Heart of Stone, Netflix’s latest high-octane spy thriller, aims to launch a new franchise centered around Gal Gadot’s Rachel Stone. The plot follows Stone, an MI6 agent secretly working for a shadowy organization called The Charter. After a mission goes wrong, Stone must protect an all-powerful AI system known as The Heart from falling into the wrong hands.
The film tries to deliver all the excitement and intrigue expected of the spy genre. We’re taken on a globe-trotting adventure full of slick action sequences and espionage twists. Gadot slips comfortably into the role of an unstoppable action heroine, echoing spy icons like James Bond.
Yet while Heart of Stone checks all the boxes for an entertaining blockbuster, it rarely rises above feeling derivative. The story hits familiar beats without bringing much innovation. Supporting characters, including Jamie Dornan as Stone’s MI6 colleague, are underdeveloped. Attempts at humor mostly fall flat. Visually, the action scenes are competently staged but lack the jaw-dropping spectacle of say, Mission Impossible.
As a whole, Heart of Stone comes across as a serviceable but not particularly inspired addition to Netflix’s action lineup. It serves as an enjoyable enough distration thanks to Gadot’s charismatic performance. But the film’s mission to establish an iconic new franchise heroine proves unsuccessful. Rachel Stone simply isn’t an original or compelling enough protagonist to warrant further standalone adventures. While fun in the moment, Heart of Stone won’t leave a lasting impact.
A Spy With a Secret Identity
At the center of Heart of Stone is Rachel Stone (Gal Gadot), an MI6 agent who is not all that she seems. On the surface, Stone appears to be a rookie agent, relegated to tech support while her colleagues like Parker (Jamie Dornan) handle the real fieldwork. However, we soon learn that Stone leads a dangerous double life. She is secretly a top operative for an enigmatic organization known as The Charter, unknown to her MI6 teammates.
The Charter operates in the shadows using advanced technology to anticipate global threats. Their greatest asset is a powerful AI system called The Heart, which can access any digital network on earth. The Heart’s predictive capabilities make it an invaluable (and dangerous) weapon that could shift the balance of power if misused.
After a mission goes haywire, putting Stone’s secret affiliation at risk, a mysterious hacker named Keya (Alia Bhatt) infiltrates the team’s comms system. Keya has her sights set on obtaining The Heart by any means necessary. This sets off a high stakes game of cat-and-mouse between Keya and Stone, who will go to great lengths to protect The Heart and her fellow Charter agents like Jack (Matthias Schweighöfer).
As Stone delves deeper into Keya’s motives, she uncovers shocking revelations that make her question who to trust. The threat of The Heart falling into the wrong hands becomes increasingly real as double-crosses and ulterior motives abound. Stone must rely on her wits and combat skills as she crisscrosses the globe in pursuit of Keya, from the streets of London to a covert base in South Africa.
Major twists arrive when it’s revealed a Charter superior has betrayed Stone, intentionally exposing her identity. In a gripping skydiving sequence above Barcelona, Stone is nearly killed by her own MI6 teammate. After faking her death and going off the grid, Stone finally gets the upper hand on Keya in an epic confrontation aboard a massive airship.
Stone manages to maintain control of The Heart against all odds. But Keya’s desire to liberate the AI system raises complex questions. In the end, Stone is left wondering if The Heart is too formidable a technology to be under any government or organization’s control, even her beloved Charter’s.
The winding plot provides enough intrigue and suspense to power this spy adventure. While not wildly original, the story supplies a sturdy enough narrative framework for showcasing Stone in action across exotic locales.
Gal Gadot – A New Spy Icon or Miscast?
As Rachel Stone, Gal Gadot shoulders the weight of carrying this spy thriller. She brings her signature athleticism and quiet determination to the role. Gadot convincingly leaps into action, wielding weapons and executing combat moves with finesse. As an actress, she projects the unflappable poise needed for a globetrotting superspy.
