#heart of stone keya

[greetings-humans]

heart of stone impromptu review

(i originally wrote this a few months ago with the goal of adding more stuff but I haven't had the time so I'm just gonna let it loose in the world and maybe reblog to add any further thoughts)

okay so like. let's get this out of the way first: I'm expecting a spy story. not the greatest mystery of the world or a never-before-seen spy tale or something. just your run-of-the-mill, fun, and nice spy story.

and this is what I got.

idk why everyone is so against this movie. it's got its undercover agent as a lead, some very good supporting cast, pretty fun twists, and yes some expected twists but so does every other movie.

[obviously, spoilers ahead] [there's a (blue colored) tldr in the end]

rachel stone is your stereotypical cool spy with a heart, but news flash- we haven't had a woman as a spy that does anything other than seducing people since- oh um ever? unless I'm missing something here.

and mind you, i mean a female spy, who doesn't just seduce people and who is also the main character. how many of those do we have? and how many in a reasonably big platform like netflix? like honestly? not a lot, I'm betting.

so yes, the basic narrative is mission impossible a bit to the left with a woman in the lead. is that so wrong? wasn't mission impossible at some point considered james bond to the left with an American twist (or sth)? no, I don't think this is bad.

some people have said that parker was a lousy villain. allow me to respectfully disagree here. he's an unexpected villain that makes sense and frankly, I'm rather glad that he wasn't just the love interest or something. parker has a history of being abused by those in power so he seeks his revenge and steals that power to get it. since he found himself lacking power when needed, it makes sense that parker decided to just take that power and act on his emotions and kill the people (and their families and staff) that disfigured him and nearly killed him. he's not logical or well-adjusted or anything. but that is precisely the reason why he's not a lousy villain. there are motives and reasons for what he does.

why did he kill king of diamond's family etc with that elevator? because he was emotional and angry and wanted to kill them and had the power to do so. why was he emotional? idk guys(g/n), did he get therapy for his trauma? was his trauma acknowledged in any way? did he get a fucking apology? no. which is why this is what happened. I'm not saying hooray he's mentally stable, but that doesn't mean badly written.

seriously, though, what part of parker seems badly written? I'm asking honestly here. because he makes sense to me as someone lead by emotions and trauma and a dash of creative license (which is expected of a spy movie).

oh and before someone says "he could have killed rachel from he beginning". guys (g/n). john wick, ethan hunt, james bond. how many times could their villains have killed them before the final confrontation of the movie? this is a spy movie. at some point, there will be creative license and if you can't ignore this glaring oversight then what are you doing watching spy movies? this is an integral part of pretty much all of them.

moving on to keya. this one was a pretty expected twist: keya will see the error of her ways and join stone, hooray! but she wasn't badly written either. she's 22 and her goal is to expose the rich assholes that get away with literal murder. she's not thinking logically and we can also assume that she needs therapy -but seriously tell me one important character from a spy movie who is perfectly relatable down to the murdering and killing. i honestly can't think of any, because I'm not expecting to relate to her on the whole revenge and murder thing. obviously, not.

she's also angry and emotional. and then her moral compass overrides that and now she's horrified and trying to prevent the worse. makes sense to me. she's not a revolutionary character, you guys, but that doesn't mean she's badly written.

the idea of some supercomputer AI being used by rogue agents to do shit for the greater good is a fun concept that is not expected to be realistic. i for one enjoyed a female spy with no love interest, no seducing, some solid support cast and sorta-friendships, who had to save the world/her agency for some reason or another. the idea of "secret spy gets duped and now has to save the world(ish) from the one doing the duping" is the skeleton of so many spy movies. and just like all of those movies, heart of stones added its own twist and comment to that

tldr!!!

this is a spy movie. don't expect it to not be like spy movies. it's gonna have its unrealistic hand-wavey moments and it's gonna have its cool, action moments and its expected moments (because we've seen so many spy movies that we're never honestly surprised these days), and its not-so-expected moments. the cast was really good and the characters are some good spy movie characters. there's been way worse and there's probably been better. but that doesn't make this movie bad.

