Heart of Stone (1985) from Tuna

SPOILERS:

Heart of Stone (2001) is a serial killer/thriller film. There is a ritualistic murder of a co-ed during the opening credits, then we see Angie Everhart preparing a birthday party for her daughter, who is about to start college. After the party, Everhart tries to seduce her own husband, who is frequently away on business. At this point in the film, about 5 minutes in, based on the man's character and the way they introduced him, I figured he must be the killer.

From there, they do their level best to convince the audience that someone else is guilty. A younger man seduces Everhart, then tricks her into lying to give him an alibi for the time of a second ritual killing. He stalks her, we learn that he is a former mental patient, and eventually see him kill several people. Nearing the last five minutes of the film, Everhart's daughter has killed the young man, and I was still convinced that the husband was the serial killer. Sure enough, I was right.

NUDITY REPORT

Two women show breasts as victims, Laura Rice, and Madeline Lindley.

Everyone over-acted terribly, which might point to bad direction. The sound was mushy, which is just as well because the dialogue was simply pathetic. For example, "Murder is a 24 hour a day business. "  In short, this is a terrible film.

The Critics Vote

  • no major review online

The People Vote ...

 
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a D-. As poor as the story is, at least it is coherent, and the photography is adequate if uninspired.

Return to the Movie House home page