Customer Reviews

Stone Reader (Special Edition)

5 star:		(50)
4 star:		(19)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

I found this film fascinating - I had never read "The Stones of Summer" before, nor even heard of it, or the movie. But anyone who complains that the film focusses too much on the filmmaker hasn't noticed the title of the film -- "Stone READER" -- it is a film about the journey of the young boy who first read Mossman's book and is now searching for him. It is not a film about Mossman or even so much about writers - it is a film about readers of books, and especially this one reader. The movie explores many themes, including the quest to find out more about an author you love and why some books and authors catch on and others do not. The very aspects of the film that others seem to find annoying, I found fascinating -- as we watch this filmmaker search and head down blind alleys, and yet keep searching. If you enjoy a good quest, if you have ever wanted to write to or go visit a favorite author, or if you just like a good story, I would highly recommend this film.

This unique documentary is especially effective. It is more than a search for a book author, it is a love story to reading and books. Lovers of literature should definitely see this film.

I happen not to be one of the 3,000 people who received an email from the director asking them to review the film in a positive way even if they have not seen it (according to an article in the New York Times and News.com).
Therefore I can possibly give a more independent review.
Unfortunately there are not many good things to say about this film. The plot is not well carried out, the characters are somewhat linear, there is a lack of proper balance in the way the story is told. There are many better things out there. For them 3,000 emails may not be necessary.

Although hailed as a great film for people who love reading, this film's first love is clearly filmmaker Mark Moskowitz. His work on political campaigns is painfully evident throughout the troublesomely concocted "storyline" of his "quest" to find one-novel wonder Dow Mossman. He's sometimes visibly distintered in what the subjects of his "interviews" (which he typically dominates) have to say, preferring to use almost everyone as a prop in a story which is more about his own life than Mossman's.

He carefully massages what ought to have been an afternoon's worth of phone calls into a journey which crosses many miles to talk to vaguely related people who often have no knowledge about anything he wants to talk about (he TRAVELS to interview the illustator of the novel's original cover-- who, it turns out, has almost no recollection of the event). It quickly becomes clear that he is staging almost everything for the camera, and, since most of the people he talks to don't know or don't care about the subject of the film, the majority of it focuses on his rudely cutting off experts to get his own opinion on film or just generally dominating the discussion to harp on and on about his supposed love of reading (not to mention a good deal of name-dropping to demonstrate how well-read he is).

This is all hugely annoying, and made even more so, because the acutal subject of the film --dealing with author Mossman and the world of writing and publishing in general-- is actually very interesting. Mossman's book is a very good (though sometimes frustratingly obtuse) read, and his story begs deeper exploration. Instead, even when Moskowitz finally reveals Mossman to the camera (after about twenty minutes of obvious milking the "Mystery" when Mossman's wherabouts should have been about one phone call away) the focus of the film gets right back to Moskowitz's agenda to get the book re-published, shamefully ignoring Mossman's real life after spending the whole film ostensibly tring to discover it. This is after two hours of focusing on Moskowitz telling us about his OWN life.

Still, if you can survive the contrived setup, overlong runtime, and rude and self-interested director, there are easily 30 minutes of extremely interesting interviews with literary figures and with Mossman himself. This alone justified sitting through the film for me, providing real insight into some fascinating and oft-unexplored areas of life.