[adamwatchesmovies]

Heart of Stone (2023)

It isn’t so much that Heart of Stone is bad; it’s that it doesn’t do anything good enough to stand out. This is what I think of when someone says “Netflix Top Ten Original”. When it arrives, it feels like everyone’s watching it. A week later, everyone who saw it has already forgotten about it and moved on to the next action spy-thriller with several notable stars in important roles.

Rachel Stone (Gal Gadot) is part of an MI6 field team. What agents Parker (Jamie Dornan), Yang (Jing Lusi) and Bailey (Paul Ready) don’t know is she’s secretly a member of The Charter, an ultra-secret agency dedicated to peacekeeping that operates outside of any government. The Charter uses The Heart, a sophisticated artificial intelligence, to calculate its agents’ odds of success based on every possible factor in real time. The Heart allows the agents to succeed in the most precarious situations and The Charter to hack into any device. When a mysterious hacker named Keya (Alia Bhatt) makes a move against the Charter, Stone has to blow her cover - unaware this is exactly what her opponent was hoping she would do.

I’ll admit that while watching Heart of Stone, I was entertained in a “it’s moving and I want to see what’s coming next” sort of way. Looking back - particularly after writing that synopsis down - this is the store-brand version of your spy-thriller action film. I can remember a death-defying chase down the Italian Alps and the picture’s final confrontation but these scenes are nothing special; they could be in any movie like this. Stone herself is a protagonist we’ve seen a thousand times. Gal Gadot plays the part fine and she handles the stunts with no problem but her character makes no impact. Similarly, The Charter is dull, dull, dull as a secret organization. I can’t think of any movie that’s done exactly what they’re doing, but I swear I’ve seen it before, probably in another movie I forgot soon after it ended.

Heart of Stone sort of feels like the third entry in a franchise that's limping along. It's as if most of the cast are sick of their roles and asking for their characters to be killed off, revealed as traitors or retired, or are the new replacements introduced to help revitalize a fledgling series. Because Stone is at her most interesting when she has to pretend like she can’t handle fieldwork, the film is most engaging at the beginning, when she’s paired up with Bailey, Yang and Parker. About a third of the movie in, they get dropped. Their absence and the focus on Stone should get us all riled up emotionally but we’re just not invested in the characters enough to really care.

On the upside, there are plenty of twists and turns along the way, the stunt work is good, the action well shot and the special effects convincing. While Stone might not be memorable, you do like her. You also like Gal Gadot in the role enough to never feel bored despite the been-there-done-that story and premise. I want to be nice to this movie but too often, it does the obvious or makes a choice that will have you thinking “Couldn’t you have tried something else?” There’s a point towards the end when a villainous character receives a chance at redemption. The movie really wants us to believe they deserve it. Meanwhile, I’m just thinking “What, you didn’t realize the people you were working with were power-hungry madmen when you were setting up a casino where the high-rollers can bet on who will die first in the footage you’ve hacked from the U.S. military? Give me a break.”

Heart of Stone is Mission: Impossible at home. I mean… it is, LITERALLY since you don’t have to go to the theater to see it and it’s about a group of people, led by an action star doing all sorts of action things to save the day from a shadowing organization. It is also figuratively “Mission: Impossible at home”. (September 3, 2023)

[domquixotedospobresblog]

✨gal gadot is rachel stone✨

✨alia bhatt is keya dhawan✨

✨jamie dornan is parker✨

✨matthias schweighöfer is jack of hearts✨

✨HEART OF STONE is the unmissable action film of the summer. August 11✨

[brian-in-finance]

Instagram

‘Heart of Stone’ Trailer: Gal Gadot, Jamie Dornan and Alia Bhatt Star in Action-Packed Netflix Movie

Gal Gadot is going from superhero to super spy in the action-packed first trailer for the international espionage thriller “Heart of Stone.”

