I never thought misguided incompetence could ever bee seen as a good thing, common sense would clearly suggest otherwise but that's what U.S. writer/director, Charles Martin Smith seemed determined to set out to do with his myopic, Stone of Destiny which depicts when in the post World War II Scotland of 1950, four students from the University of Glasgow plotted to "steal" the stone and bring it back to Scotland where it rightfully belonged. A misplaced gesture in attempting to revitalize a sense of pride and patriotism in a country who's spirit's had supposedly been dampened after several centuries of British rule.
The film is foremost seen through the eyes of Ian Hamilton, (Cox) a young idealist with an unremitting faith in Scottish nationalism who regularly attends meetings of the Scottish Covenant Association where it's founder, John MacCormick (Carlyle) espouses his rhetoric on establishing a devolved Scottish Assembly. Inspired by a man who who he evidently hero worships, Hamilton comes to the conclusion that if the nation's people are to be motivated in taking action then what is needed is a means to shake them from their complacency with an act of symbolic flag waving. It's of course obvious what it is, and recruiting his three partners in crime so to speak who comprise of the equally idealistic, Kay Matheson, (Mara) hard drinking but good natured muscle, Gavin Vernon and the meek, introverted yet resolute Alan Stuart.
Fundamentally where, Stone of Destiny fails is in Charles Martin Smith's unwavering means of prioritizing shallow sentimentality over any ounce of allowing for any social or political insight. Fleetingly witnessing John MacCormick passionately addressing his covenant members, in an aforementioned early scene offers a glimmer of it. However it comes across more as a necessary means to establish something of what the man's about, and Hamilton's idealism therefore it's neglectfully cast aside proceeding this.
Smith doesn't so much just embrace the shallow romanticism as wallow in it, and its left to his actors to navigate through without sinking under it's weight.
Pragmatism is pretty much in short supply here even to some degree with MacCormick. Initially he is portrayed as having some vestige of practical common sense when the ingenuous Hamilton comes to him for financial support, only to be shot down when the political figurehead is left disappointed by the lads lack of practical foresight. However you can always rely on the hackneyed banality of a close confidante to impart a bit of inane sophistry, and pragmatism goes right out the window as a means to push the story foward.
From there it doesn't get much better as the combined ineptitude of a the four main protagonists seemingly knows no bounds. There are faint gleams of some intelligence, arguably more so from the deceptively smarter than he appears Vernon who's partial motives behind the heist is to prove he's not as stupid as people think he is. Not much help will he find pulling off this blundering attempt at robbery. Perhaps it would be better to just attempt to converse with people, and talk about relevant topics of things that matter than forever drinking yourself half-silly and behaving like a over-grown infant. But this is just one of one too many tropes which I may have let slide if they'd simply been better handled.
To the actors credit their performances are one of the rare beacons of light in this scant scripted fluff. For all of their collective ineptitude I couldn't bring myself to dislike them thanks to them bringing some measure of believability to their characters. And it's not giving away much to mention the tacked on romanctic sub-plot involving Cox and Mara, which manages to kind of work in spite of itself thanks to their shared chemistry.
However as the movie reaches it's climax we're denied for better or worse the experience of witnessing an inevitable trial, which might have made for some potential drama of some weight and substance as the four students were made to face justifying the ethics behind what they had pulled off, which given their idiocy was some small miracle. But then in the grand scheme of things we're talking about a rock being stolen here, one of historical relevance indeed but paralleling it with say, the horrific crimes committed by the IRA (who's final goal is similar in intent) it would seem absurd to perhaps take the matter quite so seriously. That's not defend what these well meaning fools did, but this is why the movie fails with it's ridiculous earnestness. It's relatively inconsequential, and one has to ponder on whether the necessity of creating a film that shone light on what occurred. If that's not bad enough act of inconsistent of behavior in relation to one of the supporting players bogs the movie down further.
Hardly awful but not exactly good either, I will give Stone of Destiny one last all be it reluctant bit of praise in so much as it is competently directed as I have come to expect from Smith. As a writer though I'm not so sure although this may be the exception, and one wonders if he was as educated on the historical events or the politics surrounding them. I'd assume not, and with that thought it would seem he was irretrievably doomed to overall failure from the word go.
