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

[Vickie_M]

I’m sorry but I disagree especially if one character’s unexplained actions (or clouded intentions) contributed or led to the unwarranted demise of another. It’s called a contrivance.

The script might not have handed you all your explanations on a carefully arranged platter, but Dave's reactions and feelings were hardly contrivances. They're just not something you're used to seeing in movies.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm with you Michael which is why I tend to not engage in such discussions in length any longer because it's usually not a very productive use of my time.





Crawdaddy

 

[Damin J Toell]

Jonathan Rosenbaum writes:

But the larger issue isn't the degree to which Eastwood's movie qualifies as art. It's why reviewers are so desperate to establish its artistic pedigree. Many debates have been waged in the past -- often sparked by Pauline Kael -- about whether Eastwood the director deserves to be considered an artist rather than a poseur or a popular entertainer.

Interesting. I hadn't realized that the over-praising of Eastwood (a theory I mentioned in my previous posts to this thread) had been fodder for prior discussions among critics.

Interesting, too, is that Rosenbaum raises this question because of his disgust over the perceived social message of the film rather than much having to do with the craft of filmmaking (if you might temporarily indulge me to assume that a craft can be separated from its possible social implications).

DJ

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I'm with you Michael which is why I tend to not engage in such discussions in length any longer because it's usually not a very productive use of my time.

Sometimes I also wonder myself whether discussions of a film’s plot points are productive. At times, when all is said and done it seems that we are back at the same place we started. Because for me, it has never been about convincing another to look at something my way but only, and hopefully, for that other person to understand the points that I raise and look at things in another perspective even though he/she may disagree.

But I have broken one of my rules that I have established within the past year about limiting my posts on films that did not resonate with me to no more than one or two. I guess, for me, Mystic River’s problems are just so blatant and gaping that it necessitated further discussions in length.

In addition, people’s standards these days are all over the place. What one person might consider acceptable can be totally inexcusable to another. In the end, with standards in both ends of the spectrum, who’s right and who's wrong? I’m afraid in some cases, our society have lost a sense of what can be considered as proper or inappropriate.

So, I guess at this stage, our disagreements will remain at that with no clear resolutions. It all comes down to what problems one is willing to accept and there are far too many in this film that I cannot.

And by the way, and this is something that I should have addressed earlier, “findings” was a poor choice of words. “Fears” would be more appropriate.

~Edwin

 

[Paul D Young]

I saw this one on cable yesterday. I believe it was the first movie I saw with Julia Roberts. Anyway, I found it kind of boring but I liked the fact that it revolved around a Pizza joint since I love Pizza so much.

 

[Matt Stone]

I saw this one on cable yesterday. I believe it was the first movie I saw with Julia Roberts. Anyway, I found it kind of boring but I liked the fact that it revolved around a Pizza joint since I love Pizza so much.

 

[Arman]

 

[Robert Crawford]

Now, that's funny!






Crawdaddy

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I saw this one on cable yesterday. I believe it was the first movie I saw with Julia Roberts.

What the ...?

~Edwin

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Since when did everything need to be explained in a movie? Ever been to a David Lynch film? If everything is spelled out in black and white, where is the chance to think about the film and reflect on the characters? I would say that "clouded intentions" make for the best of film plots, not the worst.

 

[Nick C.]

I saw this one on cable yesterday. I believe it was the first movie I saw with Julia Roberts.

I believe Paul has MR confused with (or is making fun of) "Mystic Pizza"

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Since when did everything need to be explained in a movie? Ever been to a David Lynch film? If everything is spelled out in black and white, where is the chance to think about the film and reflect on the characters? I would say that "clouded intentions" make for the best of film plots, not the worst.

Great point! I see this as the dividing line between those that liked the movie and those that did not. There is a lot left unspoken and left to interpretation in the film. This is very true to the book. All of Lehane's novels are ambiguous in morality and leave judgement up to the reader. I feel that Eastwood made a film very true to the novel. If procedural police drama with all loose ends tied up is what you enjoy or expected, Mystic River is not the movie for you.

Edit - Yes, the concept of "the boy" was used in the film, with Dave flashing back to his ordeal and speaking of "the boy" and "the wolves" in his ramblings. This was also noted as a weak or overstated point by those who did not like the film. All of this leads me to believe those critical of the film would probably do best to steer clear of the book which has many of the same disjointed ramblings and does not tie up many loose ends.

 

[ZacharyTait]

I just got out of this movie about a half an hour ago and I'm thinking "Whoa"; in a good way.

First of all, I saw 5 commercials and 7 trailers before the movie even started. The start time was supposed to be 12:30, it didn't start till 12:45ish. I won't complain too much since I did get to see the Revolutions and Last Samurai trailers. Man, those trailers are awesome.

Mystic River is for me, anyways, one of the best films of the year. I've only seen 25 or so, thanks to working two jobs, but I can definitely say, this one will more than like remain on my top 10 for the rest of the year.

Sean Penn. What can you say? The man is one of the best actors ever. If he doesn't get nominated for this performance, I'll personally lead the protest in front of the Kodak Theater next February. This performance was a million times better than his Oscan nominated performance in I am Sam.

