Rating: 
Summary: 10% actual content, 90% padding...
Review: As someone who loves books, I thought this movie would really appeal to me. The whole idea of making a documentary about tracking down the writer of your favorite obscure book seemed very neat. Unfortunately, the film-maker has very little story to tell and so, instead, subjects the viewer to over an hour of failed attempts to track the guy down. You see him interviewing people who have never heard of the author he's looking for.
"So, you've never heard of him?"
"No... can't say as I have."
"Heh... isn't that something? Well, what do you think I should say to him if I find him?"
"I don't really know."
"Yeah. Yeah, I don't know what I'll say if I find him."
"Huh."
"Yeah. Heh. So, can you think of any other writers who have written one great book and then disappeared?"
"Well, there was that one guy..."and so on. You also get to see the film-maker raking leaves a lot. And driving places. And interviewing people but not really listening to them because all he really wants them to talk about is this author that they've never even heard of. I really, very seriously did not like this movie. Not a bit.
Rating:
Summary: What to believe?
Review: On the surface, this is a poorly put together, amateurish home-movie style documentary: the director lacks any charisma whatsoever; there are far too many contrived, lingering shots of things like trees and himself raking (he even says "I didn't know what else to do with the camera"), in what seems to be a failed effort to make this film interesting in lieu of a story; he is obviously a book lover, but has absolutely no insights of any value into the mostly very popular books he repeatedly refers to (which make his conversations with writers/publishers not only more vain than they already are, but very uninteresting: he stacks books such as "Catcher in the Rye", "Catch 22" and "Tropic of Cancer" in front of life-long veterans of the literary game as though they are supposed to be impresse. On a deeper level, this movie strikes me as being somewhat dishonest, but it didn't annoy to the point of posting my first ever Amazon review until I read about his alleged attempts at convicing people to give it a raving review at Amazon whether they'd seen the film or not. Even though I'm an advocate of rabid self-promotion, and assume this this sort of thing occurs in some form quite a bit on these kind of sites, there's something off about the sincerity of this film that adds an air of seediness to the movie I can't stomach. The dishonesty, for me, begins with the fact that there are scenes that are clearly staged. One such: the director fed-exes a package to someone, and you see the man it was sent to pick the package up off of his doorstep the next day. Huh? Is this dishonest or just really really bad documentary film-making? Am I supposed to suspend disbelief and "forget" that there's a camera crew present? As the film progressed, I kept asking myself: why doesn't he go to the University the guy was attending when he wrote the book? Why doesn't he contact the man who taught that workshop? Instead, he contacts people such as the man who did the jacket but doesn't remember the book. We get the point: the book was forgotten by most of the people on Earth. Eventually, after about a year of "searching", he goes to the author's home town, finds his old professor (very easily) and, very easily, locates the author, not to mention his former agent (whom the director seems to be trying to paint as a bad guy, possibly someone partially to blame for the writer's disappearance?). Long story short: the book ends up getting put back on the shelves, and, oh, he didn't disappear: he had "writers block" all those years . My question is: is this director just overly enthusiastic about this book and under-skilled at PR, or is this whole thing a gimmick designed to make a marketable art-house documentary, get this book back on the shelf and make some money for all involved (possibly getting a footnote in literary and film history for the director)? I think he started out with sincere intentions, but his vanity got in the way; plus it's very difficult to believe that it took him so long to find an author who was not in hiding. Maybe he's also a very bad detective...hmmm, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire one? But then, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to create "suspense" and the sense of investment in the project that lends the subject the gravity necessary to take it seriously. I will give him credit, however, for the fact that he did succeed in using the film to get the book back in print (it may be a great book afterall), but if he'd found the guy in 15 minutes, there'd have been no film. Finally, I'd rather not have to give any stars (let the review speak for itself), but I'm giving it two because I sense that there are padded reviews here, and the overall rating needs evening out, however, there are also some fake reviews by unethical people lying about the theme of the movie being sexual preference (which has diminished the varacity of many of the other bad reviews in addition to the glowing ones).
Rating: 
Summary: For the love of books
Review: Just yesterday, the following question was posed to me: Are publishers cutting down in the number of serious literary fiction they provide to the readers? Several aspects should be considered to answer this question and most of them are presented in this movie. It has been a trend in the past that masterful novels become bestsellers only years after first been published. One of the most notorious cases is Heller's Catch-22. Most publishers are guided by profits, and since serious literary work is usually "financed" by other bestsellers, economic conditions may hamper the amount published of the former. This movie is a documentary that shows the quest of Mark Moskowitz to find the author of a book, "The Stones of Summer", that marked him deeply and left him wondering why Don Mossman never published another book. The viewer finds himself participating in the search that involves finding other readers of the book, talking with people that knew the author either as his peers, publishers, dust-jacket designers or tutors. Some of the interviews will immerse you in the world of books and you will find yourself either revisiting or discovering masterpieces worth reading. The juiciest interview, in my opinion, was the one Moskowitz conducted with Prof. Fiedler, who has a very interesting view of why there are so many one-book writers. This movie is clearly made by a book lover for book lovers, if you do not belong in this category you should not even attempt to watch it or you will get bored easily. However, those people that are always eager to learn about authors and their inner turmoil, novels that are worth reading and how the publishing industry works, will find this movie delightful. I must say that I have not read "The Stones of Summer" and am not planning to do so in the short-term. Nevertheless, I do not think this fact, or the one that you read the book and did not like it are an obstacle to enjoying the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Three - For the Benefit of the Doubt
Review: I enjoyed this movie. I was caught up in the "quest for the elusive one" story that reminded me of Roger and Me and even got me to ponder the greater significance of this type of story, (i.e. Apocalypse Now, Roger and Me). I came up with the idea that a lot of us expect to meet someone when we die, when we reach the end of the quest. Whether that person is God or someone from your past or whoever. Perhaps for that reason, Stone Reader is an archetypal story. Some moments of this movie thrilled me, such as Bruce Dobler's story about how his writing teacher tried to toughen him up into becoming a better writer. I did notice the amateurish filmmaking technique, but seeing how bumbling an artist Moskowitz was actually made me enjoy the movie even more. (...) P>When I watched the movie, I forgave the manipulative touches, like filming his friends opening their mail, but after reading all these angry reviews I think stuff like that is pretty unexcusable. We, as the audience, deserve better. Moskowitz strikes me as a shameless filmmaker, an uninsightful interviewer and an appalling family man. Reviewers here keep talking about how manipulative and (my favorite) "soulless" this movie is. I give Moskowitz the benefit of the doubt. I believe he really loves this book and even if he doesn't there are many interviews with writers who really do love literature and have colorful things to say.