Yet while Gadot looks the part, her performance lacks the magnetic charisma of iconic spies like James Bond and Ethan Hunt. Though physically imposing, Gadot struggles to make Stone a truly compelling protagonist. Her subdued acting style leaves Stone feeling one-note, almost robotic.
We get glimpses of inner conflict, as Stone grapples with her divided loyalties. But the script doesn’t provide enough nuance or backstory. Gadot seems constrained, unable to showcase greater emotional range or wit. This shortcoming makes it hard to invest deeply in Stone.
The character’s stoic personality also lacks the raffish charm of a classic cinematic spy. Stone is admirably tough, but rarely exhibits Bond’s roguish humor or Hunt’s renegade spirit. We want to see our spy heroes break the rules and act on their own guts sometimes. Stone is too self-serious, her motivations murky.
While a serviceable action lead, Gadot doesn’t have Daniel Craig’s gravitas that grounds Bond or Tom Cruise’s intensity that electrifies Ethan Hunt. Her athletic stuntwork keeps the film ticking, but Gadot can’t fully enliven an undercooked protagonist.
With the right material, Gadot has proven she can be a magnetic on-screen presence. But Heart of Stone doesn’t provide enough depth for her strengths to shine. Though physically up to the demanding role, Gadot can’t fully triumph over a blandly written character. She lacks the wildcard x-factor that could have made Rachel Stone an instant icon worthy of her own franchise. Instead, Gadot delivers an adequate but forgettable performance that fails to mint a new legendary spy heroine.
Routine Spy Thrills
For a globe-spanning espionage adventure, the action scenes in Heart of Stone prove surprisingly mundane. The film checks off all the boxes – shootouts, car chases, explosions – without delivering bravura suspense.
The opening ski lodge sequence, for example, unfolds by the numbers. Rachel Stone smoothly infiltrates the enemy hideout and escapes the mountainside undetected. It’s cleanly executed but predictable, lacking innovative stuntwork.
Similarly, a motorcycle chase through London traffics sees Stone pursue a target across Westminster Bridge and through subway tunnels. It’s competently filmed but never hits high-gear excitement.
Perhaps the visual effects-heavy scene aboard a high-tech blimp offers the most thrills. Stone navigates the exterior while dodging gunfire. The vertiginous drops provide some tension. But the green-screen work feels artificial, lacking visceral impact.
By far the most gripping action scene comes when Stone confronts her adversary Keya for a climactic hand-to-hand showdown. The intimate, raw physicality of their brutal fight scene delivers the only moment where the action feels genuinely heart-pounding.
But for a spy thriller of this scale, most of the set pieces are disappointingly workmanlike. The action lacks the imaginative flair of the Mission Impossible series or kinetic coherence of the Jason Bourne films.
While the better scenes showcase Gal Gadot’s physicality, they fail to really push the envelope. The film leans more realistic than outlandish, but rarely achieves gut-level excitement. The action gets the job done without showstopping virtuosity.
With a premise ripe for innovative sequences, Heart of Stone lacks the audacious vision of the best contemporary spy movies. While the stunts are smoothly executed, they come off perfunctory rather than sublime. For a film aiming to launch a new franchise, the action lacks the spark needed to distinguish it from the pack. Competent but unremarkable, these sequences fall short of thrilling.
“Dive into the prehistoric suspense with our Out of Darkness review. Join a tribe’s fight for survival against the unknown in this thrilling film that blends ancient fears with timeless human drama. A captivating watch for fans of historical thrillers and survival stories.”
Supporting Players Fail to Impress
While Gal Gadot underwhelms in the lead role, Heart of Stone’s supporting cast also fails to leave much of an impression. The talented performers seem wasted in thinly written supporting parts.
As MI6 agent Parker, Jamie Dornan brings his trademark brooding intensity. But the role offers little room for complexity. Parker operates mainly as a stock tough guy foil to Rachel Stone.
Sophie Okonedo brings gravitas as Stone’s Charter boss Nomad. She projects cool authority, but again has scant opportunity to create a memorable character.
