*** Official MYSTIC RIVER Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Paul_D]

I had many of the same problems as Edwin, but the things that really stood out for me were:

1) Sean Penn and Tim Robbins save the film. Their performances are magnificent, while all else felt very contrived, and not espeicially interesting.

2) Kevin Bacon's silent phone calls really bothered me. Just plain stupid aspect of the plot.

3) The final parade scene didn't resolve the plot. The film just stopped. Very very unsatisfying, Bacon's stance on the situation is confusing, and this tainted the rest of the film for me.

4) Distracting crane shots.

5) The behaviour of the two kids wasn't adequately explained. The circumstances surrounding the murder also are very glossed over in Bacon's final explanation mainly because they're very implausible IMO.

A decent film, but very disappointing based on all the praise its been getting.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It didn't confuse me because Bacon indicated to me and to Penn's character that by firing his hand like a pistol towards Penn, he is coming after Penn for Robbins murder, but he still needs to have more evidence besides him knowing what went down to make the murder charge stand.





Crawdaddy

 

[Paul_D]

It made perfect sense 'literally', just for me, it didn't feel like the emotinal arc the film appeared to be following was complete. The journey the characters had set out on hadn't ended, although the killer had been identified. It just didn't feel well thoght out. I can understand that others wouldn't feel this way though.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Well, it seems like you also have a problem with the book that this film was based on if you're going to slam the film about the abduction.

Robert, if many of the film’s story concepts were taken from the book, then yes, the source material is a big problem.

The film is grounded on reality yet there are too many isolated instances that defies reason and becomes suspect as being staged only for dramatic effect such as (1) the biggest troubling event in Dave’s life that he never shares with his wife. (2) Celeste telling Jimmy first about his doubts about Dave before going to the cops first to protect him. Her actions might be understandable if she already knew about Dave’s past but she didn’t. (3) Celeste telling Dave with conviction that she thinks Dave is his daughter’s killer. Since this is her spouse we are talking about, you’d think she’d give him some type of a doubt rather than a damning “Yes, he killed her” without solid evidence. All those years of marriage and knowing your spouse just suddenly went out the window. And (4) the biggest light bulb in a film so far this year, the dreaded “I thought you checked the 911 tape. No, I thought you did”. Isn’t the 911 tapes one of the first piece of crime information that is heavily scrutinized? And these are FBI agents in a major metropolitan city?

There are too many characters here making irrational decisions.

~Edwin

 

[Arman]

Saw it last night and didn't find it to be anything special. Decent moments were outshined by goofy ones (Penn screaming "NO!" as the camera pulled back from overhead, Robbins' bedtime story to his son, Linney's speech to Penn near the end, Bacon suddenly talking to his wife). At least the mute kid didn't talk. There were interesting explorations of the early end of childhood and the social persecution of victims, but nothing that I hadn't seen before in numerous "Law & Order" episodes. Overall, it was a completely forgettable film.

I agree 100% with Damin. Ditto with Paul and Edwin's views/problems in this overrated film and oh yeah, Stephen_Dar said it perfectly too

"Well, I'm not surprised to see so many negative reviews of the film here. I agree with those negative reviews, actually, almost to a tee (my group was snoozing through this thing, plot was TV-quality police drama, depended a lot on really lame coincidences and unrealistic behavior), and like someone said above, I find myself disturbed by the reviews I've read so far. Disturbed because the reviews were so freakishly positive. I had no interest in the film until I read those reviews, so I was hoodwinked. What is the cultural phenomenon that is behind this strange disconnect that many of us are perceiving here, I wonder?

Could it be that films have been so terrible for so long in Hollywood that people are desperate to throw a bone to anything that isn't all MTV quick cutting and mindless effects?"

 

[JonZ]

I though it was pretty good, but after all Id read about it I was hoping for something really upsetting,heartbreaking and crushing.

:star: :star: :star: out of 4,especially for the the acting was definitely great all around though.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

The more I think about this movie, the more pissed I get that it wasn't better. IMO, the potential was there for a truly GREAT movie, but it just didn't pan out because of a myriad of issues, most of which have already been mentioned here.