Gadot was joined by co-stars Jamie Dornan and Alia Bhatt at Netflix’s Tudum fan festival in São Paulo, Brazil, where the trio debuted the film’s first trailer. The footage features heart-stopping stunts, like Gadot’s Rachel Stone — an intelligence operative for a shadowy global peacekeeping agency — skydiving from a death-defying height.

Stone’s steely demeanor and adrenaline-junkie habits are explained as her boss (Sophie Okonedo) warns, “You know what you signed up for. No friends, no relationships… What we do is too important. When governments fail, the only thing left is the Charter.”

Stone and Dornan’s Parker are among the organization’s highly-trained agents, who have no political leanings or national allegiances and are described as “working together to keep peace in a turbulent world.”

But when hacker Keya Dhawan (Bhatt, as the Bollywood A-lister stars in her first major Hollywood movie) steals the agency’s most valuable – and dangerous – weapon (a technological core that “gives the Charter its power,” it’s “heart,” if you will), Stone sets off on an epic, globe-trotting adventure to save the day and clear her name.

“Heart or no heart, I’m coming for you,” Gadot snarls into a cell phone as her own warning to Bhatt.

Directed by Tom Harper from a script by Greg Rucka and Allison Schroeder, the intense footage also features major action set pieces including a motorcycle chase through the Alps and cars speeding through the streets of Lisbon. Gadot is also seen flying through the air twice — first, paragliding off a snowy embankment and later, doing some extreme skydiving.

“Chance of success just plummeted,” a Charter agent (played by Matthias Schweighöfer) cautions while Stone performs the dangerous maneuver. “Only because you have no imagination,” she shoots back, as she manages to tumble onto her target.

In addition to bringing her action star skills (refined in “Wonder Woman,” and soon to return to the “Fast and Furious” franchise) to the table, Gadot also produced the film under her Pilot Wave banner with her producing partner and husband Jaron Varsano. Skydance’s David Ellison, Dana Goldberg and Don Granger are also billed as producers, along with Mockingbird’s Bonnie Curtis and Julie Lynn. Patty Whitcher, Harper and Rucka serve as executive producers.

“Heart of Stone” begins streaming on August 11.

Netflix nabbed worldwide rights to the project in 2021, marking another partnership between the streamer and Skydance, after teaming for “The Old Guard” with Charlize Theron, Ryan Reynolds’ “6 Underground” and “The Adam Project,” directed by Shawn Levy. Gadot and Netflix have their own strong ties, with the superstar set to appear in two sequels to “Red Notice,” as the 2021 action comedy is one of the streamer’s most-watched movies of all time.

Variety

Remember… (Gadot’s) Stone and Dornan’s Parker are among the organization’s highly-trained agents, who have no political leanings or national allegiances and are described as “working together to keep peace in a turbulent world.” — Variety

[ultrahpfan5blog]

Heart of Stone - a fairly typical Netflix action film....

Netflix action films, barring the two Extraction films, have generally been very generic. Heart of Stone is about as generic as it can get. Not an incompetently made movie, but just about everything in this film has been done before, and fairly recently. This film really did feel like Mission Impossible meets Citadel. And indeed, there are elements of the story that feel directly ripped off, such as a fictional independent intelligence agency, which was present in Citadel, and an AI technology system, which was present in Dead Reckoning P1. I will give it this, the film looks well produced. I'm sure Netflix spent a lot of money on this film and it feels that way. The locales and the action is all very competent and fun to watch. Problem is that there isn't much else to the film. Its essentially bad guys trying to take power by using this AI technology and good guys trying to stop it. The film at points tries to murky the waters by trying to have characters question who is good and bad, but it never really commits to it and you are still pretty much watching a fairly black and white argument play out.