My husband and I stumbled onto this DVD with no prior knowledge of or about it, and rented it solely because it was about books (and we are book lovers). We absolutely loved it and were literally brought to tears, having been so moved by the director's love of reading and his lengthy search for an elusive author. We bought the special edition DVD from the Stone Reader website, and I recently ordered several copies from amazon to give as gifts this Christmas. If you watch it, be sure to check out the bonus features for additional recommended reading. My advice to anyone interested is, if you love books and love reading, then you will love this movie (and be as perplexed as I am by some of the negative reviews herein). I hope that there are some bibliophiles out there who will give this movie a look merely based on its subject matter, and NOT waste time scrolling through some of the nastier, baseless reviews, because 1) I think the movie works better without the viewer having pre-conceived notions about its arguable shortcomings (and certainly is more fun to watch without knowing what will happen - as many reviewers so boorishly and carelessly report here - duh!) and 2) any review that refers to homosexuality in the movie is DEFINITELY posted by someone who has either NOT seen the movie, or has ulterior motives (and furthermore, I find it curious that labeling something as gay - especially in the field of creative arts - is supposed to automatically be interpreted as a kiss of death; this movie is not at all about anyone being gay, but even if it were, would that alone make it worthy of a negative and hateful review?! Puh-leeze.). And finally, yes, okay, maybe the director is a bit egotistical in his telling of the story (which didn't faze me at all when watching it, by the way), but I agree with another reviewer who rightly pointed out that we all can get carried away sometimes when we feel so intensely about something... and that intensity (about books) is what you should have in order to really love and appreciate this movie. I actually wrote to Mr. Moskowitz after seeing the movie, and received a lovely, thoughtful letter in reply - so don't fall for the director-bashing reviews - he's just a guy who loves reading, and if you do too, then you'll LOVE Stone Reader.

Last night, following a brief, violent, drenching thunderstorm, the moon was full, spring was mature, and clarity of mind, body, and soul was once again a tangible possibility. That's the feeling, the mood, and the inspiration I get, time and time again, every time I view, and re-view, the DVD of "Stone Reader," perhaps the most positive, transformative and invigorating film I've seen thus far this decade. Though film and literature are the only arts taking centerstage, "Stone Reader" whets the appetite for enveloping oneself in exploration of any form of art and expression. This is a non-fiction film about wonderful people whose lives are boundless, their passions allowed to run amok in a troubled world of tired, embittered and constipated people. "Stone Reader" is a restorative for anyone weary of self-reflective and accusatory depictions of life experiences that cause strife, doom, and confusion. It is human clarity of a most fun and optimistic nature.

I remember seeing Stone Reader last year in a theater and thinking it was more interesting in the talking-over afterward than in the seeing. My main problem with this documentary is the gimmicky approach to the emptiness of life without books, an approach that does not convey what books mean or what they're for. An hommage to literature and reading can't be paid through a trick shortcut to profundity (i.e. an unconvincing search) or a filmmaker's inarticulateness. The sad truth is that most books don't make people think, and print is as neutral as a TV screen. Books are not magical objects, but that's how this rhythmless movie treats them.

This movie is a very, very long three hours. I disliked it not in a scolding way but because it induced boredom to the level of panic, a desire to flee the theater.

Couldn't believe so many critics (but not all) were taken in by this. More a mockumentary than anything else, since the film purports to document real events, but in fact sets up ridiculous shots of, for example, Moskowitz and friends going to their mailboxes to retrieve copies of the book. And then, of course, the fake "search" for Mossman - a lovely, troubled man who seems to have had, despite everything, a real, lifelong engagement with literature - who, it seems, could probably have been found in 10 minutes, rather than months. The literary critics and writers interviewed are all interesting, but by the end it wouldn't have surprised me if the filmmaker had asked, " What would you say if I told you I had Dow Mossman in the trunk of my car?"

I have no idea where these people come up with this stuff, but to insinuate that there are homoerotic undertones in this film is to lay bare one of the most unsophisiticated interpretations I've ever read. I shake my head in visceral astonishment at the utter profundity of several of these reviewer's stupidity. Truly.

Anyway, the story behind the film is interesting. Unfortunately, the filmmaker, at some point, decided the story wasn't good enough and basically made a home movie of his quest without much thought as to why he was doing this or if perhaps his brazen (sometimes rude) approach would translate well onto the screen (it didn't).

All that said, it's better than 95% of the crap out there right now. Perhaps that isn't saying much.