 

[JustinCleveland]

I'm with Vickie, I didn't figure out whodunit until about 3/4 of the movie, so I was wrapped up in what I felt was an excellent thriller and crime drama. But the movie should have ended with the Sean and Jimmy walking away from each other, and Sean breaking down and talking to his wife, realizing that life's too short. The scene with Linney and Penn in the bedroom was SUCH a character revolution for Linney that it made me feel uncomfortable, and confused as to what was happening. I thought the end of the move could have easily been enthymematically implied, since we knew that Sean knew, and would likely go after Jimmy, that Dave's wife would be lost without him (since she was so weak through the whole film) and that things would never be truly the same, yet would not be revolutionarially different.

If I had been editing the film, I would have used the reverse shot of Jimmy and Sean walking away, started the phone call, and cross-faded to the shot of the river. The ending of the film just didn't work for me, and it downgraded an excellent film to a good movie.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Similar to Justin and Vickie, I found the final culprit pretty close to when the movie revealed it to me. The acting was uniformly excellent.

I also agree with Justin as to a better conclusion for the film. Laura's character reaction at the end came out of nowhere, and while surely the reason for Laura taking the role in the first place, has to be one of the most out of the blue dialog sessions I can ever recall seeing. And Jimmy's and Sean's gestures and behavior during the parade are beyond confusing and only served to end the film on a sour note.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Again, why are people thinking that Jimmy's and Sean's gestures are confusing? The reaction of both characters made it obvious to me that the chase between the detective and the murderer has just begun.

Also, I think Linney's character probably wasn't flushed out enough from the source material because the film failed to reveal the toughness and viciousness that she possessed since she is a product of a crime family, the Savages.




Crawdaddy

 

[JustinCleveland]

Also, I think Linney's character probably wasn't flushed out enough from the source material because the film failed to reveal the toughness and viciousness that she possessed since she is a product of a crime family, the Savages.

While that makes sense, and is probably the case, it's unacceptable in terms of the film presented. It wasn't set up, so the shock of it didn't work... Jimmy was the tough guy through the movie, and Linney was detached, but never actively hostile, not like she was at the end.

As for Jimmy and Sean's exchange, it made sense to me, though I didn't feel it was needed.

 

[Craig S]

Saw this yesterday. I thought it was a well-made combination of police procedural & psychological drama, elevated by some great performances. But a masterpiece - nope. No way. It may make my Top Twenty of the year, but it certainly doesn't feel like an Oscar BP or Director contender to me. I wouldn't have a problem with Penn or Robbins winning, however.

Also, I think Linney's character probably wasn't flushed out enough from the source material because the film failed to reveal the toughness and viciousness that she possessed since she is a product of a crime family, the Savages.

Yeah, that is a problem, since I never caught that she was the Savages' sister (I guess that's what you're saying). Her final scene with her husband makes a hell of a lot more sense knowing that.

 

[Mando-R]

This film gets 2 out of 5 from me.

Right off the bat, I didn't sense enough of an emotional bond between Jimmy and his daughter. Eastwood also made it blatantly obvious that Dave DIDN'T commit the murder. Where's the MO? Where would Dave have gotten the gun? Isn't it reasonable to believe that him killing his friends daughter is a really stupid reason to get them back together? It's entirely out of wack, and Kevin Bacon didn't perform to his usual standard at all.

The film just didn't "feel" right.

It bothers me a lot that Jimmy didn't even feel guilt for what he did at the end of the movie. There was very little character developement, and I oft found myself struggling to stay awake. Let's not forget the poor music. That "motivational baseball movie" theme got old very quickly and turned what would've been an emotional scene, into a stomach turning mood that made me want to take five and go pee.

There was also no detail into how Jimmy and his brothers were so good at "getting info" from the neighborhood. What is it exactly that they do, that they have such a strong arm? Are they just tough guys? Do they just go around killing people? I don't know if you all understand my drift, but I just didn't understand how his brothers had a strong arm.

Too much speculation is to be brought up without having any backing from the film itself.

