J. Davis You know for a while into the film I was re-examining my own behavior towards "easy targets" when locked up, as it is a habit to "bid" off of other people's misery in whatever way possible for amusement when stuck in such a dire environment. Whether you're the perpetrator or just having fun watching the "kid's play" for lack of a better term, it's a part of ANY prison system and in some cases I'd like to think I'm responsible for at least one person never going back, BUT obviously what happened in this prison just does not happen in 99.99% of cases. In a larger group dynamic this situation wouldn't even be possible, you could get beaten up, raped & shanked but not this type of situation, you need to have the perfect storm of personality traits for this. The people in this cell were just the right/wrong mix with the wrong string of events. Some people have mentioned being shocked that this was a juvenile facility when in truth this bizarre event could likely only have transpired in an environment housing young offenders. Furlong plays the all around amoral scumbag(himself in a nutshell)who is mixed with the violent skinhead(Mennekes). Combine them with the kid Peter(Levinson) who was really just happy having someone below him on the totem pole to keep the bidding off of him, innocently aggravates the already poor situation for Mitch the cell bitch(Sipos). When the skinhead Jack ratchets things up to an insane level, the scumbag Harry, unaffected at the level that the skinhead has went to, gives Mitch the broomstick treatment, why? For the hell of it, in his mind, why not was likely the only reason for his motivation. Suddenly, the stakes are raised well above Peter's comfort area, so he, out of an act of pure self preservation tries his damnedest to work with what little handle he had on the situation(which was slightly less than zero). Out of desperation he throws out the hanging theory, in his mind it was either appease his cellies or it would be him on the other end of the broomstick or worse, he's just witnessed what they were capable of. If that was as accurate of a portrayal as I've heard then I actually have some sympathy for him, it appears he was put in a situation far beyond his control. In the end I think they were all sentenced very properly. So many times when someone is killed and there are multiple defendants they charge everyone as equals & even often try them as one. In this case it could have easily went that way, but instead they did happen to show some leniency on Peter for his case.I know I failed to mention the writer/director. Being based on a factual account, I felt the manner in which it was filmed worked very well, going without scripts for much of it. It's not a very satisfying watch, there is very little entertainment value to be had in a telling of this tale regardless of who directs it. I usually don't review old films but after hitting Boll's latest Assault on Wall Street(2013) and getting pleasantly surprised I cracked open the Boll vault & had me a second look. I had COMPLETELY written him off after seeing a few really unsavory early films of his and I'm glad I took a look after seeing Rampage, Seed, Postal, Darfur and now Stoic. When adding his latest flick Assault on Wall Street it actually makes for a decent looking six pack. Who knew? A month ago I would have called him an irredeemable hack. I know, I know, put a batting helmet on a blind person and you're bound to make contact with the ball a few times.

maaronhutchins Lets start with the good, the acting was good, and it does give a tiny glimpse into group dynamic's and how that can relate to individual's losing their grip on their own ethic's. Now let's look at the bad, it doesn't do much else, this movie is little more than a soft core snuff film, I wish I could go back in time and do something more entertaining than watch this movie, like for example watch paint dry. I know that is a bit extreme but, as you watch the situation unfold, you come to notice some little problems, like where are the guard's, no prison or jail lock's multiple inmates together in a confined area (and I'm talking about confined in prison terms) for twenty three hours a day and doesn't check on them. The only reason I give it a 2 instead of a 1 is that the actor's did a lot with the less than great script, and horribly thought out premise, I hope that you find this helpful.

haterofcrap Just like Stanley Kubrick is very, very overrated, Uwe Boll is way underrated. Some people even dare to compare him with Ed Wood, when he was way more talented than hacks as Kubrick. I hate video-games, I never played video-games, but I always found the movies of Uwe Boll beautiful and inspired, so I guess that his movies are way better than the games in which they are inspired."Alone in the Dark" was a very suspenseful and stylish film. Also, it was scary, not like trash as "Cannibal Holocaust" or "The Shining"."BloodRayne" was dark, stylish and sexy."In the Name of the king" was simply epic: Even when I have to admit that "The Lord of the Rings" films were good, I have to say that I liked this film more."Postal" was hilarious and satirical: The satire and the humor were way more accurate than "Doctor Strangelove". Also it was funnier."Stoic" was shocking and heartbreaking, much more than "A Clockwork Orange"."1968 Tunnel Rats" was a better war film than "Full Metal Jacket".As you see, Uwe Boll is way more talented than Kubrick. I just can't understand why there is so much hate against his films, he is one of the most talented filmmakers of our time.

dschmeding I won't go into discussing previous Boll Movies because it won't help talking about Stoic for its completely different at least from the trash I've seen by Boll. Stoic is a pretty straight movie about 4 guys in a prison cell and the dark automatics that group dynamics can take. The movie is pretty slow which makes sense because it follows all the little steps that lead to a giant disaster. It focuses on the 3 guys torturing their cell mates beginning with macho humiliation games that turn into a murder masked as a suicide. The visuals are gritty and the atmosphere is dark and kind of nihilistic, yet this movie is based on a true recent case in which the convicts were just around 20 years old. Stoic is no masterpiece, sure but its a movie that serves its purpose... the acting is believable, the inter-cut interview sequences with the depicted real events work, the atmosphere is cold and realistic in that the motivation by fear is pretty obvious for all involved. There are now winners here but luckily the picture painted is not black and white but a dark gray. I hate when cases like this one are put aside with the bare argument that the killers were "animals" or something like that because it almost never is simple like that. I like movies like Stoic for forcing the viewer to look at a side of humanity that is dormant in all of us until we are dropped into situations like the one depicted here and who knows if you or me wouldn't do things we can't think of now when fear messes up our rationality.I think the possibilities of group dynamics were depicted in a raw and realistic way... kind of reminded me of the bleak outcome in "Eden Lake". And in that it made me think after the credits rolled it sure was a good movie. I can understand if some people consider it too slow or too exploitative, yet I wouldn't say that myself. But a rating of 3 points with most reviews positive seems to finally prove that a lot of people really just hate Boll whatever he does. Up to now I saw no reason to argue for Boll but with this film I do since it is definitely far better than Bolls previous outputs.