When it comes to performances, Gal Gadot is not the greatest actress around, but I admit that she has improved over the years, especially with her facial expressions. She still has issues with her dialogue delivery at times, but overall she is quite charming in the role and the film plays to her strength. She somehow manages to toe the line between being superheroic, yet being fallible. Jamie Dornan as the main villain is fine. I mean, it was super obvious to me that he would be the villain, and it isn't as if the movie spends a very long time trying to hide the twist, which I appreciate. His performance is solid, without being particularly memorable. There is just nothing special about the character and his motivation for him to really dig out in terms of performance. Alia Bhatt, in her hollywood debut, is fine as well. She probably is the only character who has somewhat of an arc. I feel like the film should have spent a bit more time on the dynamic between Keya and Stone, because that is kind of the crux of the film. As with a lot of actresses acting for the first time in english, you do get the sense that she at times struggled with it, despite being fluent in the language. Its one thing to speak fluently in English and another to act in English if you haven't really done it before. Outside of these three, there isn't anyone really who has a character to speak of. Glenn Close randomly pops into the film in a nothing role. BD Wong has a similarly small role. Sophie Okonedo as Nomad and Matthias Schweighöfer as a Charter agent are the only other ones who have any substantial screen time, but not really enough to make major impact.

All in all, Netflix movies get graded on a curve by me. Would I watch this in a theater? No. There is nothing in this movie that you haven't seen done better. Is this a watchable movie at home if you already have a Netflix account? Sure! There's nothing blatantly incompetent or bad about it. Its well produced and the action is generally pretty good. There are worse Netflix movies out there and there are probably worse theatrical movies out there too. I would probably grade this a 5/10.

I feel that these mid level action spy movies/tv shows have reached a saturation point. The Gray Man, Citadel, Heart of Stone, The 355, The Protege etc.... they all feel and look very similar. And a lot of these have fairly big name actors and actresses behind it. I don't know how, but these films/tv shows have to figure out a way not to look and feel so generic.

[bolllywoodhungama]

Alia Bhatt says first day of Heart of Stone shoot was awkward: “Acting in English suddenly felt a bit strange”

Heart of Stone arrives on Netflix on August 11.

Alia Bhatt, who is basking in the success of Rocky Aur Rani Kii Prem Kahaani, will make her Hollywood debut in the Netflix movie Heart Of Stone. She will essay the role of antagonist Keya Dhawan in the action film starring Gal Gadot and Jamie Dornan. The actress recently said that while the process of filmmaking was the same, it was kind of awkward on the first day of the shoot as she has to speak her lines in English instead of Hindi.

Alia said in a conversation with Toronto Sun, “I have to say on day one, because I’m so used to speaking in Hindi, suddenly on day one speaking in English was weird. Even though I speak in English most of the time, acting in English suddenly felt a bit strange.”

Alia also stated, “But apart from that day one kind of awkwardness, I really really felt that it was the same. The process of a film set world over is exactly the same.”

In Heart of Stone, Rachel Stone (Gal Gadot) appears to be an inexperienced tech, on an elite MI6 unit headed up by lead agent Parker (Jamie Dornan). What her MI6 team doesn't know is that Stone actually works for the Charter — a covert peacekeeping organisation, secret even from other spies, which uses cutting-edge technology to neutralise global threats. Rachel has been trained to be the consummate professional: a phenomenal field agent who sticks to the mission, follows the numbers, and trusts no one. When a routine mission is derailed by mysterious hacker Keya Dhawan (Alia Bhatt), Rachel’s two lives collide. As she races to protect the Charter and strives to beat the odds, her humanity might just be her biggest asset.

Get Latest Bollywood News only on Bollywood Hungama.

ALSO READ:

Alia Bhatt cracks up her Heart of Stone co-stars Gal Gadot, Jamie Dornan with her shenanigans in new video, watch

[themovieblogonline]