Alia Bhatt fares better as cybervillain Keya, infusing the hacker with a rebellious spirit. Bhatt has fun portraying Keya’s cheeky attitude, providing a sparky counterpoint to Stone’s stern professionalism. Still, Keya’s motivations could be better developed.
Other players like Jack and fellow Charter agent Yang are afterthoughts, present mainly to assist Stone on her mission. The talented cast keeps things watchable, but can’t elevate the wafer-thin roles.
Most supporting figures serve basic plot functions without displaying distinct personalities. They operate like cogs in the story rather than fully realized individuals. Aside from Bhatt’s work as Keya, the actors fail to craft memorable side characters to enrich the spy narrative.
With such an international ensemble, Heart of Stone squanders a chance to populate its world with more idiosyncratic, engaging personalities. Instead, we get a procession of generic spy movie archetypes. The strong cast does its best with the material, but can’t compensate for underwritten parts. While serviceable window dressing, the supporting players don’t add the spark needed to make this a standout espionage adventure.
Explore the Mixed Reactions to Tiger 3: Join the conversation about one of Bollywood’s biggest releases this year. Read our Tiger 3 film critique to understand why this movie has been a topic of debate among fans and critics alike, from its stunning visuals to its muddled direction.
Slick but Uninspired Craftsmanship
On a technical level, Heart of Stone delivers all the polish expected of a globe-trotting spy thriller. But the filmmaking lacks inspiration, relying on workmanlike execution rather than visionary craft.
Cinematographer George Steel frames the action in clean, dynamic fashion. Whether it’s a motorcycle tearing through London streets or a skydiving sequence above Barcelona, the camerawork conveys motion and spatial geography well. But the lensing leans more functional than artistic.
Similarly, editor Emma McCleave strings together scenes proficiently without conjuring edge-of-your-seat tension. The editing clicks along efficiently without delivering visceral jolts.
The visual effects also come off proficient but unspectacular. Action scenes incorporate the expected CGI embellishments without dazzling. For instance, the climactic showdown aboard a high-tech airship looks passable but underscores the artifice rather than immersing the audience.
Steven Price’s score hits the expected rhythms of pulse-pounding spy drama. But the music remains safely conventional, never achieving the propulsive thrills of Cliff Martinez’s work on the Bourne films.
On the whole, the craftsmanship behind Heart of Stone mirrors the film itself – sleek and polished but lacking in inspired artistry. The technical execution satisfies without ever elevating the material. It gets the job done capably but rarely transcends to provide truly eye-popping spectacle. Like the film, the filmmaking checks off the boxes without going above and beyond. The results are a professional but unexciting product.
“Immerse yourself in the world of high-stakes espionage with our Argylle review on Gazettely. Discover how Matthew Vaughn’s latest spy thriller masterfully blends fiction and reality, offering a unique and exhilarating cinematic experience. Don’t miss this action-packed adventure that redefines the spy genre”
Humor and Dialogue – More Dull than Witty
For a globe-hopping spy caper, Heart of Stone is surprisingly light on laughs and lacks sparkling dialogue. The film aims to emulate the breezy wit that flavors Bond or Mission: Impossible without succeeding.
The occasional one-liners fall flat rather than landing with sly panache. Rachel Stone lacks the quick-witted charm of Ethan Hunt. Attempts at humorous banter between Stone and her MI6 colleagues feel stilted.
Even Keya, played engagingly by Alia Bhatt, isn’t given especially sharp dialogue to match her mischievous attitude. The tone remains staunchly serious, missing opportunities to leaven the drama with playful humor.
The dialogue also does little to provide insight into relationships or distinguish the characters. Conversations tend to simply relay plot or tactical information. There are no memorably biting exchanges or revealing intimacies.
Stone’s protected emotional state means conversations with allies rarely deepen bonds or reveal hidden facets. The dialogue efficiently advances the story without enriching characters.
The film lacks the human touch of casual banter, flirtatious repartee, or buddy-movie rapport that give films like Bond, Hunt, or Bourne memorable personality. The dialogue lacks flavor and subtext.
