Skip to main content

Digital Trends may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site. Why trust us?

Heart of Stone review: mission possible

Gal Gadot stands against a mirror in Heart of Stone.
Heart of Stone
“Heart of Stone is Netflix's attempt at Mission: Impossible, but fails to reach the same heights.”
  • Fast-paced action sequences
  • Embraces Gadot as a skilled action star
  • Too many similarities to Mission: Impossible
  • Most of the characters are forgettable
  • Gadot still comes across as bland

Paramount has Ethan Hunt, Amazon (formerly MGM) has James Bond, and Universal has Jason Bourne. Gal Gadot wants Rachel Stone to be her version of these iconic characters and become Netflix’s solution to a female-driven action franchise with Heart of Stone. Gadot plays Rachel Stone, a clumsy, inexperienced tech wizard working for an elite MI6 team. Their leader is Parker (Jamie Dornan), a confident agent who takes a keen interest in Stone as the two slowly develop feelings for one another.

Unbeknownst to the team, Stone is a double agent for the Charter, a secret international spy agency. When her team isn’t around, Stone is a first-class agent with excellent combat skills, sheer intelligence, and superior athleticism. Stone reports to her tough-minded boss at the Charter, Nomad (Sophie Okonedo), and works alongside an elite and witty technician, Jack of Hearts (the always-funny Matthias Schweighöfer).

Every spy has an enemy, and Stone’s foe is Keya Dhawan (Alia Bhatt in her first American film release), a gifted hacker intent on avenging the death of her parents. Keya wants to shift the global power dynamics by acquiring “The Heart,” an all-powerful AI capable of tracking any person or organization’s presence and using that information to predict future behavior and decisions. Keya’s presence threatens Stone’s cover, forcing the elite agent to choose between saving her team or following the Charter’s orders and protecting The Heart.

Directed by Tom Harper (The Aeronauts), Heart of Stone makes a concerted effort to play against tropes and champion a female action hero like Gadot with a more humanistic, grounded approach. The film opens with a fun sequence in the Alps, full of witty banter and solid action. However, Heart of Stone emphasizes action over plot and character development, so much so that The Heart gets more mentions than most of the supporting cast. That’s unfortunate because Bhatt and Schweighöfer steal every scene they’re in.

The Mission: Impossible comparisons are tough to look past

A woman stands in the desert in Heart of Stone.

It’s difficult to watch Heart of Stone and not think of the Mission: Impossible franchise. Heart of Stone and the last four Mission: Impossible films are produced by Skydance, so there were bound to be similarities. The recent Mission: Impossible entries have benefited from their strong commitment to stunt work and shooting on location. From the Burj Khalifa climb in Ghost Protocol to the motorcycle jump in Dead Reckoning Part I, the Mission: Impossible franchise is the gold standard in stunt work.

No film can ever outdo Mission: Impossible since there is only one Tom Cruise (for now; AI may make an army out of him). Yet, Heart of Stone gives an admirable effort to live up to its fellow Skydance teammate. The Lisbon car chase is the best sequence in the film, followed by the elaborate skydiving jump during the Locker sequence. Though she could not jump out of a plane, Gadot completed the hand-to-hand combat sequences, which are well choreographed.

Unfortunately, what starts as an inspiration turns to imitation as Heart of Stone shamelessly emulates stunts and storylines from the Mission: Impossible franchise. The Locker sequence is an inferior version of the halo jump in Fallout while the Lisbon chase is not as effective as the Rome chase in Dead Reckoning Part IAI as a threat against humanity, a protagonist who chooses to protect people over duty, and spies who work outside the government are all Mission: Impossible staples. Even the biggest narrative swerve in Heart of Stone is the same plot twist from 1996’s Mission: Impossible. To its detriment, Heart of Stone tries too hard to be Mission: Impossible instead of being its own unique action movie.

The curious case of Gal Gadot

Heart of Stone | Gal Gadot | Official Trailer | Netflix

Unlike Red Notice, which used too much CGI for its own good, Heart of Stone lets Gadot try to be an action heroine, allowing the former dancer to showcase her physicality in each combat scene and chase sequence. Ever since the success of Wonder Woman, Gadot has been a star, headlining various projects notable and infamous (who can forget that cringy Imagine viral video from the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic?).

But is Gadot an actual movie star? Does she have any memorable or standout performances that fans can point to outside of Diana Prince/Wonder Woman? Unlike Gadot’s contemporaries, such as Margot Robbie and Emma Stone, who have multiple recognizable roles, Gadot tends to play forgettable characters.

