see him in acting roles as his portrayal of Kevin in Motherland is so bizarrely funny that it amazes me to see him doing anything else other than that character. Usually Sophie Okenedo would garner some stars but even she is awful in this movie playing a 3rd rate M character

For Paul it gets 3 Stars and that's me being very generous.

She qualifies for the next Bond while her film qualifies as a B action flick.

[JohnDeSando · 13 August 2023]

Waiting for Gadot

If Gal Gadot wants her Wonder Woman acclaim to transfer to a lucrative franchise like Sean Connery's or Tom Cruise's, she has a successful start in Netflix's Heart of Stone. While no critic would be able to find a creative element in this highly-formulaic thriller, it has an AI called Heart, like the contraption in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny well worth fighting for, and her Rachel Stone the opposite of a stone, except when she kicks butt, which is often.

Stone is in a league of good people, The Charter, who have no affiliation but with other highly talented ex operatives without allegiance other than to good deeds and The Charter. It's gratifying to know perhaps too obviously the good guys from the bad.

Although this adherence to formula mitigates some of the fun of discovering who is good or bad, director Tom Harper and writers Greg Rucks and Allison Schroeder take the formula to its limits with surprises about characters we thought we knew.

Rachel is ordered to protect the Heart because in the hands of the bad guys, they could control the world. Such hyperbole is the stuff of thriller formula: "It knows you better than you know yourself. It's determinism ... its modeling is so accurate it can predict the future. The Heart is knowledge and power. It can crash a market or drop a plane out of the sky. ... If you own the heart, you own the world."

Thank goodness the filmmakers do not make this operation a one heroine show, for Jack of Hearts (Matthias Schweighofer) is the high-grade techie who heroically manages the AI down to telling Rachel the success percentage of each mission. The prediction is scarier than any Alien-like monster I've ever met.

Trying to recount Gadot's many motorcycle and parachute stunts would be useless since they are all pretty much the same, but still entertaining. Gadot is going to get no Oscar for her often-stoic mien, but she s does look sleek enough and talks tough enough to play Bond, if only Barbara Broccoli had not stated there would be no female 007. Heck with that-we will probably get a Stone franchise anyway. We'll just wait for Gadot.

Problematic CGI

[fsavran-745-170482 · 6/10 · 16 August 2023]

There are a lot of other criticism is ongoing however I want to emphasize the poor CGI especially in car chase scenes. For a considerable amount of time which CGI is getting better and better I have never seen this type of poor green screen effect. While all agents in a van you can clearly see that the van is not even moving. I am also watching 60s James Bond films at the aame time and it is very similar. Hats off to CGI directors who reach the level of 60s in special effects.

On the other hand, I don't know if it is because of poor scripts or Gal Gadot's performance but the jokes in these scenes are all off.