Heart of Stone Review: A Lackluster Espionage Flick with a Muddled Plot

Tom Harper's Heart of Stone aspires to be a gripping espionage thriller set against the breathtaking backdrop of the Italian Alps, but sadly falls short of its ambitions, delivering a convoluted and confusing narrative that leaves audiences more perplexed than entertained. With a star-studded cast including Gal Gadot, Jamie Dornan, Alia Bhatt, Sophie Okonedo, and Jing Lusi, one would expect a compelling story to match the talent on screen. However, the film's plot struggles to find its footing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuDwndGaCFo The film follows MI6 operative Rachel Stone (Gal Gadot), who is tasked with infiltrating a ski lodge casino in the Italian Alps to assist in extracting a potential asset and arms dealer named Mulvaney. The premise itself holds promise, with the scenic location and the world of espionage providing a fertile ground for suspense and intrigue. Unfortunately, the execution falls flat from the outset. The Bad: The narrative's main downfall lies in its lack of coherence and clear direction. The plot meanders through various subplots, leaving viewers struggling to piece together the puzzle. Stone's sudden disappearance after playing a single hand of blackjack, the thwarted plan to fake a heart attack, and the introduction of the enigmatic Charter organization all contribute to a bewildering experience that detracts from any engagement with the story. Moreover, the characters fail to garner much sympathy or investment from the audience. Gadot's Rachel Stone comes off as a one-dimensional spy archetype, with little depth or development throughout the film. Dornan's portrayal of Parker lacks the charisma and menace required of a compelling antagonist, and Alia Bhatt's Keya Dhawan is given little to do beyond being a plot device. Even the talents of Sophie Okonedo and Jing Lusi are squandered in underwritten roles that lack impact. As the film progresses, the plot becomes increasingly convoluted, introducing elements of technology espionage, secret organizations, and MacGuffin-like devices that only add to the confusion. The attempts at surprise twists and turns fall flat due to the lack of investment in the characters and the inability to build genuine suspense. Viewers are left feeling detached from the unfolding events, unable to emotionally connect with the protagonists' plight. The action sequences, often a saving grace in films of this genre, also suffer from poor choreography and lackluster execution. The film's climactic moments, meant to be heart-pounding and thrilling, instead feel contrived and uninspiring. Even the picturesque Italian Alps fail to inject the necessary energy into the scenes, as the cinematography lacks a cohesive visual style that could have elevated the film's overall impact. While the film's attempt to introduce a hidden organization adds an element of intrigue, it ultimately serves as a narrative crutch rather than an engaging plot device. The sudden shifts between MI6 operations, the Charter's involvement, and Parker's ulterior motives create a sense of whiplash rather than a captivating mystery. In terms of performance, the cast struggles to rise above the shortcomings of the script. Gadot's portrayal of Rachel Stone lacks the emotional depth required to make her a relatable and engaging protagonist. Dornan's Parker fails to exude the menace needed for a convincing antagonist, often coming across as more of a caricature than a genuine threat. Bhatt's character, Keya Dhawan, is largely sidelined and given little opportunity to shine, making her contributions to the story feel inconsequential. The Good: Perhaps one of the only truly great things about Heart of Stone is the fact that it certainly feels like there was some effort put into making it, and it seemed as though the cast had a great time making the film which is always a good thing to see. It's just a shame that the movie as a whole felt so bland and lifeless in nearly every possible way. Overall: Heart of Stone falls short of delivering a coherent and gripping espionage thriller. The convoluted plot, underdeveloped characters, and lackluster action sequences result in a film that struggles to engage its audience. Despite its star-studded cast, the film's potential is squandered on a muddled narrative that leaves viewers more frustrated than entertained. Heart of Stone sadly misses the mark and fails to leave a lasting impression. Read the full article

[starsailorstories]

I wanted to make a cool post about this with art but predictably I haven’t had time so here’s some of the more non-obvious meanings of given names in SC!

Aviana: Derived from a portmanteau of the sacred Syfrae glyph/syllable “av”, which is variously translated as “gravity,” “order,” “connection,” or “divine love,” the address “vi”, and the honorific name addition “-ana.” The meaning is usually given as “governess of lovers” and it’s popular for matriarchs and families with histories in the priestesshoods of the “luminous goddesses” of imperial era thought (Orellistia, Luca, Semphora, Philoxia, and to a lesser degree Jenya & Atya).

Aethema/Athaema: Two popular variants on an archaic Taregan name which is probably Uek in origin. Its actual original meaning is unknown at the time of the story, but it’s clearly derived from the minor Altamaian goddess Aetha, and well-remembered as the given name of the first High Queen of Altamai.