Rating:
Summary: Definitely not for everyone but deserves a chance
Review: Stone Reader is a documentary that is understandably not to everyone's taste but what I found most interesting about it is that it's very difficult to pigeonhole who would be inclined to like it versus who would not. On the surface it would seem that if you have a considerable interest in books and literature the film would be tailor-made for you as it follows director Mark Moskowitz on his search to find the author of his favorite book The Stones of Summer. While it would be hard to label Moskowitz as deep (he does come across as kind of a goofball) it does contain some interesting insights into writing and literature, particularly from the point of view of an author. As is germaine to his theme, why do some authors produce one great work and never produce another? The film runs about 30 minutes too long - it should cut off right after the big climactic moment but instead goes on and descends into a talking heads picture. However, leading up to that point, I admit that I was fascinated by the little mystery that Moskowitz had set up and how he was going about trying to solve it. I can totally understand how some true, passionate lovers of books would find the film to be problematic and Moskowitz to be a buffoon. Quite honestly, I could have done without the pans through his bookshelves to show us how well-read he is and how versatile his tastes are - it's self-indulgent. That being said, there's no doubt in my mind that he's done this as a labor of love and as an expression of his passion for a particular book. The best parts for me are some of the later interviews where Moskowitz is able to more or less spring surprises on his subjects by revealing his motives, all of which eventually lead him further on his quest. Is it contrived? In some places, but it was still satisfying on a very basic level.
Rating: 
Summary: Sublime
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: flawed but fun film about writing and books
Review: Director-writer Mark Moskowitz picked up a 1972 novel, The Stones of Summer by Dow Mossman, and was so moved by it that he decided to try to find the author, who had never written another thing. His journey is meandering but the people he talks to -- professors, authors and editors -- are interesting. If you are a person who loves books and is interested in authors' stories, you will probably enjoy this film. Dvd extras include commentary by Moskowitz.
Rating: 
Summary: ugh
Review: interviews were great, but the director is a jacka**. he's so annoying, you have to fast forward through half the movie just to get to the good parts.
Rating:
Summary: Moskowitz is a self-important, no-talent halfwit
Review: My boyfriend and I, who are both avid readers and writers, watched this movie expecting to find an interesting little sojourn into the literary world we love. Instead, we were treated to over 120 minutes of director Mark Moskowitz's creepy 70's porn-star moustache, and rabid adolescent vanity. The parts of the movie we enjoyed were the parts where he was was neither visible nor audible -- the parts of the movie with which he had nothing to do, really. The people he interviews are genuine and want to be helpful, but only find themselves steamrolled and incessantly interrupted and, consequently, unwitting participants in Mr. Moskowitz's masturbatory ego fest. The point of the movie is lovely and thought-provoking, which is why it gets the one star, but the style of the film, the intolerable personality of the narcissistic director, and the tactlessness with which he treats the REAL subjects of the film (since he mistakenly believes that HE is the star), are repugnant. He's the film industry's answer to a slimy car salesman. You feel cheated and weirdly violated by him, out of empathy for the people he interviews. The movie progresses neatly from annoying to inane as Mr. Moskowitz meanders into pointless or unethical territory just to fill the extra reels of film. Moskowitz's decision to include the segment of the interview with Mossman's kind old professor, in flagrant disregard of the professor's sincere wish that his candid comments not be published was the low-point in this already morally bankrupt film. My revulsion for Mr.Moskowitz's complete lack of talent is only surpassed by my disdain for his shiny bald head, the glare off of which completely degraded the quality of the film. RENT (do not buy) Stones of Summer, if you're interested in hearing some good interviews with writers and critics. But, have your remote close to hand, so you can fast forward through Moskowitz's offensive/boring self-indulgences, which take up about half the film.
Rating:
Summary: Where are the women?
Review: I enjoyed seeing Leslie Fiedler in the film. He was my old teacher from University of Buffalo (RIP, Leslie). I liked the conversations about writing. But where were the women commentators and authors? Reminded me of my recent experience in an MFA program - the world hasn't changed much. Literature is still a man's game, a mostly white man's game.
|
