Review: Hands of Stone

Score: C

Director: Jonathan Jakubowicz

Cast: Edgar Ramirez, Robert De Niro, Usher Raymond, Ana de Armas

Running Time: 105 Minutes

Rated: R

Roberto Durán was the pride of Panama and a champion in four different weight classes. Edgar Ramirez is one of the brightest international stars, capable of being alternately menacing, suave and tender. On paper, this should be a perfect match. Unfortunately, Hands of Stone does nothing to distinguish itself from dozens of other boxing movies.

Part of the problem is the film lacks focus. It's ostensibly about Durán and his rags-to-riches story, but the film also wants to tell the story of trainer Ray Arcel (played well by Robert De Niro). While Arcel trained hundreds of fighters, including several world champions, this isn't supposed to be his story. His troubles with the mob and his drug-addicted daughter are completely irrelevant to Durán's life. His life may be worth examining, but there's already a bigger story unfolding.

Writer-director Jonathan Jakubowicz also wants to give us a history lesson on the strife of Panama. That, too, is worthy of a film, but a film on its own. This is supposed to inform us of Durán's worldview, particularly his distrust of Americans – who occupied parts of the country until 1999 – but it feels like another distraction.

Individually, there are some great scenes, particularly his interactions with Sugar Ray Leonard (Usher, never better). But overall Hands of Stone fails to make us understand why Durán was such a legendary fighter and larger-than-life figure. It's all stuff we've seen before: the training montage, the rapid rise to fame, the fights with his wife, the distrust of his lifelong friends, the inevitable decline and comeback.

If Hands of Stone had focused, or at least shown some originality or dynamic style, it would have stood out from the pack, just like Roberto Durán. Instead, it just lays there on the mat.

 

Facebooktwitterredditmail

About Kip Mooney

Kip Mooney
Like many film critics born during and after the 1980s, my hero is Roger Ebert. The man was already the best critic in the nation when he won the Pulitzer in 1975, but his indomitable spirit during and after his recent battle with cancer keeps me coming back to read not only his reviews but his insightful commentary on the everyday. But enough about a guy you know a lot about. I knew I was going to be a film critic—some would say a snob—in middle school, when I had to voraciously defend my position that The Royal Tenenbaums was only a million times better than Adam Sandler’s remake of Mr. Deeds. From then on, I would seek out Wes Anderson’s films and avoid Sandler’s like the plague. Still, I like to think of myself as a populist, and I’ll be just as likely to see the next superhero movie as the next Sundance sensation. The thing I most deplore in a movie is laziness. I’d much rather see movies with big ambitions try and fail than movies with no ambitions succeed at simply existing. I’m also a big advocate of fun-bad movies like The Room and most of Nicolas Cage’s work. In the past, I’ve written for The Dallas Morning News and the North Texas Daily, which I edited for a semester. I also contributed to Dallas-based Pegasus News, which in the circle of life, is now part of The Dallas Morning News, where I got my big break in 2007. Eventually, I’d love to write and talk about film full-time, but until that’s a viable career option, I work as an auditor for Wells Fargo. I hope to one day meet my hero, go to the Toronto International Film Festival, and compete on Jeopardy. Until then, I’m excited to share my love of film with you.

Leave a Reply