Ain: All I know about this so far is that this is a Miragari name. I haven’t started the Sol Vesta system languages yet because not a lot of the main series is set there, bear with me

Atika: Ditto.

Angia: World (An Aphacarian language I haven’t named yet + Altamaian honorific syllable). “Gi”- “Gye-” and “Ge-” as prefixes meaning “world” and “planet” are incredibly common across Andromedan languages, and it’s theorized there is some link between this sound and the directional faculties of the earliest proto-astraea minds, back before planetary civilization existed.

Aura: Sunrise (unsurprisingly) (original language in-universe: Aundell).

Axa: Estival solstice (origin language in-universe: High Delian). In some Crater clans, there is a tradition of naming matriarchs after the season they were born in, related to a belief that the time of birth sets the tone for the era of her leadership.

Ayala: “High point” or “peak” although on the Doylist level yes it was in my head because of Zapata’s thing (origin language in-universe: Atennuan)

Baio: Literally just means “child (of),” a super common nickname similar to “junior”

Bash: Shortening of “Calbash,” “forest” (Solrega/Kilne--the original settlers of Shali were Glasmirian)

Celoura: A poetic compound term from Syfrae usually translated as ‘the blue of heaven,’ sky blue. (Altamaian royalists, with a sword to your throat: Do you love the color of the sky?)

Cenoa: Gate or door (Syfrae)

Centora: “Hundredth” (Solrega translation of the Sitherian name Sentoa, which is not related to Cenoa though it sounds like it should be)

Deracoura: swapping all body part metaphors 1:1, an equivalent english translation would be something like “seeking-heart” (origin language in-universe: Syfrae; originally a word-by-word translation of the compound Uek name Terfole [TARE-fol-ay]).

Dirina: Pilot or ‘helmsmaiden.’ 

Enrosadira: this is actually an obscure English word I repurposed--it means the pink light right before sunrise. I haven’t decided exactly the in-universe etymology or meaning but I’m TERRIBLY excited about the fact that if you split the syllables up and make it a Latin sentence--En! Rosa dira--it means (a bit brokenly) something like “Behold! Ghastly rose” which is a VIBE

Grandina: she told you this but, hailstone (Old Kilne)

Ilboa: Low raincloud (High Delian)

Im: A small spring wildflower traditionally burned as a type of incense. (Kengfara)

Keya: elder daughter (High Delian)

Kinelebesh: inheritor of the harvest; a name given to a child born in a good agricultural year or after a windfall (Ashtivan)

Lionna: pole star (origin language in-universe: Avesian)

Liorasha: literally “young one from the place of the forgotten,” could be rendered poetically as “old soul” or “reincarnated one.” (Ashtivan)

Litha: asteroid (origin language in-universe: Aundell)

Mag: shortening of Magdale (stone, Avesian)

Oebitha: of the orbits; an epithet of Colamara (Aundell)

Otemia: literally the Avesian version of Oebitha

Seflia: ‘sound’ or ‘sturdy’, used of things that are valuable for the quality of their make (Aundell)

Shaylorelle: from the west; literally “from the source of the storm” (Ashtivan)

Sureshina: esteemed speaker or, in more detail, esteemed repeater of incantations (Ashtivan)

Syor: Pure spring (like a spring of water, not the season) (Kengfara)

Taia: seedpod (origin language in-universe: Loar)

Uluna: literally “little moon”, in its original usage the view of a planet’s moon from another planet or from outside her orbit. All the holders of Lionna’s title have given names that come from archaic navigational terminology, a tradition meant to honor their ancestors (who were anvelani--oath-sworn pilots--to the house of the Hyperians back when the rings were first being established) and the symbolic matronage of Colamara, goddess of trade routes and navigational instruments among other things, over their shipping and transport business.

Vesta: Abider (Avesian)

Also, they’re translated in-text because they’re literally modern Standard Altamaian words, but the names Fidelity, Dignity and Chivalry are literally just Fidelita, Digniti, and Magnanimi.