Does anyone remember who she played in Red Notice, the most popular Netflix film (English)? I’d bet a significant amount of money the majority of those who watched Red Notice cannot remember the name of Gadot’s character.* What about Death on the NileKeeping up with the JonesesTriple 9? All forgettable performances. Her most notable role outside of Wonder Woman is Gisele Yashar in The Fast Saga, a franchise she hadn’t appeared in since 2013 before making a cameo in Fast XGadot can be a good action star, and proved it with her performance in Wonder Woman. Nevertheless, she’s struggled to capture that same magic in other roles, and Heart of Stone doesn’t help her out. It’s as generic as they come and only showcases Gadot’s bland and forgettable screen presence.

Will Heart of Stone be a hit for Netflix?

A group of professionals sit around a table.
Robert Viglasky / Netflix © 2023

Through no fault of their own because of the SAG-AFTRA and writer’s strikes, Heart of Stone would have benefited from promotion from the stars in real-time, not pre-taped interviews. However, the film will most likely debut at the top of the charts once it arrives on Netflix. Will Heart of Stone have staying power like Extraction, the streamer’s most successful action franchise? Maybe, because like Extraction, Heart of Stone is a formulaic action thriller with only a few exciting sequences.

It doesn’t reinvent the genre, and that’s OK if you don’t mind wasting your time when you can watch Dead Reckoning Part 1 again. But if Netflix wants Heart of Stone to be a franchise, it will need to bring more originality to the inevitable sequel, Heart of Stone 2: Die Hearter.

Heart of Stone is now streaming on Netflix.

*By the way, Gadot’s character in Red Notice is named Sarah Black, also known as “The Bishop.” Keep your money.

Editors' Recommendations

Dan Girolamo
Dan is a passionate and multitalented content creator with experience in pop culture, entertainment, and sports. Throughout…
Operation Seawolf review: nice Nazis? No thanks!
Dolph Lundgren holds onto a pipe inside a U-Boat in a scene from Operation Seawolf.

At a time when anti-Semitic extremists are storming the U.S Capitol, running for office, and declaring war on Jewish people via social media, it might not be the best time for a movie that expects you to sympathize with Nazis. And yet, that hasn't stopped Operation Seawolf from sailing into theaters and on-demand streaming services this month.

The film, which follows the crew of a German U-boat during the waning days of World War II, casts Dolph Lundgren (Rocky IV) as German war hero Capt. Hans Kessler, who's ordered to lead the Nazis' remaining U-boats on a desperate (and likely fatal) mission to attack the U.S. on its own soil. As he and his crew make their way toward New York City in one final bid to turn the tide of war, Kessler finds himself struggling with both the internal politics of the ship and his own sense of duty as the Third Reich crumbles around him.

Read more
Conversations with A Killer: The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes review: killer’s words yield little insight
A superimposed image of Jeffrey Dahmer in Conversations with a Killer.

It’s spooky season this month, and that means the atrocity mine is currently being plundered by content creators across America. The three-episode docuseries Conversations with a Killer: The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes, directed by noted documentarian Joe Berlinger (Brother's Keeper, Paradise Lost), is Netflix’s second project tackling the infamous cannibal/necrophiliac/serial killer to debut in a matter of weeks. It follows Ryan Murphy’s 10-hour miniseries drama, Dahmer-Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. This Dahmer double dose mirrors the barrage of Ted Bundy content that Netflix put out in early 2019, following up the Zac Efron-led drama Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile with the docuseries Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes (also directed by Berlinger). 

As was the case with Bundy, Netflix is convinced that a multipronged examination of Dahmer could lead to a better understanding of his psychology and motivations, teaching viewers warning signs or expanding our capacity for empathy. Or maybe they recognize that people are addicted to unspeakable tragedies and will do anything they can to maximize viewers’ compulsion for true crime? Attempting to satisfy on all accounts, The Dahmer Tapes oscillates uneasily between character study, social commentary, and pure shock value, landing somewhere in between all three.
In Dahmer's own words

Read more
Amsterdam review: An exhausting, overlong conspiracy thriller
Christian Bale, Margot Robbie, and John David Washington walk through a lobby together in Amsterdam.

Amsterdam could have been forgiven for being a lot of things, but dull is not one of them. The new film from writer-director David O. Russell boasts one of the most impressive ensemble casts of the year and is photographed by Emmanuel Lubezki, one of Hollywood’s premier cinematographers. Beyond that, its kooky premise and even wackier cast of characters open the door for Amsterdam to be the kind of screwball murder mystery that O. Russell, at the very least, seems uniquely well-equipped to make.

Instead, Amsterdam is a disaster of the highest order. It’s a film made up of so many disparate, incongruent parts that it becomes clear very early on in its 134-minute runtime that no one involved — O. Russell most of all — really knew what it is they were making. It is a misfire of epic proportions, a comedic conspiracy thriller that is written like a haphazard screwball comedy but paced like a meandering detective drama. Every element seems to be at odds with another, resulting in a film that is rarely funny but consistently irritating.

Read more