Tim Robbins also deserves to be nominated. Along with Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney. Laura ran chills down my spine with her speech. That was when I picked up on the fact that she was a Savage. Laurence and Kevin were fine as well.

Critics have complained about the final two minutes. I saw it as a family drawing itself closer together as well as the beginning of another chase, this time between Sean and Jimmy.

The cinematography was great except for the helicopter shot of Katie's car, when the camera did a full 360. It made me dizzy. The editing and music were terrific as well.

I really can't find any faults with the movie, except that the Boston accents made it hard sometimes to understand what was being said. When I watch it again on DVD, subtitles will be turned on so I can catch everything.

If this should be in the Review thread, go ahead and move it.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

except that the Boston accents made it hard sometimes to understand what was being said

Those weren't Boston accents. Those were actors trying to imitate a Boston accent (Robbins was good, Penn was OK at times, Bacon was all over the map and Fishburne tried too hard). If they were real Boston accents, it would have been *impossible* to understand instead of hard. Hey, I'm from the area and sometimes *I* find it difficult to understand a street kid from Southie.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Man, I have GOT to see this movie this weekend! That, and the "Alien" director's cut.

Slightly off topic, but "Darkness, Take My Hand", one of Lehane's "Kenzie/Gennaro" books, was one excellent detective novel. Maybe the best I've read. Also, I finished "Shutter Island" recently, and that has to be one of the wildest resolutions I've come across in some time. It's also kind of heartbreaking in the same vein as "Mystic River". Jeff, I assume you've read both of these, what do you think of them?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Mystic River is for me, anyways, one of the best films of the year.

I agree. Just saw it tonight and I am blown away. Powerful, powerful film. It is the best I have seen this year although I really enjoyed Seabiscuit also.

Five stars for Penn, Robbins, and Clint's masterful direction.

What can I say. Wow.

 

[Cagri]

Wow.
I saw it the other night, and I am most disappointed. This is the first film I did not like with Sean Penn. I agree with almost all the negative criticism made about the film in this thread. Acting was superb, but other than that the film is a failure. Very slow, not convincing at all, no sense of realism, characters are spread around like they are living in a surreal world, not one of them seems to know what he/she is doing what for what reason....

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

not one of them seems to know what he/she is doing what for what reason

Huh? I think this is one of the MOST realistic parts of the movie. Every character, except for the police, are in shock, either from committing a murder, or from having their daughter/niece/cousin/friend brutally murdered. The whole movie takes place in 2-3 days, so there wouldn't be a chance for anyone to regain their composure and start acting "normal" again. This isn't a slick Bruckenheimer movie where the two heroes go running around blowing up stuff real good, it's a police procedural/character study where, as in real life, actions have consequences.

The wife and I finally got a chance to see it last weekend, and loved it. It's a movie that requires you think when you come out of the theater, but if you're not willing to do that, then you're going to assume something was missing. If everything is on the surface, there is no depth.

The only thing I WAS disappointed in was mentioned earlier. In the book, Sean and Whitey had listened to the 911 tape right away, but just didn't catch the telling reference, which is understandable on a first listen (they printed the text of the call in the book and I didn't catch it either). But, for some strange reason, they change this in the movie to imply that neither Sean or Whitey listened to the tape at all, each assuming the other did, making they seem a little dense, which is far from the case.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Put me down as agreeing with the initial, reported critical comments as to the excellence of the acting (not just Sean Penn) and the movie.

Although I have a lot of respect for Rosenbaum’s views, I was a bit put off on his take of Mystic River. As he sometimes does, he sidetracks his comments about the film, spending much of his review, reviewing other reviewers’ reviews.

Some in this thread have used his review to help substantiate their own views. This I think is difficult because Rosenbaum is more concerned with the content of the film and its message than the film qua film. I insert what a consider a pertinent quote:

I ran into a related problem with Jonathan Demme's 1991 The Silence of the Lambs, a less artistically accomplished film. I thought there was something obscene about audiences' delighted fascination with the evil and brilliant lunatic Hannibal Lecter gleefully killing without a shred of compunction, especially since some in those audiences seemed indifferent to the slaughter of innocent Iraqis that was going on at the same time. I couldn't blame Demme or the story he was filming for that obscenity, since he wasn't responsible for the delight with which his movie was received or the time at which it was released. Mystic River is too depressing to fill audiences with delight, but it does seem to validate questionable attitudes, especially an indifference to the suffering of innocent people and a willingness to shoot first and ask questions later.

Suffice to say that though I do not delight in Mystic River (nor did I in Silence of the Lambs), I thought it a very powerful film and one whose impact I am still considering.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

thought there was something obscene about audiences' delighted fascination with the evil and brilliant lunatic Hannibal Lecter gleefully killing without a shred of compunction, especially since some in those audiences seemed indifferent to the slaughter of innocent Iraqis that was going on at the same time. I couldn't blame Demme or the story he was filming for that obscenity, since he wasn't responsible for the delight with which his movie was received or the time at which it was released. Mystic River is too depressing to fill audiences with delight, but it does seem to validate questionable attitudes, especially an indifference to the suffering of innocent people and a willingness to shoot first and ask questions later.

That, my friends, is socio/political comentary masquerading a film review. This says 100 times more about the reviewer than it even attempts to say about the film.