1) Kevin Bacon's character didn't seem like he cared enough.
2) "Morpheus" was too out of place and too full of crap to be considered an FBI Investigator
3) Jimmy just didn't seem that tough, but more or less depressed and beat down. He was more like a "washed up quarterback" then he was the "ex con with muscle"
4) They didn't go into enough detail with the abduction event for it to matter. So he escaped, and never talked to his friends again? How did the abduction affect his parents? His childhood? Anything at all? It's just, the abduction and then he's an adult with a "Forrest Gump" attitude.
5) The end scene with Jimmy and Dave. Dave didn't seem like he was scared for his life at all, and if he wasn't, then why did he say he killed Katie? He could've plead more for his life, and Eastwood could've given Jimmy more lines to explain why he jumped the gun and stabbed his friend.
6) It's a mockery of religion when someone acts like they're religious and made promises to God and yet kills their own childhood friend. "God is shaking his head not because he is mad, but more like when a dog craps the carpet" No Sean Penn, God is just going to send you to Hell for not feeling remorse and letting your friend live.

The movie had no suspense, humor or action to it to make it a good movie. If it was meant to be a drama, then they made a wrong turn by having Kevin Bacon as the main character and giving Sean Penn a tough guy character.

Tim Robbin's performance was good, but with the lack of better co-stars, it just wasn't a good movie at all.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I think Linney's character probably wasn't flushed out enough from the source material because the film failed to reveal the toughness and viciousness that she possessed

I'd say the way she looks at Marcia Gay Harden -- her cousin, after all -- during the parade scene says all you need to know. That and her delivery of the critical line (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "What kind of wife behaves that way?"

M.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Michael,
Judging by some of the comments here, up to that point, her toughness wasn't apparent to some viewers until she was talking to Penn in the bedroom.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Judging by some of the comments here, up to that point, her toughness wasn't apparent to some viewers until she was talking to Penn in the bedroom.

Like I said, there are too many individuals here behaving irrationally and contrary to their initial character setup. Maybe Eastwood left a lot out of the book that should have been included in the screenplay.

~Edwin

 

[Alex Spindler]

As I recall, they visit the FBI to obtain records on "Just Ray". The badges they were wearing say "FBI Visitor" on them. I noticed that immediately because I was sure they were local police.

They were certainly not FBI.

 

[Nick C.]

This is another detail in the film that didn’t make sense. Bacon and Fishburne were clearly FBI agents. There is one scene where they are wearing their badges and the letters “FBI” were prominently spelled out and displayed.

AFAIK the only point where "FBI" was displayed was when the 2 visited the FBI about Ray Harris's snitching after the cigarette cargo truck theft--in fact, I looked closely at their badges at the federal agent's office and they were marked "FBI Visitor". They also made specific comments about how, because the theft took place across state lines, they had to go visit the feds (noting the division between them as state and the feds as interstate) Also, Dave (Bacon) always introduced Whitey (Fishburne) as Detective, never as federal agent, for example, when they first meet Jimmy, and later, Celeste.

Just to comment on the movie itself, as others have noted, the troubled releationship between Sean and his wife was not nearly as fleshed out as the other plotlines, perhaps it should have been edited out altogether...

I have no qualms about the ending as is, anticlimactic as it may be, it doesn't end on a 'happy ending' and, as others have noted, Sean will be gunning for Jimmy, if not over Dave's murder, then later crimes Jimmy and his clan/family will be committing. In regards to how detached Sean was from Jimmy/Dave, I can envision growing up in different financial/familial situations dividing the gang up, parents move away, wives and children arise, etc.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Okay, good. I'm taking out #10 from my list but this still does not excuse their incompetence of not listening to the 911 tapes early in their investigation.

Well come to think of it, it is not even incompetence at this point but merely an ill-conceived plot device for the entire film to work (or not work depending on whether one accepts it or not) and for the revenge to take place.

~Edwin

 

[Michael Reuben]

Judging by some of the comments here, up to that point, her toughness wasn't apparent to some viewers until she was talking to Penn in the bedroom.

Crawdaddy --

I don't think it's supposed to be. To me the real jolt of the film is when Annabeth steps off the sidelines, where she's been for so long that you've almost forgotten her, and assumes center stage with a cool rationality that would do Lady Macbeth proud. She surveys the wreckage around her, evaluates what can best be patched up for her family's sake, and ruthlessly cuts loose anyone who doesn't fit with her plans (including her own cousin, Celeste). The film is all about dead hands from the past reaching up to trip people in the present (I stole the image from Dickens), but in the end Annabeth is the only one looking strictly to the future -- and not in a way that gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling.

M.