While the script efficiently sets up action scenarios, it fails to incorporate genuine wit or memorably stylized speech. The humor is perfunctory, the dialogue workmanlike.
With quippy exchanges and quotable lines, Heart of Stone could have found some tonal buoyancy. Instead, it remains stubbornly sober. Eschewing levity and eloquence, the film misses a chance to craft dialogue with flair to match its exotic globetrotting spirit. The humor misses the mark while the dialogue proves forgettable.
A Franchise That Never Takes Off
As a vehicle designed to launch a new action series, Heart of Stone falls short of igniting true franchise fever. The film introduces an adequate but not particularly magnetic hero in Rachel Stone. By the end, seeing more standalone adventures with Stone seems unnecessary.
The story hits the beats of an origin story without making Stone a protagonist we are eager to follow across sequels. She lacks the intriguing complexity that made early outings with Bond, Bourne, or Hunt leave audiences excited for more.
While Stone is physically commanding, her sterile personality needs more texture. Exploring her backstory and emotional drives could better hook fans for future installments. But this introductory outing fails to make Stone compelling enough to anchor an ongoing saga.
The world of covert organizations like The Charter also feels derivative of spy lore we’ve seen before. The original storytelling needed to make this feel like a fresh cinematic universe is absent.
Additionally, the action scenes lack the bravura execution that sets viable franchises apart. Clean but unremarkable set pieces fail to dazzle and demand encore viewings.
Heart of Stone capably delivers baseline spy thriller entertainment without justification for an expanded storyline. Stone is not a protagonist rich enough to fuel the multiplicity of films an action franchise requires. One reasonably enjoyable but forgettable experience with her will likely suffice for most viewers.
This introduction lacks the magnetic lead performance, intriguing world-building, and knockout action that convinces audiences to eagerly come back for more. As the launch of a potential cash cow series, Heart of Stone misfires.
A Forgettable Entry in the Spy Genre
In the end, while reasonably well-made, Heart of Stone brings nothing new or particularly compelling to the spy thriller genre. It delivers familiar action set pieces across photogenic locales, capped with a few plot twists that don’t amount to groundbreaking reveals.
At the center, Gal Gadot proves her action chops once again but can’t elevate an underwritten protagonist. Surrounding players make minimal impact in thinly sketched supporting roles. Several strong performers are wasted in a story that rarely allows characters to come alive.
Competently crafted without being visually dazzling, Heart of Stone doesn’t offer enough fresh style or substance to make it worth seeking out. It’s a serviceable but instantly forgettable addition to Netflix’s action lineup.
Casual viewers in the mood for some formulaic spy action may find it a passable evening’s distraction. But for discerning fans of the genre, it offers nothing we haven’t seen executed better in other films.
Unless you’re an avid Gal Gadot completest hungry for more showcase vehicles tailored to her strengths, Heart of Stone is inessential viewing. This is spy cinema as disposable entertainment – slick packaging with nothing inside worth remembering.
The Review
Heart of Stone
Heart of Stone aims to cement Gal Gadot as an A-list action star and spawn a new spy franchise, but the generic storytelling and bland lead performance render it an also-ran in the genre. Competently made but instantly forgettable, the film provides mildly diverting escapism without ever thrilling, surprising, or delighting. Unless you're a diehard Gadot fan eager to watch her trade fisticuffs and quips in glamorous locales, Heart of Stone is a spy flick not worth accepting the mission to view. The action is smooth but never spectacular, the characters flat, and the attempts at wit consistently miss their mark. This is one spy caper that can be skipped without regret.
PROS
- Gal Gadot's strong screen presence and physicality
- Exotic and glamorous global settings
- Alia Bhatt brings some fun and attitude
- Competent direction and action sequences
CONS
- Derivative, seen-it-before spy story
- Underdeveloped protagonist and supporting characters
- Action lacks truly thrilling sequences
- Misguided attempts at humor mostly fall flat
- Lacks fresh style or visual flair
- Doesn't succeed as a franchise launchpad
